Jump to content

Talk:Isaac Asimov

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


Misbegotten sentence

[edit]

"Asimov refused early suggestions of using a more common name as a pseudonym, believing that its recognizability helped his career."

This sentence contains no antecedent for the pronoun "its". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:9cf0:82c3:f2ea:74c4 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to be in any doubt about what it is referring to. Richard75 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new section: "Controversy"

[edit]

The following paragraph is hidden in "Writings > Other Writings," and I would strongly recommend that a new "Controversy" section be created to house it. I had to search the word "harass" to find it, so a reader who doesn't already know may not see it, and it's important. The wording of the paragraph itself is already very mild compared to the extent of his behavior, but at least it should be in a more logical category.

"Particularly in his later years, Asimov to some extent cultivated an image of himself as an amiable lecher. In 1971, as a response to the popularity of sexual guidebooks such as The Sensuous Woman (by "J") and The Sensuous Man (by "M"), Asimov published The Sensuous Dirty Old Man under the byline "Dr. 'A'"[181] (although his full name was printed on the paperback edition, first published 1972). However, by 2016, Asimov's habit of groping women was seen as sexual harassment and came under criticism, and was cited as an early example of inappropriate behavior that can occur at science fiction conventions.[182]" 142.115.97.35 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "sexual harassment" section already. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed, and it isn't hard to find. Look, there it is in the table of contents. You didn't need to do a word search. Richard75 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture used

[edit]

Isaac wore big sideburns for most of his adult life. Is there any particular reason to use this atypical image? If not, should we use an image with his common look? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably because it is the only, or best, free image. Check the Commons category here; this is the only other image that is suitable. MarcGarver (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a stack of cc 4.0 non commercial licensed images of him, I've updated the page with one. Please revert if it isn't up to snuff. I think wikimedia has some sort of clipping capability to improve the image I will look into Big Money Threepwood (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND) are not acceptable I'm afraid. Wikimedia projects require commercial and derivative licenses. MarcGarver (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H-Index of Isaac Asimov

[edit]

Hi all, I have been thinking about the H-index of Isaac Asimov for quite some time now. I realized that the main article does not mention it. Surely because the index was not known in his lifetime. But now, that we know about it, many independent indexing agencies do it. For instance, I find that according to Google Scholar, his H-index is 61 [overall], and even after 2022, it is as high as 30. His i10 index is also high. What is the consensus of the community? Being a big Asimov fan and having read many of his works [especially all versions of his Opus], I do know he was very paranoid about increasing the number of books credited to him. To the extent, that he tried to justify that different editions of his same book be classified as different books. I am not sure, how good he would have felt have about his H-index, had it been discovered during his time. In my genuine opinion, we should add it. After I get an adequate feedback, I would proceed to do it. Some other interesting facts, that we can add; his most cited work is "I, robot", which has been cited 2673 times, and several other similar nuggets. Thanks in anticipation. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of h-index to this article. The index number is useful in comparing scientists in a single field, but Asimov's writings cover many disciplines. The impressiveness of an h-index is relative to the specific scientific field. The measure depends on the which database is used to compute it. I don't think it's useful information for the general reader. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, thanks. Actually h-index is undoubtedly a controversial metric of the author's "usefulness" of contributions. Yet it remains one of the most useful and is even used in many academic promotions also. Even if we agree that "the index number is useful in comparing scientists in a single field," we could still compare Asimov related to other science fiction writers. Asimov can't be faulted simply because he chose to write in other fields. Just my thought. Thanks and warm Regards. Neotaruntius (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Schazjmd—and with the point that you yourself acknowledge in your reply to his comment. The H-index is a 'controversial metric' in general. It is index-dependent. Comparing h-index values between authors is particularly fraught when comparing authors from different eras, as standards for publication and citation (and the quality and thoroughness of indexes) change over time. As you note, Asimov may have deliberately engaged in manipulative tactics to inflate his publication counts, making Asimov-related bibliometrics particularly suspect.
No reliable sources have been presented that actually talk about Asimov's putative h-index, lend it any weight, or put it in the context of his career. For comparison to other Wikipedia biographies, we don't mention the h-index of other science popularizers like Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson. For all of these reasons, I would tend to avoid pulling citation metrics into this article of our own accord. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Schazmid and Tenofalltrades. However, I want to correct a misapprehension on the part of the proposer. Asimov did not count different editions of his books as new books, except in one case where he put so much new content into the second edition that he felt he could justifiably count it again. Richard75 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]