Talk:Isaac Asimov

Treaty of Tartu

The 1918 Constitution gave the official name of Russia as the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, but this was not recognized officially by countries other than Finland and the Baltic states (in the treaties (plural) of Tartu in 1920). What criteria are we to use in wikipedia for the name of a nation? Sbelknap (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia was one big mess in 1920 with Russian Civil War raging. But does it matter much?--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, Russia was one big mess in 1920. That is the point. I notice that you use the term "Russia" to describe the country at that time. It seems we agree. The current descriptor seems to me to be an example of presentism. The term "Russia" is understandable now and it would have been understandable in 1920. I suggest we use the term "Russia" to describe The Good Doctor's homeland in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not just call it what the Russians called it at the time? Who cares what other countries called it before they recognised the revolutionary government? Richard75 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Because there was no "it". It was one big mess of red, white, black, and other areas all of which changed control. Smolensk was contested by the Byelorussian Soviets for example, though not as messy as Makhnovia. Russia avoids anachronistic politics.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've come across this guidance which suggests that we just say "Russia": Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Richard75 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We agree. That is my point. Everybody in Russia at the time of Asimov's birth would recognize what was denoted by the term "Russia" but there was no such consensus as to the use of the term "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic." There was, in fact, a civil war underway at that time. There are several relevant issues. First, the Russian government adopted the Gregorian calendar on January 24th 1918, so the dates are aligned with that of Europe and America at the time of Asimov's birth. Asimov was born on an unknown date between October 4, 1919, and January 2, 1920, inclusive. Both Kolchak and Denikin, subscribed to the principle of "non-predetermination" by which they refused to determine what kind of social or political system Russia would have until after Bolshevism was defeated. Arguably, the turning point of the civil war was when Russian White army commander Kolchak was captured and executed, which occurred in February, 1920, so after Asimov was born. The treat(ies) of Tartu were signed on 2 February 1920, so after Asimov was born. Also, the Reds did not consolidate their hold on "Russia" until after the Kronstadt mutiny was suppressed in March, 1920, ( or until late 1920, depending on ones definition of state control), so also after Asimov was born. For these reasons, I propose that the current text state, "Asimov was born in Petrovichi, Russia on an unknown date between October 4, 1919, and January 2, 1920, inclusive." Sbelknap (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sold. Richard75 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this a bit late. Richard75, where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) did it suggest to use just Russia? I see no problem with being precise, especially since Asimov himself was very precise about this, as it says in the footnote.Debresser (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"When a place does not have a #widely accepted name, use the romanized Russian name, as per the WP:RUS default romanization guidelines." In this case, the country of Asimov's birth did not have a widely accepted name, even within that country, as there was a civil war underway, the outcome was uncertain, and the leaders of the major opposition in that war disagreed with the eventual victor as to the form of government and therefore to the name that would be used to denote that government. I agree that there is no problem with being precise. I would expect that you would agree that there is also no problem with being accurate. In his own comment on the political geography of his birthplace, Asimov was precise but not accurate. (Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the actual value. Precision refers to the variability of repeated measurements.) Sbelknap (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, neither was there a "Russian name", as you claim. Or if there was, then it was "Russian SFSR". I would prefer the accuracy over the resulting ambiguity. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure there was. From the time when the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Moscow united in the 15th century, some of former Kievan Rus’ territories used the Byzantine-influenced name for Rus’, Rossiya, which was rendered as 'Russia' within the nation from the establishment of the Tsardom onward. At the time Asimov was born, 'Russia' was the name in common parlance. There was *no* consensus on the name 'Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic' until after the civil war ended, and the Bolsheviks assumed control, which happened in 1920, *after* Asimov's birth. Sbelknap (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the guideline. "When a place does not have a #Widely accepted name, use the romanized Russian name" means that if there is no standard English spelling of the name of a certain locality, just apply standard romanization of Russian and use the result. This sentence is not about naming, only about spelling.

In any case, your previous reply more or convinced me. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with saying Asimov was born in Russia, simply because it is simple. But I do have a problem with the recent edit summary, "There was no Soviet Union in 1920". No, there wasn't, but there was a RSFSR, which is what was linked to. Also, the Kronstadt Mutiny was suppressed in March 1921, not 1920, but I don't see the relevance. I do not see how the Treaties of Tartu established the reality of the RSFSR. Russia was not a "mess"; it was in the middle of a civil war. Would anyone argue that someone born during the American Civil War was not born in the USA? I suggest support the use of "Russia" on the grounds of simplicity, but don't put forward complex arguments, particularly if you have your dates wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Native name in Hebrew

An anonymous IP has today changed Asimov's "native name" in the infobox from the Russian language to the Hebrew alphabet, giving the reason that most Jews in Russia at the time would have used Hebrew, which is fair enough. However, they have given his surname as אסימאב, whereas in Asimov's 1979 autobiography (page 11) Asimov spells his surname אױםאװ. (Google Translate, which might not be reliable when it's used for names instead of words, translates these as Asimab and Oymov, respectively, and gives a third spelling for Asimov.) In his autobiography (same page), Asimov says he understood Yiddish, which uses the Hebrew alphabet, so it's very likely that he knew how to spell his own name, so I have substituted Asimov's spelling. Richard75 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps add a reference for the Hebrew name spelling to head off edit wars. Deagol2 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "אױםאװ" you probably meant "אזימאװ". That could very well have been the original Yiddish spelling, and I think the autobiography is enough of a reference. I made the edit a few month ago, but didn't reply here, which ommission I correct now. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious novel counting

The article says Asimov only wrote four SF novels during the 25 years between 1957 and 1982, but I only count three: the last Lucky Starr book (1958), Fantastic Voyage (1966) and The Gods Themselves (1972). Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This was added in 2004 (!) in this edit by Raul654. The second half of the sentence was added by CodeTalker in this edit in 2019, so he may also have an answer. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

At the time I added the statement that there were over 120 non-fiction books, I did not fact-check the existing claim of four SF books. After doing some research, I agree that there were only three, if "between" is taken exclusively. There were two SF novels published in 1957 ("The Naked Sun" and "Lucky Starr and the Moons of Jupiter") and one published in 1982 ("Foundation's Edge") but between them only the three that Richard75 mentions. CodeTalker (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to hear from Raul654 because he hasn't edited since January. I'll change it to three. Richard75 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What about The Heavenly Host (1974)? Debresser (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Asimov Online, that is a short story collection, not a novel. There were fifteen SF short story collections published between 1957 and 1982, but the statement here is about novels. CodeTalker (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

According to all websites I looked at, it is an extended version of a short story, not a collection. See also Isaac Asimov bibliography (categorical)#Novels not part of a series. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's long enough to be called a novel though. It's a longer version of a short story, published on its own in a book, but it's a book for small children, still not with a very long word count. Richard75 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have the statement that there are four, and we have a candidate for the fourth. So if the only question is its status as a novel, then I am inclined to think that this was the original intention. Especially since the editor couldn't very well have written "Asimov only wrote three SF novels and a story this is perhaps a novel, perhaps not", now could he? :) Debresser (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that this is what the original editor meant, but he was wrong. Asimov never stopped writing short stories during this 25-year period, and this story is just one of them. I think we should change it to three. Richard75 (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The tagged statement is specifically about novels. If we would decide that this is not a novel, I could agree with you, and indeed I don't see sources calling The Heavenly Host a "novel", just "book" or "story". I repeat that in Isaac Asimov bibliography (categorical)#Novels not part of a series it is listed as a novel, but then again there are other books in that list that I am not sure are novels in the strict meaning of that word. On the other hand, as you can see at Novel#Length, the term "novel" is hard to define precisely, and I think that its use in this sentence (and in the header of the section in Asimov's bibliography) is not completely according to the literary definition, rather a bit less formal, and I would propose to keep it as such. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Heavenly Host has 7900 words, so it's hardly a novel. Darkday (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the author of that sentence included "The Bounds of Infinity" (1958), although Asimov abandoned that novel. Darkday (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't count that if it's unfinished and unpublished. Richard75 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why count? It's complicated. Half finished novel, a more than a short story but less than a novel maybe novel, and so on. Why just say "few" instead of three or four?--Chuka Chief_talk 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In customary English usage, "between 1957 and 1982" includes those years. For example, "I attended college between 1942 and 1946." Thus, the novels of 1957 and 1982 should be counted, or the year range changed. Also, the number of years is not 25. It is either 26 or 24. Since this has subsequently been improved, it doesn't need correction now. Zaslav (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiTree

Today someone added a link to Asimov's entry at the WikiTree website. I've hidden the link using <!-- --> and added a warning to see this talk page, because I don't think the information there is accurate. For one thing, it gives Asimov a middle name, which is very dubious, as discussed before on this talk page at length and more than once (see archives). For another, some of the genealogy contradicts information given in his autobiography. It's not a Wikipedia-affiliated site (despite its name), but anyone can edit it, without providing sources, so I don't think we can regard it as a reliable source. Richard75 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)