This is an archive of past discussions about Isaac Asimov. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Topics from 2017

Asimov lede

FKC,

There’s really nothing wrong with calling Asimov a writer twice in the lede graf. If we substitute the vague catch-all “author” with “writer” in the lede sentence, the next use of the word “writer” does not occur until the third sentence.

A little repetition isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s used in the R. Heinlein and A. C. Clarke bios.

My change of “author” to “writer” does not harm the lede graf, especially since the repetition you dislike is a sentence away, and my change improves the lede.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no advantage to repetition, and it should not be needlessly introduced. Nor should you restore the change when there is no consensus for it. You have done this three times now. Please review WP:BRD, which gives advice on how to respond when your changes are disputed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FKC,

Where did you get the idea that there in no advantage to repetition and what makes you think it was needlessly introduced? Just what are credentials for offering an “expert” opinion?

There was no consensus for your reversion of my edit, yet you changed it needlessly.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. If you think adding repetition is somehow an advantage, it is up to you to explain why. You are really wasting your time by expecting other people to explain to you why calling someone a writer multiple times in a short space is not helpful. Furthermore, if you want to change an article, and someone disputes or reverts your change, the change requires consensus. Otherwise the article simply reverts to the way it was before the change was made. That is the point of WP:BRD. Did you even bother to read it? Although it is only an essay, it does give good advice. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FKC,

The Asimov article itself invites improvements. My one-word change from “author” to “writer” is a small improvement. It certainly should not and does not require a consensus to change one word and thus make an improvement.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a someone a writer a couple or even three times in the same graf. What makes you think there is something wrong with that?

Take a look at Heinlein and A. C. Clarke bios.

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FKC,

You should also notice that in Categories Asimov is classified as “writer” a dozen times and not once classified once as “author.”

You should also note that in the Asimov bio, writer used 39 times not including my substitution of “writer” for “author.” There was no problem with the repetition, since there was a “consensus” on the article.

In the 2nd graf, “writer” is used twice. There was no problem with the repetition, since there was a “consensus” on the article.

Asimov wrote hard science fiction and, along with Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke, he was considered one of the "Big Three" science fiction writers during his lifetime.[5] Asimov's most famous work is the Foundation Series;[6] his other major series are the Galactic Empire series and the Robot series. The Galactic Empire novels are explicitly set in earlier history of the same fictional universe as the Foundation series. Later, beginning with Foundation's Edge, he linked this distant future to the Robot and Spacer stories, creating a unified "future history" for his stories much like those pioneered by Robert A. Heinlein and previously produced by Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson.[7] He wrote hundreds of short stories, including the social science fiction "Nightfall", which in 1964 was voted by the Science Fiction Writers of America the best short science fiction story of all time. Asimov wrote the Lucky Starr series of juvenile science-fiction novels using the pen name Paul French.

In the last graf of the section Popular Science, “writer” is used four times. There was no problem with the repetition, since there was a “consensus” on the article.

The feelings of friendship and respect between Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke were demonstrated by the so-called "Clarke-Asimov Treaty of Park Avenue", put together as they shared a cab ride in New York. This stated that Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world (reserving second-best for himself), while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second-best for himself).[82] Thus, the dedication in Clarke's book Report on Planet Three (1972) reads: "In accordance with the terms of the Clarke-Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer."

In the section called Other authors, “writer” is used 5 times. There was no problem with the repetition, since there was a “consensus” on the article.

He admired a number of his contemporaries, in particular fellow science-fiction author and science writer Arthur C. Clarke, with whom he entered into the lighthearted "Treaty of Park Avenue", which stipulated that Clarke was free to refer to himself as the best science fiction writer in the world (Asimov being second-best), provided he admitted that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (Clarke being second-best). He freely acknowledged a number of his fellow writers as superior to himself in talent, saying of Harlan Ellison, "He is (in my opinion) one of the best writers in the world, far more skilled at the art than I am."[152]

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tempest in teapot. There is very little difference in meaning between "writer" and "author" except that being an author usually implies having written more substantial material such as books, while one could be considered a writer based on a few poems or newspaper articles; "writer" is a broader category than "author". Both words can properly be used to describe Asimov; but I think we should prefer to use the more restrictive term when it applies. In Wikipedia articles, there is no virtue to using different words (with the same or nearly the same meaning) for no reason other than to add variety to the writing style.

Most of the time, when I see someone making a trivial change, I ask myself whether it's worth reverting in order to make the point that trivial changes that make no difference should be discouraged — usually I answer myself 'no'. But the point has to be made occasionally, or the behavior will continue.

Just to be clear, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that changing "author" to "writer" was not a useful improvement. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. Edit warring over two synonyms is a waste of everyone's time. Deagol2 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jmcgnh & Deagol,

FKC’s argument was about the repetition of “writer” in the first graf, not over the difference between “writer” and “author.” There is, however, a considerable difference between “author” and writer.

“Author” and “writer” are not generally synonymous, even though some contend they are.

An author can is a broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules. “Writer” is more precise than “author”

The Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1 a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

In this case, “writer” is the more restrictive of the two terms “author” and “writer” and by Jmcgnh’s own logic, unless s/he changes her or his opinion again (in another revision of his edit), “writer” should be preferred.

--Joe 07:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@JoePeschel: You've been around WP a lot longer than I have and by your user page, I see that you include in your description of yourself "freelance writer". I am somewhat surprised, therefore, that you do not use Talk page guidelines in terms of indentation and signing your edits.

When used on Wikipedia as words to identify a person's profession, the two words are very close to synonymous, with the distinction I made earlier. Your examples from OED do not support your claim that one is more restrictive than the other. I agree that they are not precise synonyms in all usages but in this use, identifying a person's profession or reason for notability, I maintain that "author" is more restrictive than "writer". But I can see there are all sorts of reasons why one would prefer to use one word over the other: for instance Writer vs Author: What's the difference?, or Writer versus Author.

When there is a disagreement like this, you are expected to interact with other WP editors to try to come to some consensus. You, having a firm view that one word is better than the other, are in the stronger position here, but you can't just declare yourself the winner. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi jmcgnh,

Yes, I am a freelance writer, just as it says on my user page.Did I forget to sign one of my post here? Ooops! Sorry you don’t like the way I indent my grafs.

The two words “author” and “writer” are not synonymous and not even close to being synonymous.

Again: The OED defines

Writer:

1. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner.

The definition of writer is restricted to a person who writes.

Author:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything.

The definition of “author” is broader, less restrictive, because a person can be an author by giving existence to anything.

Why do you “maintain that ‘author’ is more restrictive than ‘writer’”?

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly true. By the way, isn't author the same as writer? Debresser (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

Look at the definitions above from the OED.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe, you wrote, "It certainly should not and does not require a consensus to change one word and thus make an improvement." Yes, it does. With some exceptions such as enforcing WP:BLP, and protecting copyright, where local consensus on a talk page can be overridden to uphold key policies, every change to a Wikipedia article requires consensus. That is how things work here, and your declaring otherwise does not change that. Needlessly identifying someone as a "writer" multiple times within the short space of the lead involves mind-numbing repetition and is poor writing. That the article includes multiple categories identifying Asimov is a writer is completely irrelevant, as categories are not prose. The rest of the article can properly be held to a different standard than the lead, which is meant to be a short summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, FKC, I did write: "It certainly should not and does not require a consensus to change one word and thus make an improvement." You wrote, “Yes it does.” Aw, c’mon! Can you imagine how long it would take if a consensus had to be reached over every single word in an article? No article would ever get completed. When Wikipedia talks about consensus, it’s talking about a change in the page, not just one word.

That the article includes multiple categories identifying Asimov as a writer is relevant. Someone else had claimed that “author” and “writer” were synonymous, or nearly so. I contend the terms are not synonymous, and that “writer,” by evidence of all the Wikipedia categories, is preferred to “author.”

You’re right about the lede graf—-the lede graf is a short summary. But you can try to claim all you want that repeating the word “writer” twice in the lede is “mind-numbing repetition” and “poor writing,” but you’re wrong.

Isaac Asimov was an American writer and professor of biochemistry at Boston University. He was known for his works of science fiction and popular science. Asimov was a prolific writer, and wrote or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards. His books have been published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification.

As you see, the lede repeats “writer” only twice. That repetition is neither “mind-numbing repetition” nor “poor writing.” How is it that the other grafs in the Asimov article, which include multiple repetitions of “writer,” are held to another standard? Why isn’t the repetition in those other grafs “mind-numbing”; why aren’t they “bad writing,” too?

Finally, just what are your qualifications to talk about good writing, anyway?

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." You need to learn to respect that. You are not in a position to dictate terms to other editors, or to the community as a whole, on how Wikipedia operates. As for why the lead can be held to a different standard than the rest of the article, that's simply because it is a summary of the article as a whole. There is no reason it must be written the same way as the rest of the article. Finally, nobody's qualifications are relevant here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

Where does it demand or even prescribe that every single word be subject to a consensus?

You are not in a position to dictate terms about how you think WP suggestions should be applied to the change of a single word. Show me where, in the WP article that you cite, it says a consensus must be achieved for every word. You’ll note that other changes, which amount to a lot more than one word, to the Asimov article are not contested. As for your expertise on writing—again, just what are your qualifications? You know mine.

I know it’s easier to hide behind supposed hard-and-fast WP Rules, but the truth is, you know that your argument about the repetition of “writer” is spurious. Still, you waste everyone’s time with fake arguments.

So, I’ll ask you again what is “Mind numbing” and “bad writing” in this lede graf?

Isaac Asimov was an American writer and professor of biochemistry at Boston University. He was known for his works of science fiction and popular science. Asimov was a prolific writer, and wrote or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards. His books have been published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You are free to read the policy for yourself. It applies to Wikipedia editing and article content in general. Your further questions about it are a waste of your time and mine. Do not insult me by telling me that I know my arguments are spurious and thereby continuing to violate WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a debating society and I am not obliged to repeat points that I and other editors have already made. You have argued that "writer" is a better word than "author" for the lead, but evidently nobody agrees with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope FKC, if you’re going to contend (or pretend) there is something in that WP policy that says there must be a consensus for every changed word, you show me where it is.

As for your knowing that your arguments are spurious—I’ll repeat:

I know it’s easier to hide behind supposed hard-and-fast WP Rules, but the truth is, you know that your argument about the repetition of “writer” is spurious. Still, you waste everyone’s time with fake arguments.

I have argued that “writer” is a better word than “author” for the lede. You’ve been arguing about the repetition of the word “writer.” I have addressed both subjects. You, however, claimed that my argumentation about “writer” as more accurate than “author” was irrelevant. You claim a lot of my proofs are irrelevant when you have no good logical way to refute them.

I have also argued with you previously that “writer” was a more accurate word than “author” concerning Gay Talese. It seems that I was correct then. And I’m right about Asimov, too.

I’ll ask again:

What are your qualifications to talk about good writing?

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi All,

Concerning the Correct Word “Writer” or "Author"

To paraphrase another WP editor, Instead of only trying to determine what the correct word should be, it might be more useful to try to ascertain what the most common word is in terms of existing writing. This is also more in keeping with Wikipedia's role as a summary of existing writing on a subject.

Here are some citations from various sources that refer to Asimov as a writer:

"Arguably the greatest science fiction writer who ever lived, Isaac Asimov also possessed one of the most brilliant and original minds of our time" http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/5675/i-asimov-by-isaac-asimov/9780553569971/

"SY BOURGIN INTERVIEWS ISAAC ASIMOV, BIOCHEMIST AND SCIENCE FICTION WRITER. MR. ASIMOV MAY BE THE MOST WIDELY READ OF ALL SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS" https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.54491

"Isaac Asimov was the foremost science fiction writer of the second half of the 20th century." http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/11/the_caves_of_steel_the_naked_sun_isaac_asimov_s_portrayal_of_radical_life.html

"In 1941, science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov stated "The Three Laws of Robotics," in his short story..." http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/21/502905772/scholars-delve-deeper-into-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence

From Newsday: http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N18/asimov.18w.html

"Isaac Asimov, 72, an imaginative and gifted storyteller and one of this century's most versatile, prolific and celebrated writers of science fiction..." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/04/07/isaac-asimov-dies-at-72/f2fb00b0-519a-4d7d-b87d-495adb747fd5/

"Isaac Asimov, the pre-eminent popular-science writer of the day and for more than 40 years one of the best and best-known writers of science fiction, died yesterday at New York University Hospital." http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-obit.html

Asimov calls himself a writer: "Just say I am one of the most versatile writers in the world, and the greatest popularizer of many subjects." http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-profile.html

"Isaac Asimov, the pre-eminent popular-science writer of the day and for more than 40 years one of the best and best-known writers of science fiction" http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-04-07/news/9202010003_1_astounding-science-fiction-science-fiction-short-story-isaac-asimov

"Asimov--who died this past week at age 72--was as influential an American writer as J. D. Salinger, the reclusive author of ‘Catcher in the Rye.’” http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-09/business/fi-165_1_science-fiction

"Isaac Asimov is arguably the most successful science fiction writer of all time." http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-26/books/bk-7502_1_isaac-asimov

"Russian-born US writer, the original form of whose name was Isaak Iudich Azimov..." http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/asimov_isaac

"Abstract: Isaac Asimov, born in Petrovichi, Russia, in 1920, was a prolific science fiction writer." http://pabook2.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Asimov__Isaac.html

"Scholar Isaac Asimov was one of the 20th century's most prolific writers, writing in many genres." http://www.biography.com/people/isaac-asimov-9190737

"Sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov predicted the world of 2014 in 1964.." http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/sci-fi-writer-isaac-asimov-predicted-the-world-of-2014-in-1964-heres-what-he-got-wrong-9037812.html

"SCIENCE FICTION WRITER ISAAC ASIMOV DIES" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/219451/SCIENCE-FICTION-WRITER-ISAAC-ASIMOV-DIES.html?pg=all

"Science Fiction Writer Isaac Asimov, 72, Dies" http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-04-07/news/9202010780_1_fiction-isaac-asimov-mr-asimov

"Roughly 50 years ago, on August 16, 1964, science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov predicted in The New York Times what the world would be like fifty years hence." https://newrepublic.com/article/116099/isaac-asimovs-2014-predictions-missed-internet

"Writing for the New York Times in August of 1964, the great sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov laid out some speculation for what the world would be like in 50 years." http://www.businessinsider.com/isaac-asimov-2014-predictions-2014-1

"My copy was given to me by my father, who generally preferred the “harder” science fiction of writers like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov." http://www.newyorker.com/books/book-club/envoys/amp

"The list of writers for “Captain Video” includes some of the biggest names in midcentury science fiction: Arthur C. Clarke, James Blish, Isaac Asimov, and Jack Vance." http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/science-fiction-classic-still-smolders

"Relatives of late sci-fi icon Isaac Asimov are suing the prolific writer's literary agency..." http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/sci-fi-icon-isaac-asimov-relatives-sue-literary-agent-article-1.1532870

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And I found a really long set of instances of Asimov being referred to as "author" in a Google search, but it would be entirely beside the point to post it here. Your position on "writer" being a better word than "author" strikes me as misguided and bizarre, but you seem not to be listening to what your fellow editors are saying. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi jmcgnh,

Odd that you find my posting links to how others have referred to Asimov as “beside the point.” Posting those links was exactly the approach Daduzi, another editor, took in my dispute with FKC over whether Gay Talese should be referred to as a “writer” or an “author.” Talk:Gay_Talese After that third-party opinion, which offered links to articles by other sources, FKC thanked Daduzi who suggested using “writer” and agreed to use “writer.” Daduzi did present his sources in a nice, neat table, which I did not, but I offer more sources. As for my arguments about “writer” vs. “author”—I made basically the same arguments on the Talese article as I do here, except I hadn’t offered links on Talese, like Daduzi did, till now.

I didn’t just do a Google search and then just say I did a Google search.

Like Daduzi did, I quoted from:

Penguin Random House, which was Asimov’s publisher

National Archive and Records Administration

Slate

NPR

The Science Fiction Encyclopedia

The New Yorker

The New Republic

Washington Post

The New York Times

The Chicago Tribune

The Los Angeles Times

The Daily News

You really should take a look at those, as they are all major publications.

You say, “Your position on ‘writer’ being a better word than ‘author’ strikes me as misguided and bizarre,” but you can’t be serious, can you?

I’ve quoted from OED the definitions of “Writer” and “author.” Here they are again for your reading pleasure.

The Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1 a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner
and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:
1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

Read study, enjoy!

I don’t see anything bizarre or misguided about choosing le mot juste, do you?

By the way, it only you and FKC who have disagreed with me about Asimov. Why don’t you listen to what others are saying?

By the way, when FKC responds, s/he will likely saying all of my reasons are irrelevant or trivial, but that’s what FKC says when s/he know he doesn’t have much of an argument.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the difference between writer and author is minor semantics. Personally I like "writer" better. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

Yes, “writer” is better and it is the right word. I do think there are major differences in the meanings of “writer” and “author” and the OED says so, too.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Biography section

This is a biographical article about Isaac Asimov. Including a "Biography" section in this article is redundant. I've removed the header and realigned the sub-sections, but that's been reverted by User:Debresser with the summary: "1. This is not a biography. This is much more. 2. This is the way it is done." I'll address these two points below. Please feel free to address them individually. Rklawton (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1. The subject of the article is a person. The article contains nothing that doesn't relate to the article's subject - a person. And that's the definition of a biography. Rklawton (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

2. If indeed "this is the way it's done," then please point to the relevant section in the wp:MOS. I realize other biographical articles sometimes have a "Biography" section, but "other shit exists" is not a valid excuse for a bad practice, and I'll be happy to remove those sections and readjust accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This article appears to more or less follow the Biography template. Deagol2 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article looks like a biography to me. If Rklawton is concerned about the redundancy of placing a “Biography” section in a Biography, how about re-labeling “Biography” as “Life” and retaining the original sub-sections? Something like the William Shakespeare article, which looks pretty good.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has thousands of biographies where "biography" is a section. The demand to provide a source in WP:MOS is wikilawyering, since there is nothing in WP:MOS that says anything either way, but common practice is definitely as I wrote. I would therefore oppose the change as a deviation from the norm or at best a senseless edit. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not every writing about a person is a "biography", and wikipedia "bio" articles contain both purely biographical and critical parts. Therefore IMO the section name is quite meaningful. As for renaming into "Life", one may nitpick just the same way, arguing that Asimov's writing is an indispensable part of his life. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rklawton:

Hi Rklawton,

I guess if I were going to pattern the Asimov bio after a Wikipedia article, I’d take a look at the William Shakespeare article that I previously mentioned; and I’d look at other featured bios of literary and theatre folks: Featured articles and scroll down to "Literature and theatre biographies." Some of those bios use “Biography” as a sub-section, some use “Life.” Maybe you could tally up the instances and go with that if everyone agrees.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I will read over the Shakespeare article and give this some more thought. On a different topic, User:Debresser, your use of the term "wiki-lawyering" is inappropriate as it denigrates contributors. That's not the sort of atmosphere we should promote here as we are all working collegially on the same project. Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If editors don't want to be called out for their wiki-lawyering, they shouldn't engage in it. Wiki-lawyering is considered detrimental to this project, so if my comment will have made you avoid it in the future, it was worth it. At the same time, I didn't use the term to make an insult, just point at the behavior.Debresser (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not wiki-lawyering to point out that you are creating rules where none exist. I suppose I could make up some name to describe your behavior in order to discourage it, but that's not really the point. The article was not harmed by my edit, and I removed from the article a meaningless heading. That's worth doing. Now, if you wish to persist in making deliberate derogatory statements about me, I will bring the matter up to fellow admins with an aim toward altering your behavior or removing you from the project. The choice is yours. Rklawton (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, chill already. Debresser (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

From now on the talk really belongs to WP:MOS somewhere. Please find an appropriate talk page and begone y'all wikilawyers dancing on the grave of the ~~greatest Sci Fi~~ Too Gross Limerick Writer ever! Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Isaac Asimov. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Asimov. 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/20070212180512/http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/bottom/56.html to http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/bottom/56.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fandom?

In the career section it says: "...and by age 19, after he discovered science fiction fandom..." I think there should either be more detail on this, if this was a distinct event, or else it seems to me that, since we already know that he had been reading science fiction stories from when he was a young boy and his own fan status is already clear, maybe this could be left out unless it gives some new information. PopSci (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It refers to a specific event, in that he joined a club of SF fans and aspiring writers, where he met some lifelong friends including Frederic Pohl. I'll have a look at this and see if this bit can be improved. Richard75 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, but there does seem to be done overlap between that paragraph and the start of the "Writings: Science fiction" section. Richard75 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

These two aspects of his life and career were taking place simultaneously, so there's inevitably going to be some awkwardness. It's not a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Much better and more interesting and informative now.PopSci (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer review: some suggestions for improving the article

Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Isaac_Asimov/archive1. It would be good if we could get this article up to B-class, Good or Featured status again. Richard75 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ===l

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isaac Asimov. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1973.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127124434/http://css.peak.org/newsletter/1997/aug97/asimov.html to http://css.peak.org/newsletter/1997/aug97/asimov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Asimov. 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/20121016200502/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit5.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes

A small number of references in this article contain lengthy quotes which may be of interest to the reader. But many readers are likely to miss them, because they won't know to click on the references (if they're not interested in the sources) as there's nothing to indicate that there is other material there besides the sources. So I've used the "<ref group=note>" function (which looks like this: ^{[note 1]}) to make it clear that there is extra information in the footnotes. Richard75 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)