Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 9

=Topics from 2012=

Recent edits concerning Asimov's Jewishness
I am wondering about this recent edit. Why the removal of the material: "a family of Jewish millers"? I am also wondering about this recent edit. Why the removal of the material: "Jewish" from the Infobox? Edit summaries aren't provided for these edits. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Arthur Rubin
Arthur Rubin has recently attacked me on the Edit page, deleting my edits and proclaiming (with no justification) that I'm "not an expert". The Edit page is not the place for that, and as an admin, he should know better. And for the record, I am as much an expert on this topic as anyone. In fact, I briefly corresponded with Asimov himself about the World Season Calendar in the mid-1970s. Arthur Rubin was angry because I objected to his deletion of my contribution to another article, so deleting my edit to this article was his revenge. He has even stooped so low as to vandalize my User page. This is pretty poor behavior for an admin, and creates a very hostile environment for occasional editors like me. I've now quit Wikipedia, and moved my Wikipedia contributions to my personal Web site. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yiddish
Hello all,

Not a huge problem, but the Yiddish version of Isaac Asimov's name seems to be incorrect in this article. It's a direct transliteration of the way Asimov's first and last names are rendered in English. For example, in Yiddish and Hebrew the name "Isaac" should properly be rendered "Yitzchak", but the way it's spelled here, it's phonetically "Eye-sack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerguy (talk • contribs) ; moved here from accidental article creation Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that Yiddish spelling is claimed to be his birth name. As such, it requires a reference of how it was spelled. Modern Yiddish/Hebrew spelling of his modern name is irrelevant here. For example, we dont write that Igor Sikorsky was of Polish descent and add Polish spelling "Igor Sikorski". In other words, are there any Asimov's personal identification documents where his name is spelled in Yiddish? If yes, the name from them must be used. If not, the extra spelling must be removed.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous user that if there will be no source for the spelling in Yiddish, then we shouldn't have it. But I disagree with his stipulation that this must be a personal identification document. If his name featured in reliable and verifiable sources, like a New York Yiddish newspaper, then there is no reason not to have that spelling here as well. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let me remind you we are talking about his birth name. If a NY Yiddish Zeitung or Blatt specifically says that this is his original name, then it is OK, otherwise I cannot accept an arbitrary transliteration as an entry for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I didn't stiputale that only an original ID is accepted as a reference. Just as well an acceptable reference is from someone who we may reasonably believe relied on original records in his claim. Reasonable chain of evidence, you know...Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If we find a source that Asimov or his parents had a Yiddish spelling of his name, then that would suffice. But, again, if we find a Yiddish spelling somewhere else, then we can simply bring that spelling without claiming that such was his birth name. It is all so simple, really. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The very definition of "birth name" may be in play here. The Soviet authorities that registered Asimov's birth would not care much about the proper Yiddish, and the Russian name may have differed from the Yiddish name (e.g. the Yiddish name Shimon becomes Semyon in Russian). It seems most plausible that since Asimov used the English name through all of his adult life, Yiddish papers referring to him would transliterate it as "Ayzak" rather than the plausible original "Yitzhok" (not "Yitzhak", which is "havara sepharadit"). Also, "Yudovitch" does not belong in Yiddish. It is a Russian patronymic meaning "son of Jude". In the way of patronymics, liturgical Hebrew would have "ben Yehuda" added after the given name, and colloquial Yiddish would (if required) use some permutation of "Leibson" (i.e. son of Leib, from the Russian Lev meaning lion, which is the symbol of the tribe of Yehuda, or Judah). elpincha (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This last editor has convinced me that it is unlikely that we should have the Yiddish here under "birth name". Debresser (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarizing your and my opinion, unless we can provide references of immediately relevant usage of Yiddish spelling of Asimov's name, it has no relevance for English-language wikipedia. "Immediately relevant usage" means official documents, self-appellation, or family usage, as documented by credible sources which provide such spelling and explicitely indicate its source. In any case, I am deleting the current one as unsourced. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Surname Pronunciation
I noticed an anon's unreferenced change. Does anybody have any references which specify the pronunciation of his name. I can recall only one hint: Asimov's own humorous verse which contained "Why, mazel tov, it's Asimov". Of course, it is not a good one (I mean reference not poem :-), but does anybody know better? In particular, is the stress indeed on the first syllable? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's how I've always heard it pronounced. Interviews on Youtube have the same, except perhaps for a final /f/ rather than a /v/: — kwami (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not an expert in IPA, so my question really is is: whether the anon's edit changed the pronunciation record correctly and how we can verify this, with refs and all? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See this previous discussion. Darkday (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen. So what? "Listen to this", "transcribe thusly". A clean-cut OR.  I am asking for references, not for your opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We adapt sources. There's no question that the stress is on the first syllable. That's too obvious for OR concerns. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Adapt? you mean Original Research? Stress not questioned much: most people would hear it in the same way, but a ref would still be nice. But I started this talk when seeing subtle changes by anon, see top. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All sources are adapted, so technically anything which is not quoted or plagiarized (90+% of WP) could be called OR. The question is whether there is any reasonable doubt as to the interpretation. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources were in our case? (The one I added speaks not of IPA and rather a literary curiosity.) As to yours "all can be OR" - no it cannot. We have policy for our purposes. Also, in our case, where is a proof that the new "interpretation of the sources" from the anon is better? Is there a policy about IPAfication? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He has a full vowel in the last syllable. His accent might be confusing things, but how the IP wrote it is how I would've. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, both your personal opinions happen to be the same. Care to substantiate them by a reference? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, the one you just provided. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but reluctantly. See top. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about using this for the reference? Deagol2 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it, but unfortunately the page has no author (at says "Current Maintainer: Edward Seiler - why is he?) and I don't know its reliability, and the page has no further references. Also, I am not sure that "EYE'zik" given there matches our IPA (although here I am not an expert).  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The website is the official Asimov website - according to the infobox. The Asimov's SF Magazine website also links to it. Deagol2 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which infobox? All I saw it was a personal website of Edward Seiler; no other names. The blurb "Isaac Asimov Home Page" means nothing. To be official, it must be endorsed by Asimov's heirs. I was not questioning correctness of information in the page. I was quiestioning its transparency/verifiabilty. I guess, I am spoiled with wikipedia's policies :-) Anyway, I agree the fact that it is linked from Asimov's endorses its credibility. Still, I'd love to find some third-party refs about asimovonline.com and add this info to this article as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the "-ik", that would appear to be the "schwi", the sound a bit like a schwa, a bit like an "ih", which in many dialects is conflated with schwa. Ozzie, for example, only has the one schwa, but other dialects have 2 or 3, depending on what the full vowel would be. If it's /æ, ɛ, ɪ/, you get schwi. We transcribe it with a barred i. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is "-zik" in the source. While 'shwi' may be correct, first, I am not sure that in the "syllabilized phonograpy" the "-zik" gives 'shwi'. Second, I am not sure it is correct to teach to pronounce "Isaac" in "Isaac Asimov" differently from the genuine "Isaac" (which ios with a reference, btw.). "Asimov" is not native to English, so we can have a leeaway here (say "Beaupré" or "Toussaint", or "Staszek" :-). BUt "Isaac" is a good old biblical name, and Asimov did not chose to be Itzhak or Itzik. So there must be a good reason to put a different sound here. If you tell me that Asimov pronounses his name differently, then let me ask you how does he pronounce, say, Isaac Newton? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wiki-Infobox at the top right corner of this article. I have no evidence either way, but the Wikipedia article currently gives asimovonline.com as the official site. Deagol2 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As of now there is no official evidence it is in any way "official" home page; added the corresponding explanatory note to ext links. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Links Between Series
I corrected a statement that the Galactic Empire series was later linked to the Foundation series. The Currents of Space describes Trantor before it became a Galactic Empire, while Pebble in the Sky is set in the early Empire. The Stars Like Dust is much earlier but shares the concept of a radioactive Earth. As he himself says, at the time he was assuming a nuclear war, and later changed this. The Robot and Spacer stories are different. I don't think all of them fit: one of them, Let's Get Together, is definitely not in the same future. But most of them are fitted in with the history as he re-designed it, beginning with Foundation's Edge. --GwydionM (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)