Talk:Asimov's Science Fiction

WoodTV controversy
I'm going to go over the WoodTV section and try to make it more detailed, especially the part about fan reaction. Actually, just got another idea: James Patrick Kelly's annual June story. That should be there somewhere. But it shouldn't just be plopped down, so maybe I should start another section about Asimov's traditions, or history, or something like that. -- 02:40, 23 May 2005 Stilgar135 (author per history mechanism- not originally attributed)

Too much
I find it odd that nearly half of this article devoted to a magazine that has been in print for decades is dedicated to an odd controversy it had no part in creating. I could see this many paragraphs if the whole article was much much larger, but in this context the amount of coverage is ridiculous. --Treekids 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to this discussion page to address the same topic Treekids did, so I'll just have to second it, but would go further: in this instance, Wikipedia is merely being an echo of tabloid journalism rather than encyclopedic and this only serves to (1) grant continued notoriety to a "reporter" and station who deserve only obscurity rather than even infamy and (2) damage the article just as this "controversy" tried to damage the article's subject. Even if the article were much larger, this "controversy" would merit 1 line or less. As is, it's analogous to devoting half of the article on Reagan to Hinckley. 216.77.227.14 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These concerns/posts are a few months old, but I felt they were worth addressing. First:


 * 1.)Yes, it is slightly "odd" that a long-running, prestigious, award-winning magazine's largest section is on a single recent controversy. But only in the sense that all that other stuff should have been covered in greater detail, but for some reason, hasn't been; the only reason the controversy section is "nearly half" of the article is the article is a stub, silly :P. If you expand the other sections or add other sections, then guess what? It won't be "nearly half the article" anymore; in fact, your claim that just because the rest of the article is too sparse, we should cut verifiable, cited material that covers a given aspect of the article's subject is... well, a little inexplicable to me, I must say.


 * On that note, though, I may or may not try to include an awards section later today (that kind of section is extremely common on any work that has won an award, yet for some reason has never managed to crop up here...), but I'm currently at work and I've got a class to go to in a couple of hours, so I may not be able. At very least, though, some of the Hugo and Nebula awards could easily be noted, after finding them in the respective articles for the Hugo awards and Nebula awards, I think - so there's your starting point if I don't get around to it first.


 * 2.) "Dedicated to a controversy it had no part in creating"? You mean the one they actually considered worthy to respond to on their own website in detail? The one that ignited intense fury from fandom at the time? The one that was covered on American television, something that rearely bothers to cover magazines like this? That one? Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. Asimov's thought it was important enough to respond to, and that alone makes it worth noting here.


 * 3.)"in this instance, Wikipedia is merely being an echo of tabloid journalism rather than encyclopedic" B-zuh? What? I'm afraid that if you ever venture back to this talk page, you might want to explain that further. What exactly isn't "encyclopedic" about covering a notable controversy involving the magazine, one that said magazine, again, considered important enough to respond to in great detail? While basing the entire section off of verifiable, cited quotes?


 * Again, I have to say this seems more like a problem of perception of the content, than the actual content; because the rest of the article needs expanding, spending more than a single paragraph on anything else seems excessive by default, and while we could probably pare it down by a paragraph or two (I'll try my hand at it myself if I get the chance), I would have to say that in the sake of accuracy, there's not a lot that couldn't 100% be cut without potentially mischaracterizing one side or the other, something we have to be careful to avoid. In truth, the length of the section only seems as excessive as you think it is because so many other parts need adding or expansion. This is arguably a problem, of course, but not necessarily with that given section so much as the article as a whole.


 * 4.)"and this only serves to (1) grant continued notoriety to a "reporter" and station who deserve only obscurity rather than even infamy" Your sarcasm, scare quotes, opinion, and by proxy lack of NPOV, are duly noted. Please refrain from involving personal feelings and desires in your editing of Wikipedia. Just because you want this part of their history to be forgotten, does not mean Wikipedia should not cover it, particularly when citable material is easily available on the matter. Keep in mind, too, that as stupid or silly as the controversy may seem, it was notable enough to be included in the article, to create a furor in fandom, and even responded to by Asimov's, not just in a press release, not just to the station themselves, but in a lengthy essay on their own website, which is still available for those that wish to peruse it.


 * 5.)"and (2) damage the article just as this "controversy" tried to damage the article's subject." First- please stop resorting to the childish use of scare quotes. Wikipedia is ostensibly held to higher writing standards than that. Second - a controversy is no less a controversy just because it was over something ridiculous or invented, all that means is that the details of the truth if available (which these are) need to be pointed out more thoroughly in order to provide comprehensive coverage. How exactly does covering a controversy that, though ridiculous was still responded to by Asimov's, and was a point of fury in fandom, and did have a considerable lot to do with the magazine (even if the magazine was innocent of the allegations, they were still leveled at the 'zine, weren't they)... damaging to the article? The only "damaging" thing is how little the rest of the article has been expanded, which has nothing to do with that particular area of the article, and everything to do with everyone else being too lazy to add and expand more sections in the article. Stop blaming one section of prose for the fact no one else added stuff. That's a silly position if I ever saw one.


 * 6.) "Even if the article were much larger, this "controversy" would merit 1 line or less. As is, it's analogous to devoting half of the article on Reagan to Hinckley. " Like heck it is. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Wrong about the thing warranting more tightening? 'Course not, even I think it could do with tightening. But your claim that it "merit[s] 1 line or less" is ridiculous. Just because you don't like the idea of the controversy or found it stupid, doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered at all (which is exactly what you're trying to say should be done, with comments like "less" than one line being merited, since the only "less than 1 line" amount of lines is zero), nor does it mean that it can accurately and neutrally be covered in only one sentence. The actual number of bizarre claims the report made in and of itself (and subsequent disputations by Asimov's) are too many to create only one line, unless it were the absolutely most run-on sentence imaginable. The least we could get away with is probably a paragraph or two.


 * I'm not saying it shouldn't be tightened, but the idea it shouldn't be included at all is silly at best, and POV at worst; Asimov's is very rarely the focus of that kind of media attention,regardless of how supposedly local or allegedly... inept, it may have been (in fact though, the attention paid to it on the internet means that it's "local" nature is almost irrelevant). I'll try to shorten it to a paragraph or two, certainly, but if you try to remove it and I'm here to see it, I will add it back in, as I will consider its wholesale removal to be strictly biased, POV editing (and therefore, against WP policies and guidelines), as well as contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia's informative and NPOV intent, and by proxy, yes, damaging to the article.


 * Feel however you want about the station or controversy. Just don't try to push your feelings on Wikipedia, and try to avoid those pesky scare quotes in the future. Thanks.Runa27 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Too much. I just tried "fixing" some of it with my child-friendly editor in "a library." The editor messed it up. I did not deliberately delete certain things which I cannot mention here or it will delete those as well. Incidentally, it may delete material it doesn't like that it finds above my comment. I cannot help that, nor can I repair it. I did not do it. Honest! :) Student7 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WOOD TV section notable?
It's not at all clear that the controversy is even notable. It appears to be much ado about nothing, without any real reliable sourcing. I can see possibly a mention here, but wikipedia isn't a tabloid. I'm going to tag it for now, and review the situation in a couple of months. aprock (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it could be cut completely, or perhaps reduced to two or three (sourced) lines. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the sources listed in the reference section no longer are at those links, does sound like removing it was a good idea. Elf | Talk 22:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Authors in Asimov's??
There's a tiny list of authors who have appeared in Asimov's. What's the point of this list, since it's woefully incomplete? Anyone know? Elf | Talk 22:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a very tiny list. . . I guess we can just keep adding authors until most of the notable ones are there? 65.100.239.3 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Asimov's Science Fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403205623/http://www.asimovs.com:80/_issue_0403/response.shtml to http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0403/response.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC plans
FYI to other interested editors; I plan to start working on expanding this article, and would like to eventually take it to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note for future reference; per Ashley's Gateways, p. 380, pay rates were six cents per word in 1980. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved here from the article: At Asimov's request George Scithers, the first editor, negotiated an acquisitions contract with the Science Fiction Writers of America providing considerably better terms for writers than had been the periodical standard up to that time. Unsourced; I'd like to add this back if it can be sourced. At the moment the closest thing I can find is Ashley's SF Rebels p. 20 which mentions Gross trying to change contracts to acquire all serial rights, which I don't think is worth mentioning as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Publisher list
, I see you've reinstated the edit I reverted. I explained why I reverted it in my edit summary -- I think the detail you added is not needed in the lead, and the information you added to the body is not sourced, and is already in the article elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if you could discuss here why you think the change is needed. I also think it would be best to remove it at least until the new text is cited, as this is currently on Wikipedia's front page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And I see now you're adding cites so that takes care of that part of the issue. I still don't think it's necessary -- the publishing history is covered in the article already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is covered, but all over the place. Some of these pulp magazines have pretty long histories of publishers. If we have a category "bibliographic details" it should contain bibliographic information, including both editors and publishers.
 * Thanks for your hard work on this article. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's reasonable. Can you also source the last bullet point please?  I agree the value of the bibliographic section is to collect that sort of data in one place for reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. Happy to! Congrats on the featured article BTW! That is quite an honor. I sort of stumbled on this page because I've been interested in the four digest sized magazines that Dell still publishes. They each have their own interesting and winding histories, and they all ended up under one roof. This article is def. the best of the four. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I also worked on Analog but not on the other two. Are you interested in working on magazine articles?  I do a lot of work on old magazines; currently working on Argosy and probably All-Story after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)