Isaac 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS
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]
Schazjmd; Richard75; TenOfAllTrades, thanks to all of you. The informed discussion does tell me the value of talk pages, and probably I would have to concede that addition of h-index would not give us any "meaningful" additional information about Asimov. Having said that, may I respectfully put together following points (1) The argument that h-index is not needed here because "we don't mention the h-index of other science popularizers like Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson", does not appear very sound to me. Even if h-index [or any other index for that matter] had been meaningful, we would still start from somewhere, and the same argument could be advanced to prove its uselessness. (2)The unique quality of h-index in case of Asimov is that he got it ONLY from his books, which is rare. Mostly - as far as I am aware - the authors get a good h-index based on papers rather than books. Having an "H-index is 61" in Asimov's case would mean that he wrote at least 61 books each of which was cited 61 times in "respectable" papers/ journals/books. I thought that was an interesting information. But as I am now realizing, the word "interesting" is quite subjective. Thanks to everyone for this enlightening discussion. Neotaruntius (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather peculiar that his views on taxes and social programs (which since the rise of Reagonomics would render him a "socialist") are not filed under Politics or Social Issues, but are hidden in a section on environmentalism and population control. Not only does that connection with overpopulation only exist in the brains of racists and Malthusians who believe that social programs only exist to support poor people and "welfare queens" to multiply "out of control", it also looks like those people who misplaced his views there sought to make it look as if he was self-contradicting, as they, in Malthusian fashion, automatically associate tax-funded social programs with overpopulation. And that's exactly the kind of mindset due to which Asimov said he could "hardly ever read a Campbell editorial and keep my temper", why Michael Moorcock considered Astounding as "crypto-fascist" by the 1950s, and why the former Campbell award has since been re-named in 2019. --2003:DA:CF3A:A525:DDC7:E66B:11B1:43B1 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A book has been left out of the list.
"A Short History Of Biology" Published by The Scientific Book Club, London, 1965 (green dust jacket) Mvandyke1 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
