Jump to content

Talk:Isaac Asimov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:9cf0:82c3:f2ea:74c4 (talk) at 18:23, 5 December 2023 ("Believing" ???: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleIsaac Asimov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 4, 2005Featured article reviewKept
July 13, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
December 23, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
October 31, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article


Category "[a]ge controversies"

Could anyone please tell me if, given the uncertainty of Asimov's birthday, this page should fall under that category? Thylacine24 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain doesn't mean it's controversial. Richard75 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

How is it possible for his parents not to have known in which year their son was born? Can we have an explanation of this? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a lot going on in Russia at that time. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but if you are a parent you must know that political and economical turmoil won’t make you forget if you had your son in 1919 or 1920… There’s something really strange going on there… Maybe it’s due to cultural differences. I know a hundred years ago people had 12 children and 6 died in infancy, so birth years were maybe less important back then… still, modern readers are baffled if left without and explanation… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a combination of things, including their use of a different calendar (in which the range of possible dates were all in the same year). Richard75 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that’s an excellent point, didn’t know all the range was in the same year in the Old Calendar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.70.45 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three -Vandalism

The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct. 2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On which page do you see this? I did a search for "Big Three" in a PDF copy of Billion Year Spree and I don't find that phrase. Also there are numerous sources that say that Heinlein rather than Bradbury was the third member of the Big Three, so even if Aldis did say this, I don't know that we should give it a lot of weight. CodeTalker (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Book of Science Fiction identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does The Rise and Fall of American Science Fiction, from the 1920s to the 1960s, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and Fifty Key Figures in Science Fiction (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). (See also: Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein#Big_Three_-Vandalism and Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke#Big_Three_-Vandalism) Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stopped reading SF around 1995, never ever Heinlein had been related to as one of the Big Three of SF; Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury was canonic and never questioned, so that now I have difficulties finding written sources ... actually, I learned that from one of my teachers. Bradbury was known for the TV-serial Martian Chronicles and the Truffaut-movie Fahrenheit 451, Heinlein had nothing comparable until late 80s action flick Starship Troopers. And Heinlein wasn't read in Europe due to his political views.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:BCE9:F89E:C42E:1B87 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, you still need a source, not just something your teacher told you. And Heinlein started writing in 1939, and it's irrelevant which films were being made in the 80s. Richard75 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(copying from Talk:Robert A. Heinlein as the IP started the same conversation on multiple articles.) I finally got hold of a copy of Billion Year Spree. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking after death

In the bibliography section there is a quote of him in 1994...well he died in 1992. 194.65.43.51 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date is the date of the source, not the date he made the statement that is quoted. That is, the book in which the quote is printed was published in 1994. This is the correct form for citations albeit potentially confusing I agree. MarcGarver (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Believing" ???

One sentence reads as follows:

"When the family arrived in the United States in 1923 and their name had to be spelled in the Latin alphabet, Asimov's father spelled it with an S, believing this letter to be pronounced like Z (as in German), and so it became Asimov." 2601:200:C082:2EA0:9CF0:82C3:F2EA:74C4 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]