Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 11

=Topics from 2014=

Notability
Can we regard every short story Asimov ever wrote as inherently notable? This applies particulary to the stories in The Early Asimov and Buy Jupiter and Other Stories which includes some weaker stuff. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so. And I speak as someone who has about 50 of his fiction books (novels and story collections).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the context? Many of his books are not WP:NOTABLE. Those should not be redlinked, nor bolstered by ISBNs in this biography, of course. Probably some listings should be deleted entirely.
 * We do have Isaac Asimov bibliography, where individual short stories should not be redlinked unless they are notable. What to list is another matter, however. --P64 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An individual book needs to be notable to have an article (though I'd err on the side of "overinclusiveness is harmless" in this instance). However, a book does not need to be independently notable for us to list its ISBN. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's Mysteries
I have listed this book under science fiction, as it is a book of SF mystery stories. It includes Marooned Off Vesta and all of the Wendell Urth stories, for example. Richard75 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Realm of Numbers and Asimov on Numbers
(Attn User:Deagol2, User:Debresser) In case it isn't clear (I'm not sure from the edit summaries), Realm of Numbers and Asimov on Numbers are totally different books. Realm of Numbers was a freestanding book, aimed at a generally younger audience. Asimov on Numbers was an essay collection. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

9 of the 10..
I'm trying to search witch dewey decimal category he didn't write a book in, If i find it can we add it to the end of pertaining sentence? Or could some one else add it if i can't find it?23:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3D80:822:B01D:63FB:F9FD:40AB (talk)
 * It was Philosophy, according to the source already used for that sentence. Richard75 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This information can be found in the article in the section selected bibliography. So there's no need to change the lead section. Darkday (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ultimate Crime
The sentence covering this story was deleted for being original research. It is not, but I assume that it was presumed to be so because the reference supporting it is to page 223 of an anthology of short stories (which includes that story) and the deleting editor thought that the story itself was the source. In fact the source is the author's afterword in which he explains the circumstances in which the story came to be written. Richard75 (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mensa
Does someone have a source for the claim, that Asimov served as VP of Mensa International? I've been unable to find support for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbear (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence with this claim already has a source: I, Asimov: A Memoir. It contains a whole chapter about Mensa. There you'll find "... I had been appointed one of the two international vice presidents of Mensa, a post I was to hold for fifteen years." –Darkday (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Rockbear, it was not clear that that footnote was intended to cover the VP claim as well as the "brain-proud" quote. I've made an edit pointing out the VP quote (thanks for that, BTW, it made the google books search easy), with a link directly to it. . TJRC (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Religious views
I have removed yesterday's addition to the end of the religion section because it is original research -- a reference in a Wikipedia article simply can't consist of an editor saying "I was there in 1988 and I heard him say it." It needs to be a proper source. Also you can't just say "he said it in one sentence in a book (a novel)" and then just give the title and ISBN. What is the sentence and which page is it on? This is so dubious in not even going to put a tag back on it, I'm just deleting it. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was uncomfortable with that addition as well, and was on the verge of deleting it myself.  I'd planned on doing so if no reliable source  was added in a month or so.
 * To elaborate on Richard75's comments, a fictional work, such as a novel, is not a reliable source for facts. Fictional works are fiction, and it's also hazardous to attribute a statement in the book to the book's author, as distinguished from the view of a fictional character.  The talk Asimov gave is not a reliable source either.  As WP:RS says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources."  Publication is a key point here: it allows the source to be verified, and avoids the problems inherent in relying on the recollection of an editor. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"coined terms"
I presume the relevance of 'coined terms' is that they are terms he coined which have become more widely used than in his writing; otherwise they're just quirks of his writing. So I would hope to have a reference to a dictionary or some sort of reference that indicates the wider use of the term. With regards to the section in question, the first entry is unreadable. I can't figure out what it is meant to mean. And should 'positronic' be added? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Would like some additional information added, if possible
Since Dr. Asimov was such a towering figure in American culture and science, I feel as though some explanatory information might be added for him if available over and above that of lesser lights. For example, the article states he was rejected by medical schools. Did Dr. Asimov ever state or imply this was due to anti-Semitic quotas prevalent at the time? Why was Dr. Asimov not drafted during WWII which would have seemed logical instead of afterwards? Was his work for the Navy as a civilian considered essential? Finally, why did he only serve nine months when he finally was drafted? I assume the normal tenure was two years for a conscript when there was no “for the duration” war on as with the Vietnam War era. Thanks to anyone who might help. I'm a huge Asimov fan!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For your own information, see the first volume of Asimov's autobiography, In Memory Yet Green. (The later version, I. Asimov, is also good, but not as detailed.) All of these questions are addressed there. Once you've looked at the books, you can feel free to edit the article to add the information if you think it is worthwhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. I dropped you a note on your User Page.  Best regards, DonHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case, should you ever need the draft term during the Vietnam War era, in the U.S. the length of service was two years. (plus an additional four years as a combination of active and inactive reserve) - Neonorange (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)