Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 7

Mental illness

After watching a documentary on Fischer I noticed that his behaviour was quite possibly explained by a mental illness, as was suggested by some of his contemporaries in the film. I came here to confirm only to find (in my brief reading/search) no mention of a mental illness. If I'm wrong point it out for me and also if it's in the article somewhere it isn't mentioned in the contents, which it should be. If this has been discussed in the talk pages previously, I'm not going to go back through 6 archive pages to find it - and the fact that I came here to read about his diagnosed/theorised mental illnesses mentioned in other source materials surely merits discussion in this article.

My search of the page finds that mental illness is listed in the title of the source for reference 516 - surely there are more and enough sources to come to some kind of consensus of what could be added to the article. 101.184.155.231 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's hearsay. There is no diagnosis re mental illness. A professional psychologist close with Fischer in his final days eschewed the idea of mental illness (acc. Brady's bio). If you feel hearsay and arm-chair speculation re mental illness warrants inclusion, how does that square w/ WP:BLP exactly? IHTS (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the article is not technically a BLP. Edmonds and Eidinow devote a whole chapter ('Mimophant') to discussing Fischer's psychology, so it's had some serious attention. It's not surprising that there's no diagnosis - plenty of celebrities have avoided diagnosis, or prevented its publication if a diagnosis had been made. I expect there's enough material out there to compile a summary of views on his mentality. Ewen (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevant reading: http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/a-psychological-autopsy-of-bobby-fischer-25959 Ewen (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought the topic of this thread was "mental illness". I never denied Fischer's psychology hasn't been discussed, but for e.g. in the 'Mimophant' chapter there isn't any reference to "mental illness" (if I'm not mistaken). The two topics "Fischer's psychology" and "mental illness" are not one-and-the-same, so it's inappropriate to discuss or refer to them as you've done above as if they were. For example your phrase "his mentality" seems to want to glom together "mental illness" and "his psychology" as though one thing, it may be your POV they are one thing, but I don't think that is a WP careful editorial position to assume. (Again, the thread was specifically and only about "mental illness" - the OP mentioned "metal illness(es)" 5 times, and also referred to same 5 add'l times via pronoun.) IHTS (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not presuming that he was mentally ill, but it is a distinct possibility. That is why I referred to his 'psychology' and 'mentality' - everyone has a psychology which may or may not include an element of mental illness. Edmonds and Eidinow quote Lev Abramov's assessment of Fischer's attitude "I think it was a disease" and describe his enjoyment of overpowering opponents as being "like a psychopath". His suspicion of the Soviets is "delusion" and "fantasy". Ponterotto's article (cited above) cautiously argues that "Bobby suffered from a genetically predisposed paranoid personality disorder". The question is whether the article should have a separate summary of views on his psychology, including his possible mental illness. It's a legitimate topic. Incidentally, is it necessary, in this day and age, to treat mental illness as an "accusation"? The stigma about it is fading, thankfully, and a discussion of whether Fischer might have been mentally ill is hardly libellous, is it? (Besides, from a legal point of view, is it even possible to libel the deceased?) Ewen (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lev Abramov was the head of the Chess Department of the Soviet State Sports Committee. (In your view he's a valid source supporting contention who has or does not have what or other disease?!) IHTS (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I knew it. I should have used the term mental health!!! I'm not asserting the inclusion of my armchair diagnosing, I'm saying if a general viewer such as myself (I'm not a regular editor so don't start in with your rules - find a way to accommodate my suggestion or don't - no need to question me on my knowledge of wikipedia article rules) notes some strange behaviour on the subject's behalf in source material that is then speculated on in that source by the subject's contemporaries as possible mental health concerns, one would expect an encyclopedic article to accurately reflect any such speculation that has been published in reputable sources. I didn't know if such evidence existed and that's why I came to this article. One of the very sources used in this article clearly speculates on this yet its speculation isn't included. I now find that Fischer's "psychology" has been discussed by other sources. I'm not after a random speculation diagnosis being labelled on Mr Fischer, I'm after this article to accurately discuss any mention by reputable sources about consideration given to his mental health. The current article dedicates some significant space to his "anti" beliefs and I feel any discussion of his mental health (if it exists in reputable sources) will go towards helping a reader understand the person/his motivations and provide a better balanced article. As I said in my first post "surely there are more and enough sources to come to some kind of consensus of what could be added to the article" emphasis added - get it? It doesn't have to be added but if it's out there in sources it could be added. Bloody defensive editors 101.184.155.231 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree. IHTS, I find you very selective about what questions you answer and what views you support. If Abramov is unreliable then how about your unnamed "professional psychologist close with Fischer"? Why ignore Ponterotto's article entirely? Why claim that BLP policy applies when Fischer is no longer a living person? Ewen (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right I've been selective re your Qs. (Plz don't ask or make assumptions why - I'm volunteer contributor here and not subject to compelled-to-answer-court-subpoena.) Obviously you're right the number of years since death has expired for BLP to apply. (But I'm not sure that no policy applies; but am also not sure what does.) I don't have the Brady bio available but what I posted earlier (that he eschewed idea that Fischer was mentally ill) comes from a professional having personal & extensive experience w/ Fischer, unlike Ponterotto having none. About the Ponterotto article I really have no comment, but if you insist I'd say it might be a promotion for his book, and his book might have been a vie on new angle others have not done before for book sales driven by ongoing popular interest in Fischer. (E.g. why did that professional publish a hardcover sold at Barnes & Noble, rather than an academic paper for professional journal?) The OP seems to regret not using "mental health" instead of "mental illness", but I really don't see any distinction. ¶ Now here's just a thought ... There is a popular idea/belief/speculation the same about Paul Morphy as there is about Fischer - that he was American chess genius who went crazy for the remainder of his life. That notion re Morphy is very "out there" to the point where Morphy is even considered Fischer's counterpart. But there isn't (unless I'm mistaken) any word in that direction in the Morphy article. (The OP could ask the same Qs about sources for same contention for article add re Morphy. And I think there is some discussion on that Talk; there may be discussion on this article's Talk as well - like the OP I haven't done that homework.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I haven't made any assumptions about your reasons. You do appear, like Lady Macbeth, to protest too much. Your point about the Morphy article has limited validity - it implies that the Morphy article needs additional work as well as the Fischer article here (which is the article we are actually discussing). "Mental health" is a sensible, neutral term which makes no assumptions about the existence of mental illness. There is a clear distinction. I think a short, balanced section on his mental health would be a valuable addition. Ewen (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You seemed to feel I was not responding to all your Qs for some (unstated) reason. You can hang that notion out to dry. And if you like to compare my contribution here to literary figure, do I get to also compare you to one? (If so I choose Daffy Duck.) Whether or not the Morphy article "needs additional work" is your opinion, I did not imply anything about my own opinion, I was actually trying to offer a helpful idea. (Your bad faith.) And I know the article that this thread is discussing, you don't need to point that out. (Again, it was intended a helpful thought, not a challenge. [*Who* protests too much?!]) If this article adds material discussing Fischer's "mental health", then I'd say for average readers, it's synonymous w/ discussion about presence/absence of "mental illness". (That's my feeling, and I'm so sorry if you disagree, or need to up the incendiary comment because you do.) IHTS (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You say "health" and "illness" are synonymous? That's just silly. If you have a helpful idea then I'd like to hear it, because all you did was to say that if the Fischer article needed to discuss his psychology then so did the Morphy one. (Your implication, unless I misunderstand you, being that because such a section was missing from Morphy, then it should remain missing from Fischer). And yes, it is fair to point out which article we're discussing because the Morphy article is just not that relevant (unless you're claiming that the Morphy article should set precedents for other articles). And while it's true that you did not answer all the points raised, it's also true that I've not assumed or speculated why you chose to do so. Would you care to clarify why? Ewen (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"You say "health" and "illness" are synonymous?" No I didn't say that (go read again what I wrote). "all you did was to say that if the Fischer article needed to discuss his psychology then so did the Morphy one." I didn't say that either, or even imply it (ditto). What I brought up re Morphy was in spirit of collaboration--nothing less or more. (You're misintepreting anything I comment as argument or challenge.) Some of your Qs were based on what seemed to me loose/sloppy expansion of the OP's orig suggestion. So I simply wasn't interested to comment. (Mystery solved?) p.s. You seem too focused on responces from me, perhaps others' participation would be a better plan. Meantime I'd like to research Talk archives (here & Morphy, since conditions are similar IMO) for prev discussions on the thread subhead topic ("mental illness"). But as you see here you've even shifted the topic (to "metal health"), so I'm not sure the different direction you want to go now, nor can I be sure I'd be interested in it even if it were made clear. IHTS (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You said you saw no distinction between mental health and mental illness; sounds like you find them synonymous to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "in spirit of collaboration" but whatever is or isn't included in the Morphy article is essentially irrelevant to this current discussion. The archived discussions have a fair amount of discussion about his psychology but no consensus. It's certainly a topic that many people are interested in, and a balanced summary would be a valid addition to the article. In the absence of any coherent argument against it, I'll write a short summary (unless someone beats me to it). Ewen (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any distinction made by either you, or the OP. And since your intent is unclear & shifting focus ("mental illness", then "his psychology", then "his mentality", then "mental health"), how can anyone either agree or disagree (consensus)? And as mentioned for a general reader a distinction between "illness" and "health" will not be apparent, unless you take pains to make it so. ¶ Regarding "balanced summary", you don't even make clear a balanced summary of what? (Of opinions? Whose? Like the ex head of the Soviet State Sports Committee Chess Department? Does his opinion about global warming get a spot in a summary in that article too? The value of his opinion on anything other than his position is based on what exactly? On what basis do you include his opinion re disease about the biography subject in your intended summary?) IHTS (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because you don't see the distinction, doesn't mean that it does not exist. Ewen (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither you nor the OP made clear any distinction. And it is not as if it isn't an important point. Again, how can anyone agree or disagree with you (consensus) under that circumstance, in a discussion thread? IHTS (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "summary" section isn't a summary, except for the introductory sentence. It is more like POV cherry-picking character assassination. And several of your quotes are out of context, misleading, and factually inaccurate. I do not intend to add to or correct your text. That would lead to a contest of quoted opinions of Fischer, and with correct contexts the section would bloat uncontrollably. IHTS (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Neither you nor the OP made clear any distinction." is just rubbish. For example, I said that "I'm not presuming that he was mentally ill, but it is a distinct possibility. That is why I referred to his 'psychology' and 'mentality' - everyone has a psychology which may or may not include an element of mental illness." I'm not wasting my time any more clarifying something for someone who can't or won't have the issue clarified. As for your assessment of my summary, you're entitled to your opinion; but if you have anything substantial to add or amend then go right ahead - this is Wikipedia after all - and then we can judge if your contributions have any merit. What are you afraid of? Ewen (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

By not making any distinction in this thread, I obviously meant that neither you nor the OP have clarified how "illness" is different from "health". (That is not rubbish, it is fact that can be verified by anyone inspecting this Talk thread.) And you've shifted your focus once again, by not mentioning "mental health" at all in the section you added. (So what has been the point/relevancy of your ongoing admonishments re "mental health" versus "mental illness" in this thread?!) Your chronic refusal or inability to read what I've written in this thread is demonstrated further by ignoring what I just told you, that I wouldn't be adding or correcting your cherrypicked POV section, and why. So piss off. p.s. In answer to your Q "What are you afraid of?", it might have something to do w/ wasting my time & attention (which I value) chasing impossible WP:IDHT discussion and playing your Randy-style editing game. IHTS (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is going to be a "Psychology" section, a range of sources will be needed to support it. I count three so far, which isn't enough to justify it given the fact that by making it a section by itself, you are giving it elevated status. Not knocking the effort so far, but more sources are needed than this, otherwise it'll be no better than the equivalent section for Vasily Ivanchuk.Jkmaskell (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jkmaskell; thanks for your input. It would be good to have more sources, sure, but the significance of the section is not just a function of the number of references, surely? Ewen (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies all for starting this off - IHTS - stop getting so bogged down in the words I have chosen to use, try to have an open mind and try and make the article better!!! This is all I am asking for and I'm sure all that others want - I believe no one is here to slander the man or make unfounded diagnoses. If this article chooses to single out some of Fischer's behaviours (Anti-Semitism/views on 9/11) for analysis and uses references that clearly discuss his mental health as being connected to this behaviour but does not provide a summary of those observations, in my opinion the article is lacking (You don't have to agree). I had never looked at Fischer in-depth - I watched a documentary and personally (Yes this is not enough to merit a change in the article) noted potential for analysis of his mental health, then his contemporaries specifically discuss their beliefs on the matter(also not enough to merit a change in the article) and as such I came to this online encyclopedia for further reading on this by reputable sources. If the sources aren't there don't include it, but I feel the article is incomplete if it isn't there. Thanks for the link Ewen - regardless of whether that analysis will be included in the article or not that was the type of further reading I was after and what I expected to find here. 101.184.155.231 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

15 references now - would you say that's enough, Jkmaskell? ;-) Ewen (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

My view is no more important than anyone elses. My main concern is that this page will be a key resource for those reading about Fischer, so if there is to be a section, it really has to be done very seriously and with that comes having as many sources as possible, particularly with those who knew him best, being completely neutral and reflecting the source's opinion as closely as possible. If posting that made you feel better, then good for you but this WikiProject is about more than making yourself feel better.Jkmaskell (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As you were the one to raise the issue I thought you'd have a view - do you still think the section has too few sources? Personally I don't think "as many sources as possible" is a key criterion for judging if the section is worthwhile; there is a danger of over-referencing or straying into original research. Ewen (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead section and article shaping

The lead section is composed of too many short paragraphs. Some should be joined to form three paragraphs in the lead. That is the shape of a Featured Article. If needed, some information should be moved out of the lead if it is not the most notable info about Fischer. The lead should not have citations. Instead, the body text should have the assertions and citations that support the sentences of the lead. There are also issues that the article is too long, with over 600 citations, a very long Bibliography and 25 sections in the Table of Contents. Perhaps some sections can be factored out into their own articles such as the "Contributions to chess" section, which has 8 subsections.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead section is now citation-free and three focused paragraphs. Much more like an FA article.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Converting to Template:sfn

I have converted one short footnote (citation) to using sfn . Specifically, I chose Kashdan 1977 . It is a matter of updating the cite_boot template to add the "ref" parameter and then using the Template:sfn in the text (note: without the broken-bracket ref tag). Let us all pitch in and do the rest over time. It seems to be the standard for up-to-date FA articles, such as Acacia pycnantha.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that sfn only allows for author (last name), year and page number. Many of the existing citations provide quotes from their sources. For these citations with quotes, either sfn cannot be used or the quotes will have to be removed.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=720853905&oldid=720853856 MaxBrowne (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist, maybe Jewish, but certainly not representing "Jewish anti-Zionism"

How can a person who, to say the least, denounces both Judaism and Israel still be representing Jewish anti-Zionism? I didn't remove it when refining the categories, but if someone agrees, they should replace Category:Jewish anti-Zionism in the United States with Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States. --PanchoS (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• see also Talk:Dan Burros --PanchoS (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Was Fischer Jewish? He certainly didn't consider himself to be Jewish, but he had Jewish ancestry. The description of Category:Jewish anti-Zionism says "This category is for opposition to Zionism by ethnic Jews, not necessarily for religious reasons." The Ethnic group article says "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences." Since Fischer didn't identify with Jews I would say that he wasn't an ethnic Jew, and shouldn't be in Category:Jewish anti-Zionism. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

It appears that "Babe Ruth's three home run prediction" has been changed to "Babe Ruth's game three home run prediction" and back. I think this is a reference to game 3 of the 1932 World Series, and the latter form is correct. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I see that this is part of a direct quote from Brady. I do not have a copy of Brady's book handy, but if the sentence appears in that book without the word "game", it is still incorrect. (Or, perhaps one could consult Brady as to what was intended.) Bruce leverett (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The quote is cited as being from the 1973 edition of Profile of a Prodigy. I have the 1965 edition, which says (on page 75) "In the next round Fischer met Argentina's famed Najdorf, whom he had said the previous day that he would beat in twenty-five moves; he did it in twenty-four, accounting for Najdorf's only loss of the tournament." Rather than quoting from either edition, I think it's better simply to say that Fischer predicted that he would beat Najdorf in 25 moves and did it in 24. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot on this one. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Puffery

I bring this question to my fellow editors, in hopes that somebody will take my side!

I submitted a revision at 04:20, 23 May 2016‎, with two aims: first, to remove what I thought to be "puffery" in the Notable Games section; and second, to substitute for the removed material, some more conventional and informative comments, such as you might see in the Notable Games sections of other chess players' pages. (For examples, see the pages for Emmanuel Lasker or Vassily Smyslov.) My only comment in the edit summary was to cite WP:PEA.

My revision was undone shortly afterwards by fellow editor MaxBrowne. You can read the short argument we had about it in his talk page, so I don't need to tell you the blow-by-blow, but I'll quote his edit summary: "It's not peacock if it's cited."

Of course, I took the matter up with him on his talk page, and we didn't come to agreement. He courteously suggested that I take it to this talk page, so here I am.

Here's an example. The note to Byrne-Fischer quotes Brady's biography as saying the game "was immediately recognized as an all-time classic." This seems out of place in an encyclopedia entry. The fact that it was originally written by Brady, rather than by some pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, doesn't change the essential lack of content.

The first half of the note is this: "From an almost symmetrical position, Fischer beats a strong grandmaster in just 21 moves." This was not in quotes and, I assume, was written by some Wiki editor. I kind of like it: it is full of facts about the game, and it conveys some of the notability of the game, without flying off the handle. So, I kept it.

An exceptional case is the note to Byrne-Fischer, the "Game of the Century". Every experienced chessplayer who has looked at this game knows that it isn't the game of the century -- was it even really the game of the year? But it's flashy, and you get used to people being carried away with heroic sacrifices and dazzling tactics, especially played by 13-year-olds against adults. This game even has its own Wiki page, Game of the Century (chess). Puffery enough for several. I didn't try to swim against that tide. But I removed the quotation from Soltis quoting Chess magazine -- why pile it higher and deeper?

Am I being unreasonable? I appreciate that we are surrounded by vandals and "destructive" edits, and I welcome anyone to point out where I may have inadvertently crossed a line into that territory. I feel that removing puffery is an important editorial function. Comments? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some more conventional and informative comments would be good for the benefit of chess players - probably beginners because few experienced players will be unaware of these famous games! I don't mind the (sometimes hyperbolic) comments though; They give non-players an idea of the reputation of the games. Regarding R. Byrne-Fischer, perhaps Brady isn't the most authoritative voice. In his book Fischer describes this as his "brilliancy" and Byrne's own description is "dazzling". Spassky-Fischer game 6 had Spassky applauding at the end and Bronstein was notably "titillated" by the "enigma" of game 13. D Byrne-Fischer, you're right, is hyped; but the hype itself was important to the story of Fischer off the board. I'd say we keep the comments about the games' reputations - perhaps finding the views of players instead of biographers - and add more analysis of the actual moves played.

Either way, thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Ewen (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are reminding me that the public's reaction to Fischer is itself notable. I myself have mentioned "the Fischer era" on other Wiki sites, and I can attest to how important it was at the time.

So I agree that it's OK to bring up the subject of Fischer's celebrity status, and that might include quoting somebody going wild in praising his game, or whatever. I should put up with more of this on Fischer's Wiki page than I would on, say, Botvinnik's or Smyslov's.

This doesn't suspend WP:PEA. If there's a factual, informative way of conveying the notability of a game, I'll prefer that to an empty rhetorical way.

BTW, thanks for the links to the 1972 match page. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! We could do with some move lists, diagrams and commentary for R Byrne-Fischer and Fischer-Petrosian, which are nowhere else on WP. I'll add something if I have time but if someone beats me to it then even better. Ewen (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is the right way to go with the article. Aren't the chessgames.com links more useful than reproducing the moves and diagrams here? MaxBrowne (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The three other games are already on WP so I was going by that precedent. Agreed, chessgames is a slick interface for examining the games but a basic summary without the immense detail of chessgames is what I envisage. Ewen (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the chessgames.com interface, but I also like commentary, and I don't know how to get the best of both worlds. The USCF, in the News section of its website, is now using an interface where you can click your way through the game while following the commentary (and even click your way through the commentary). I don't know if that can be adapted for our purposes. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see much in the way of puffery here. These are quotes taken from reputable commentators in reputable sources, that give perspective as to the impact those games had. 'Game of the Century' is not puffery by anybody here, that's simply what Byrne/Fischer is known as in chess circles. It was called that long before Wikipedia existed. --SubSeven (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Consider 22.Nxd7+ in Fischer-Petrosian. Would you agree that if I, the Wikipedia editor, wrote of that move that it was "perhaps Fischer's most famous and instructive move", it would be puffery? It would certainly fit the definition from WP:PEA. If Soltis says it, is it puffery? Yes, but that's Soltis's problem, and besides, Soltis wasn't writing an encyclopedia entry. But if I quote Soltis saying it, isn't it puffery? Normally, if you quote it, you own it. From MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them."

If I'm writing about Fischer-mania rather than about Fischer, then sure, it's fair to quote reputable commentators going ga-ga over Fischer. And as I said above in responding to user Ewen, it's appropriate if some of the Fischer Wiki page is given over to illustrating or describing the powerful impact that Fischer had on the general public (including the chess-playing public). But systematically adorning every item in the "Notable games" list with a fatuous quotation does not look like a means to that end; it looks more like WP:PEA. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PEA discourages unattributed statements. If you look at the first example at WP:PEA with Bob Dylan, you will see that the 'correct' example has an attributed quote from a commentator, just like with Fischer's games here.

The reason each game is 'adorned' with a quote is because they are the justification for why those games are selected. 'Notable games' are not pulled out of thin air, the quotes are there to establish the notability of those particular games. --SubSeven (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll have to quit soon, but let me try to clarify. I agree with your description of the 'correct' Dylan example. The quote from Time doesn't tell us anything about Dylan, it just tells us about the public response to Dylan, including hero worship on the part of one or more editors of Time. If I were writing a Wiki page about Dylan, I wouldn't be embarrassed to include that quote from Time. But I'd be embarrassed to include more than one or two such quotes. The Fischer Wiki page included five just in the Notable Games section alone. Also, I agree that notable games aren't pulled from thin air. I think the five games that are there are well-chosen. I would like for the comments on them to look more like the comments on Lasker's notable games and Botvinnik's notable games -- less hero worship, more guidance and chess content. If you want to see what I have in mind, you can go to the history page and look at the change I made that was pulled by MaxBrowne. I'm not planning to reinstate it, but I would like to improve upon it, based on what I have learned in this talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit removed all of the attributed quotes and replaced them with your own commentary. How can that possibly be an encyclopedic improvement? I just don't get the 'hero worship' objection. We're talking about selected games of the greatest players who ever lived, and commentators discussing WHY those games are remembered out of the millions of chess games in history, of course there are going to be superlatives. If you think maybe some of the quotes could be replaced with something better (as in a better quote from a good source, not our own commentary), that's at least a conversation to be had, but I have to object strongly to an outright purging of all sourced information in a section. --SubSeven (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some writers (e.g. Chernev, Fine, Kmoch who came up with the "game of the century" name) definitely are inclined to let their enthusiasm get the better of them and lapse into hyperbole. Most of the writers quoted here do not fall into that category. The British magazine Chess, edited by grumpy old B.H. Wood, certainly doesn't. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, OK! :-) Bruce leverett (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have tried to pay more attention to WP:OR. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

From my own sense of the literature, saying that R. Byrne–Fischer was "immediately recognized as an all-time classic" is hyperbole and either needs some really good sources to back up that claim or it should be removed. Likewise Soltis's claim that 22.Nxd7+ from Fischer–Petrosian is Fischer's "most famous and instructive move" – again extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I believe John Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy talks about how overrated he thinks that move is. (Frankly I wouldn't have chosen Fischer–Petrosian for this selection, but rather the Fischer–Taimanov game with the B vs. N endgame – still the textbook example after all these years.) The other comments are less controversial and more in line with general opinion, I think. Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with the choice of those five games. I am digging around for more -- eight or ten would be more in line with what you see in other World Champion's pages (except for Euwe, who somehow has 15, and Kasparov, who doesn't have any.) I dimly recall that your suggestion of the Taimanov game would be a good one, but I haven't yet gotten around to looking it up. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's an unfortunate omission that the Taimanov game is not there already. I can't think of a more famous endgame in all of chess. --SubSeven (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fischer-Spassky, 1972, game 2? Certainly "notable" and the game score won't take up too much space... Ewen (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the Taimanov endgame and any Fischer vs Spassky games from the 1972 match belong in World Chess Championship 1972 and don't need to be repeated here, although links would be desirable. Astoundingly the Candidates matches in the 1972 WC cycle are disposed of in a single paragraph of four sentences in the 1972 WC article, in the Background section (not even in the section titled 1971 Candidates Tournament which is just a bare bracket with no discussion of anything that occurred). The coverage of the Interzonal and Candidates is much better here than in the article solely about the world championship. Of course it's easy to bitch about it, I should do something to try fix it.... Quale (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your idea of putting the Taimanov game moves and diagram in World Chess Championship 1972 makes sense to me. I didn't do it, just now, because, as you pointed out, that page needs more narrative about the Candidates' matches, and I was not prepared to add that. Another time, maybe. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I had a little look at some game compilations (Wade & O'Connell; Kasparov; Soltis; Fox & James; Burgess, Nunn & Emms, MSMG of course) I had to hand to find suggestions for Fischer's most notable games. They are all in the collection [1] based on Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors (part 4). Anyway, perhaps just for interest, here are the "top" 8 based on the number of "best" collections that included each game:

1. R Byrne (W) 1963
2. D Byrne (W) 1956
3. Petrosian (B) 1971 game 7
4. Spassky (B) 1972 game 6
5. Spassky (B) 1992 game 1
6. Gligoric (W) 1961
7. Panno (B) 1970
8. Larsen (B) 1971 game 1

Taimanov 1971 game 4 was among a number of games just below this "top eight" Ewen (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fischer-Benko from the U.S. Championship 1963-4 is a combination that I have seen in print several times, which I am trying to find. (Of course, I've found it in Brady and in My 60 Memorable Games, but I'm trying for someone who isn't Fischer or his biographer.) Also, his revival of the Exchange Ruy Lopez might be worth showing off. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fischer-Benko 1963 is game 72 in Kasparov's book, one of 57 Fischer games he chose (not all of them Fischer wins): [2] Ewen (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fischer-Gligoric 1966 would likely be the best example of the Exchange Ruy Lopez. The second of three games he won when he first used the opening at the Havana Olympiad. It's game 56 in My 60 Memorable Games Ewen (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove the Psychology/Personality section

I think that we should just remove the Psychology section. Unless we have a diagnosis from his attending psychiatrist (which would likely be a violation of Fischer's privacy anyway), it is all just speculation by people who are not putting their licenses to practice medicine on the line.--130.65.109.100 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. (The section is unprofessional, shot-full of WP:SYNTH. It's a POV project taken on by a single aggressive editor who took umbrage to my questions without answering them, who didn't engage since it interferred w/ agenda to quickly produce the current section. Also the section, as it is, should really be a WP:LIST, stringing independent comments together in narrative form is total synth. Not only that, the section is heavily slanted against Fischer, I could but won't, add competing sourcable quotes & views, because it would inflate the section without end, and the section existence is misguided in the first place. It would end up looking like a big misguided pissing contest. [For example, there are sourcable derogatory assessments of Donald Trump that are in quotable sources, calling him "racist", "misogynist", "xenophobe", "homophobe", "demagogue", "con man", "pathologic liar", "narcissist", "crazy" ... I even could produce a sourcable quote calling him an "ethnic cleanser". But I don't see anybody creating a section in the Donald Trump article like what we have here in Fischer's article. {Ditto if that were inappropriately created/added to the Trump article, the section would inflate by competing quotes & views added, including "patriot", "honest", "intelligent", "genius", "family man", and so on and so forth. This alone s/ be convincing why existence of "Psychology" section, is misguided, unprofessional, unencyclopedic, even tacky, even shlocky. The author of it felt something should be included in the article regarding the undeniable comments Fischer has drawn about his personality, however, this is not the way to achieve that goal. It's an embarrassment that warrants deletion. The premises of why it is here were not properly discussed, and certainly not focussed, the section went ahead like a bull in a China shop. So we end up w/ a pile of shameful garbage, people unqualified opining about the nature of Fischer's mental health, some presumably his detractors, some presumably not understanding that Fischer, like Trump, knew the value of drawing media attention, or boiling over his chess adversaries such as Kasparov, with intentionally outrageous statements and claims. But better than list form, the nature of the existing section has no place in this article or any other article about a controversial person.}]). IHTS (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your point of view, IHTS; but instead of name-calling and criticising, why not do something positive? "I could but I won't, add competing sourcable quotes" you say and "this is not the way to achieve that goal" - If you spent half your energy improving and editing the section you take such time criticising then we'd see if you had anything to add. As for the anonymous first comment, I don't think it's justified. Fischer refused psychiatric help, so there is no diagnosis, but there are multiple instances of notably peculiar behaviour. It seems incongruous to discuss Fischer without mentioning this, especially when you consider the consequences; this great chess player stopped playing at the height of his powers. Ewen (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think discussion w/ you is impossible (you are on a mission and won't be stopped; you don't read & understand what I've written WP:IDHT, how many times have explained why I won't attempt to "add" to your section? - I don't agree w/ its title for one thing, I don't agree w/ the WP:SYNTH, I don't agree w/ the structure, and even if the structure is changed more appropriately to a hodge-podge WP:List of quotes from different people from different times [and circumstances, and backgrounds, and backdrops] - IMO it is *still* inappropriate for inclusion [go re-read what I wrote re what is not included in article Donald Trump and why]; you keep trying to *shame* me into supporting your effort, I've given you full explanations why I've disagreed with both premise [ill-focussed POV] & execution [narrative synth], and you still don't seem to hear; the best thing which can be done to improve the Bobby Fischer article is to *delete* the section [the title, premise, method & form make it an unfixable abortion], and reenter a discussion how best to present what I already wrote [and despite your attempts at shaming, that's a positive suggestion]). IHTS (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"so there is no diagnosis, but there are multiple instances of notably peculiar behaviour". Yes Doctor. (Do you mean like having the fillings removed from his teeth? Have you even *read* the new Brady bio? That rumor was debunked there.) "the consequences; this great chess player stopped playing at the height of his powers." Yes Doctor. (Fischer's not defending his title just had to be because of untreated mental illness, right? [Nothing to do re Fischer's personality and the psychological difference between defending the title vs winning it; nothing to do re FIDE politics; nothing to do re fact he was now world champion & felt he deserved more say-so re match conditions; nothing to do re FIDE match rules; nothing to do re prize fund. The reason he didn't play in formal match again until 1992 could only be as you imply. Yeah.]) IHTS (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"It seems incongruous to discuss Fischer without mentioning this". Assume you mean incongruous if the article doesn't include topic of Fischer's infamous personality. Actually I agree. (I just don't agree w/ aspects how you've done it [POV, premise, structure, synth].) IHTS (talk)

So you agree that we need to discuss his personality but rather than do something about the relevant section you just want it deleted because you don't like the way it's written? As for your straw man comments about him not playing Karpov in 1975, you totally ignore that he didn't play publicly at all after 1972 - not a tournament, unofficial match, nada. Nothing to do with FIDE and the match conditions. Trump? A living person who is running for POTUS? Not a great comparison, is it? The premise is an undeniable fact; many people found Fischer's character to be unusual, although some defended him. Sure, it's a list of observations and opinions about his behaviour but with the psychology of a person who refused psychological assessment and is now dead, that's as close as we'll ever get to a final word. There's no definitive diagnosis here, as the first paragraph says. Ewen (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ill-focused POV"? Not really, I don't have a POV about what Fischer's condition was, or if he had one at all, or when he had it and when he didn't. What is clear, though, is that many times his behaviour was notably odd. If his character was ill-focused (whose isn't?) then the section reflects that. SYNTH? Not really; that would involve putting sources together to say more than the individual sources do alone. The sources I've used are all clear enough and all discuss his character and psychology. There is no consensus, which is clearly reflected, and some people have speculated, but that is clearly identified as speculation and the authority of the individuals is also clear in each case. So, let's hear about Brady debunking the Ron Gross story about Fischer's fillings - Gross appears to be very clear in how he knew Fischer and what Fischer told him. Was Gross lying? Ewen (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I already explained myself in full, so why are you questioning me again and again? ¶ Are you completely unaware of his unofficial match vs Spassky in 1992? Regarding his reasons for not playing more, who put you authority re that? ¶ The comparison re Trump article was re presence vs absence of a pro vs con "comments" (or as you say "speculations") section on the man's character/personality/psychology/what-have-you, in case you were unable to comprehend that point (the occupation being irrelevant). ¶ You keep putting words in my mouth I never said or meant, why do you do that? (I already made clear I agree his personality drew controversy and has a place in the article.) ¶ You are unable to see your own POV/premises (WP:IDHT), which are exposed by your own words & arguments & section compostion, so I'm unable to help you further, as stated, so back off. I never said "his character was ill-focused" I said your section premise/title/agenda was (and still is). ¶ Go read the Brady bio and quit trying to entice me to fix your Randyesque crap. How many times do I have to tell you I won't be participating in expanding your section into a big misguided pissing contest?? Leave me the hell alone, Doctor Randy. IHTS (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course Fischer played Spassky in 1992 but isn't it a bit odd that the World Chess Champion quit the game for 20 years? That's not entirely FIDE's fault is it? I'm not claiming any authority on this matter but you can see what other people think of it. I never claimed that you said his character was ill focused, so don't put words in my mouth, matey. I simply explained that if you find the section ill-focused then that might reflect his ill-focused personality. If you want easily understandable, nicely rounded characters then I recommend you read teenage fiction. So what is my premise? That Fischer's psychology was notably unusual? Yes, it was. My title? Everyone has a psychology, so that's totally uncontroversial. My agenda? To discuss his controversial personality, and you've agreed on that. You really have a narrow idea of what you might do to the article; "expanding... into a big misguided pissing contest" indeed. You're not much of an editor if that's all you think you could do! As for Brady, he didn't refute Gross' report of what Fischer said about his fillings, did he? No. Sorry if you don't like the facts, but there they are. Ewen (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the topics of any conversation about Fischer while he was alive, and even now after he is gone, was always his sanity. So I think it is reasonable, or one might say required, to have some discussion about his mental condition in this article. However, it's not a topic on which we can say anything useful. As noted, we don't have, and aren't going to get, a real diagnosis from a shrink who interviewed or examined him. Two or three sentences should be adequate for the kind of summary that would be helpful to the casual reader. All the quotations in the section as it is presently written don't add up to more than a bunch of guys sitting around the cracker barrel. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, User:Ewen put the section back in so I suppose we can now attempt to reach consensus on whether it should stay or be taken out again. I think that it is the section with the weakest justification to exist in this oversized article. Who knows? Maybe he was just playing the role of the brilliant eccentric to the maximum he could think of and let the world think him crazy as a fox or whatever.--130.65.109.100 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it should exist because he is so well known for his eccentricity and likely mental illness, but it definitely needs to be cut. Most of the quotes are just offhand remarks by people with no training in psychology. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MaxBrowne. Could we allow comments from people who knew him well and/or second-hand assessments from people with a psychiatric background? As I said, I'm not trying to prove that he was mentally ill, just to collect what is known about his mental state through the years. (Besides, why would we regard mental illness with such stigma anyway? I'm not trying to excuse his anti-Semitic/USA/commie/etc rants either.) Ewen (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole section is just a stream of non-notable impressions of him at various moments or by individuals that he either liked or did not like (or viewed as adversaries). Most people with a public image have some such spectrum of behavior.--130.65.109.100 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The collection of quotations compiled by Ewen is interesting to me, in this sense: if I were sitting around a table with guys like Bisguier, Byrne, Christiansen, etc., and they were talking about Fischer, I would be agog. But it does not have the aura of authority that one expects from an encyclopedia. If Ewen wants this compilation to have a wide audience, I would approve, but this encyclopedia article is not the place.

Who would like to write the two- or three-sentence summary? I would volunteer to do so, but I would like to get some consensus that it's the right thing to do. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bruce. I'm not entirely with you but two cheers anyway! I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the aura of authority" or a "wide audience". I feel that as Bisguier, Byrne, Christiansen, etc knew Fischer first-hand and had substantial conversations with him, their opinions do carry some weight. Also notable, I think, are the views of authors who have published substantial works about Fischer - Edmonds & Eidinow, Winter, etc; and also people with psychiatric background such as Ponteretto and Krylov. Ewen (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to get rid of the "simple" from his girlfriend. She doesn't mean he is of below average intelligence obviously. I believe she was Filipino and they often use the English word "simple" to translate "simpleng tao", but it doesn't mean exactly the same thing. Found this interesting reddit discussion on the topic. Anyway I think her idiomatic use of the word "simple" might be misleading to English speaking readers, and it's not a huge contribution to his psychological profile anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree w/ user Bruce leverett's proposal to replace w/ two-three sentence summary. (The fact is there's been tons written re Fischer, including speculations re his psychology. So much, that a verifiable long & interesting article Psychology of Bobby Fischer could be penned. E.g. there are 21 pages in the Index under "Fischer, Bobby, psychology of" in just the Edmonds & Eidinow book. It's not factual that Fischer didn't have in his life several psychologists, mostly also chessplayers, who had plenty personal time & access. There are numerous theories re Fischer's psychology, as a result!? Anyway short of an entirely separate article, a summary of the existence of the diversity in RSs is what I presume you have in mind. [Meanwhile, you can see that user Ewen is still not off his track ... wanting to retain quotes or views of individuals he's cherry-picked. For example grandmaster Seirawan spent significant one-on-one w/ Fischer during the 1992 match, I don't see him listed in Ewen's picks. And if I add it, again, the section blows up indefinitely as misguided contest or bloated collection of views. Meanwhile, speaking of summary again, secondary sources are preferred by WP, but, Ewen is still set on using what I believe is a primary source used by no one as secondary source in the gobs of material written re Fischer. [Whereas Brady tells of an Icelandic psycholgist's opinion, who spent significant personal time w/ Fischer toward the end of Fischer's life. But even that single secondary source isn't appropriate, seeing a two-three sentence summary.]) IHTS (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Where a chessplayer or psychologist who knew Fischer expressed an opinion I've tried to include their comments. You assume that I missed Seirawan because I was cherry-picking. His book on the match is out of print and inaccessible to me, which is why I've not quoted his views. Again you find some excuse not to add constructively to the article (in this case by including Seirawan's comments). Instead of assuming good faith, you're assuming that I'm trying to prove some point about Fischer's mental health. Wrong. And what is this 'primary source' you coyly fail to specify? And you do seem to contradict yourself - we could have a two-three sentence summary or a long and interesting separate article, you say? How about a few paragraphs in the main article, as exists currently? That sounds like a sensible halfway-house to me. Ewen (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic & non-productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By the way: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments (see the part about fixing format errors) and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation Ewen (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC) You don't know what you're talking about. (My post was in reply to Bruce leverett. You re-indented it as though it was a reply to user MaxBrowne, which it wasn't. Stop edit-warring the indentation, you clearly don't understand threaded discussion indentation convention.) IHTS (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I attempted to add a parenthetical to clarify what primary source I was referring to, but my edit got edit-conflict due to your edit-warring over indentation. (After that, I decided it wasn't necessary to add anyway, since you only list one named psychologist source that you have consistently shown high determination to include, so that context makes it obvious. [So who did you say had the bad faith??]) Once again, you don't listen, how many times did I say I wouldn't be adding to your collection of quoted views and why?? Go away, I told you to stop addressing me, please read that again too. IHTS (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC) You're arguing about indentation? Get a grip! Your original error was when I corrected the indents for my, and Bruce's comments, not yours, and you reverted them with a patronising comment saying I should read up about indentation. If the nature of your reply got mixed up in your incompetence then I'm not at fault. See [[3]] - no sign of your comment there. Now, I do listen, but all I hear are you excusing yourself from doing anything constructive or helpful. Well, fine, you're under no obligation but don't expect much respect from people who do make an effort. You even try to blame me for not stating which source you object to! It's a psychologist, is it? Ponteretto I assume? What's your problem there? A qualified psychologist published his cautious, guarded opinion of Fischer based on second-hand material. That sounds relevant to me. Ewen (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC) You're wrong. You edited my indentation, making my reply to user Bruce leverett look like a reply no user MaxBrowne. (I corrected it, and you edit-warred it back.) You also edited user Bruce leverett's indentation, making his reply to the IP user look like it wasn't. (You shouldn't have done that, either. [I corrected it, too.]) IHTS (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Apologies for amending your indents, but you're three times as wrong. You changed my, and Bruce's, and Max's indentations incorrectly. [[4]] So that's three mistakes to you and one to me. And earlier (See [[5]]) your changes were also incorrect, and there was no comment from you involved at all. Apology accepted. Ewen (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC) No, I'm not wrong, you have been. (Haven't you been reading why your indentation changes were wrong? I think I've been telling you, more than once.) Please stop warring the indentation, you don't understand what you're doing. Don't force me to seek admin attention to stop you. (You've warred at least three times, all in error.) IHTS (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) We're not going to agree on the indentation and I'm not continuing such a trivial argument. Meanwhile, what was your point about (I presume) Ponteretto's article? Ewen (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I gather from your comment to your edit that it is Ponteretto that you are talking about. Thanks for belatedly confirming it. You recently objected that it was a primary source, which does not necessarily exclude its use and it's questionable whether it is primary anyway; It is an analysis of secondary sources. Earlier you criticised Ponteretto because he did not have "personal & extensive experience w/ Fischer" and speculated that he wrote the article as "a promotion for his book". So that's not quite the same point, is it? Ponteretto does state what evidence he considers and yes, he has a book to sell but his article stands alone as a summary of that work. Incidentally, please note that the Template:Hidden_archive_top should only be used by uninvolved editors. Additionally, you included my question about Ponteretto in your hidden section which was not part of the 'indentation' topic. Ewen (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I suggest, IHT, that you read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments before deleting another person's comments, as you did in your [last edit]. Ewen (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for possibly confusing placement and indentation of this comment. The thread has become more than one thread, and I hope that readers can figure out what I am replying to.

The Fischer page is full of sections that ought to be two- or three-sentence summaries. It should be written for casual readers, not for the kind of reader who would want to see, for example, the whole history of Paul Nemenyi's relationship with Fischer's family. I say this because my own use of Wikipedia has been as a casual reader. For examples of Wiki pages that one could emulate, look at the ones about Botvinnik, Lasker, and Euwe. They aren't perfect, but none of them is one-third as bloated as the Fischer page. I mean, lordy, 660+ footnotes.

By the way, Fischer is primarily famous for his chess. If it weren't for his chess, nobody would give a **** about his psychology or his family history or any of a dozen other topics. This is one reason why tangential topics should be limited to short summaries. It also means that, for example, there should be more of Fischer's games in the "Notable Games" section -- lots more.

You're supposed to "be bold", and so I myself should be stomping on all these bloated subsections of the Wiki. Maybe I will pluck up my courage some time (and maybe I will have a little spare time). In the mean time, since user Ewen is obviously a diligent editor and anti-vandal, I am trying to bring him around. I am trying to use honey rather than vinegar for this.

There are really two questions here: what was it like to deal with Fischer? and, what was going on in Fischer's head? Guys like Bisguier and Seirawan can give meaningful answers to the former question, while trained psychiatrists who have worked with Fischer can give meaningful answers to the latter question. But, in any case, as a casual reader, I don't come to this page looking for a detailed analysis of either question, just a short summary of the issues. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I do think something needs to be said about Fischer's "psychology" and possible mental illness. The main points are that Fischer was never evaluated in person by a mental health professional, but there is nevertheless reason to think that he may have been mentally ill. You may have a point about the article being "bloated". Although personally I've been fascinated by Fischer since I was 13 and want to see as much detail as possible, Wikipedia policy is that "[a] Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be popular to overload articles w/ details. (E.g., is the second paragraph at James_Brown#Memorial services needed to fulfill "summary of accepted knowledge" re James Brown?) My problem w/ the Fischer Psychology sec is the premise & format. (A hodge-podge collection of quotes, from armchair psychologists. Which belongs in WP:List form. But then what is the message to the reader, after it swells in size? Let's say it ends up w/ 50 or even 500 quotes suggesting Fischer was nuts, and an equal number suggesting the opposite. Is the message to the reader then: "Make up your own mind"?! And that's "encyclopedic"?!) I agree w/ a 2-3 sentence summary; enough has been published to warrant a stand-alone article Psychology of Bobby Fischer; it's hard to imagine a mid-size treatment ending up other than deficient and problematical. IHTS (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It would depend what you expect from an encyclopaedia. I don't think an encyclopaedia can give the last word on all topics and sometimes will have to summarise a controversial topic without reaching conclusion. A precedent would be the question "Who was the greatest chess player?". It might be hard to produce a mid-size treatment which is not deficient or problematical but I think we should try.

One problem to deal with is that Fischer's state of mind changed through the years and from time to time. That's normal for anyone, I guess. Many observers noted that after 1972 he was not the same, and his comments regarding 9/11 are a watershed in many people's opinion of him. This is where a lot of comments arise; various illustrations of his behaviour at one time or another, and personal stories of how he affected people who knew him, and their concerns or acceptance about his personality. It is a complicated topic which, I would contend, benefits from a wide range of sources. Certainly there is no widely accepted, simple, overarching assessment. Ewen (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a consensus that this section needs to be trimmed some more then? How about coalescing the several people who believed he was paranoid? MaxBrowne (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt these observations were binary ("paranoid, or not"). Not as a kid, and probably not toward the end of his life. Perhaps after he became 14-yr-old US Champion (when many wanted a piece of him), and world champion (when many wanted to profit from his fame). And when he was the sole threat to Soviet domination of world chess championship. ¶ Also the binary view is further destructive, since it ignores or pretends to ignore environment. (E.g., Fischer lost both mom & sister back-to-back. [No family support network.] He was subjected to intense media coverage at only 14 years and earlier. His mother was suspected communist subversive. He was under intense pressure to represent the free world [vs Soviet communism] during '72 match, not just the best in chess. Also he was at war w/ the US government [who once embraced him as USA representative champion, only to later define him as wanted criminal]. Media was constantly after him, including the Der Spiegel. He was afterall an introvert, needing privacy, per and since early teens. [Except for chess friends he found trustworthy.]) IHTS (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that his frame of mind was not constant. Benko and Winter saw him as somewhat paranoid as early as the early 1960s, though Barden and Winter add that this aspect of his personality worsened in later years. As for environment, it's a good point. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." could apply to Fischer; There may be reasons for his paranoia, but that's a different question. Was he paranoid? He certainly gave that impression many times. Why was he paranoid? That's much more complicated territory. Ewen (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

More off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please don't address me again. (No interest to discuss w/ you, how many times need you be told this??) We agree on nothing. Your section is a disgusting & ugly hack job of pure WP:SYNTH w/ agenda to stick a label on Fischer where there is no diagnosis. The section warrants deletion. (Including as you did, what some person imagines/fantacizes what Fischer "would have been" had Fischer not devoted himself to chess, is pretty revealing of your editing standards.) I said no mid-size treatment could adequately deal w/ psychology topic, you encouraged that it could be "tried", yet you're oh-so content to consider the section isn't capable of handling complexity of context/environment re Fischer's life. (How hypocritical! But it serves your agenda.) IHTS (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I was trying to address the points which you raised, and did not mean you to take my comments personally. There is no agenda to label Fischer but I have tried to record where people who knew him, or could assess him, commented on his personality. I included comments from those who found him normal, friendly and pleasant; which refutes your allegation that there is an agenda trying to label him. Ewen (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Bull. Your logic is creepy. (Stick Fischer in various ways w/ a label using WP:SYNTH, then claim you're balancing off by quoting a few nice commnts about him.) Can you stop addressing me?! Your section smells & s/b thrown away. IHTS (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC) You don't want to hear this from me of all people, but please understand this: Adopting a confrontational approach on a talk page discourages participation and negatively impacts the article itself. Hoping you'll surprise us and try something else. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I've told that editor numerous times to stop addressing me since long-ago concluding attempt by me to discuss w/ him is impossible. (But he even IDHTs *that* message, preferring to pester & badger.) Please don't initiate further off-topic thread posts which will have to be also hatted. Thx. p.s. How do you read consensus of the content discussion, Max? (I see consensus for 2-3 sentence summary, your view of a much-curtailed writeup, and only the section's author in support.) IHTS (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues; How Fischer behaved and why he behaved that way. The second question is complicated and unresolved but a mid-size treatment can adequately indicate that this is the case. There is no need to reach a conclusion - that really would be original research.Ewen (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The section has been renamed to simply "Personality". What other high-quality biographies have such a section? I still recommend its removal because it still contains psychiatric diagnoses.--130.65.109.100 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur w/ removal as first choice. The sec rename is further evidence of lack of focus re what is a SYNTH article sec attempting to strap on a label. Second choice is 2-3 sentence summary that no one seems willing/ready/up to composing. IHTS (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"a SYNTH article sec attempting to strap on a label" is nonsense. Synthesis would involve an attempt to say more than original sources do in isolation. I have been careful to directly quote sources and leave it at that. There is no agenda to label Fischer - various sources do label him, but there is clearly no consensus and this lack of consensus is clearly stated. Ewen (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop badgering me. You don't know what you're talking about re synth (just like you didn't know what you're talking about re indenting). IHTS (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You think it's "badgering" when I refute your ridiculous allegations? Well, boo-hoo. I suppose it's one way to concede the point; ignore that you're wrong and try to make it personal instead. Instead, why not (try to) explain how the section is SYNTH? It's very easy to make vague accusations (SYNTH, POV, agendas, etc, etc) like you do but none of them stand up to detailed scrutiny. Ewen (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It's badgering, I've told you numerous times I won't be discussing content w/ you and why, and to not address me. (What do you consistently do? Ignore & badger.) IHTS (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"What other high-quality biographies have such a section?" Friedrich Nietzsche, Syd Barrett, Brian Wilson, Winston Churchill, etc Ewen (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary

It's been 1/2 month since this discussion opened (proposal to delete the subject section), discussion seems to have dried up. Only the subject section author is in support of maintaining the section, two editors feel the section warrants deletion, one editor recommends a 2-3 sentence summary (which no one seems motivated at this time to write), one editor advised serious section reduction. A 2-3 sentence summary can be written at anytime someone is up for composing same, but waiting for it is not justification for retaining the article section as it stands. (There is consensus against the section as it stands.) On that basis I'll be deleting the article section shortly, unless someone can offer a reasonable policy basis not to. Ok, IHTS (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If, as you say, only I want to maintain the section and therefore "There is consensus against the section as it stands." then, with only two editors in favour of complete deletion, the same logic means that "There is consensus against deleting the section." But having made 98 edits on this topic on the Talk page and none on the section itself (where "A 2-3 sentence summary can be written at anytime [sic]"), you propose doing exactly what you wanted to all along, without consensus. Wouldn't a more consistent action be to leave the article alone and let others decide? Ewen (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the 2-3 sentence summary idea, but I also like consensus, particularly when experienced editors are involved. I don't see a solution to the problem if there isn't consensus. If we have to wait months for consensus, that would still be considerably better than no consensus. If we were all working in an office together, one of us would be senior and would make the final decision, but I don't see how that can happen in the Wikipedia environment. (BTW if we were all working in an office together, and saw each other face to face every day, the discourse would be more civil, for sure.) (Also BTW, I respectfully recommend that 130.65.xxx create himself/herself an identity and use it. That way I could hit the "contribs" button and see all his/her contributions.) Bruce leverett (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:101.184.155.231, who initiated the section, might want to be involved too. Ewen (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, WP follows its own practices, one is WP:BRD. The section addition was a WP:BOLD contribution. There has been objection raised on keeping the section, and discussion ensued for 1/2 month, and now appears dried up. There is clear consensus to not keep the section as it stands (2 favor deletion; 1 favors 2-3 sentence summary; 1 favors major reduction). I'm not aware of any WP policy that would support the idea that the section must stand until specific future of it is laid out, that could take forever or never (meanwhile, only 1 favors it as it stands). A 2-3 sentence summary can be worked on or worked out by either adding to the article per WP:BRD, or even worked on in collaboration on this Talk page, at any time. As far as the suggestion by 1 editor re major reduction centered on "paranoia", that would need discussion as well since it is a bit vague to begin with, and surely would meet some contention, so ditto re adding that content to the article per BRD, or developing it here collaboratively on Talk. I'll be deleting the section presently on the bases I've explained. That 1 editor is unhappy about that (the section author/proponent), is a surprise to whom? IHTS (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." says WP:BRD and I hear that "A 2-3 sentence summary can be written at anytime [sic]" - which sounds like a possible and immediate refinement. Deletion is not refinement, nor does it have consensus. (Mind you, IHTS thought that WP:BLP applied to this article despite Fischer dying in 2007, so I take his citations of WP guidelines with a pinch of NaCl.) Ewen (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

More off-topic, non-productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Classy edits, IHTS! Shame about the comments. [6] [7] Nothing about reverting my edit twice without even looking to see what I had done; what a massive cock up you made there, eh? No retraction of your allegation of bullying, either. And as for me renaming the section, well it wasn't actually me who renamed it, over a week ago, see? and nobody objected then (unless I missed an objection amongst your spew of unconstructive criticism). So, no I wasn't trying "to be misleading or confusing" or to disguise my "intent" (which you assume is something rather different to my actual aim, which is to air the various views about his personality, not to stick any one label on him; but then your track record of jumping to poor assumptions is getting longer all the time.) Ewen (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Cut the personal shit. I have no interest to penis-fight w/ you. p.s. You're Randyesque editor at best, who doesn't understand fundamental policy (indenting, SYNTH). You're a self-centered bully editor, yes. IHTS (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC) ...said the man who cited BLP for someone who died in 2007, who deleted and hatted my comments rather than answer them, who told me to "piss off", who reverted my edits twice before realising that maybe reading them first would be an idea... How many fundamental policies and guidelines have you ignored when it suited you, IHTS? Ewen (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that the original revert was done via an IP address, so there was no talk page to go to for the initial discussion as per WP:BRD.

More to the point, the discussion has been pretty uncreative. I think that the most useful thing I could do at this point would be to come up with some substantive suggestions for how this page should treat the topic of Fischer's eccentricity/controversiality/craziness. I have some ideas, but, give me time. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, no one will be rushing you. Not the easiest prose to write, good luck. p.s. The "D" in BRD refers to the article Talk page (not usually the user Talk page). Also, to view the contributions of an IP, just click on the IP name. Ok, IHTS (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page conduct

In regards to the recent back-and-forth, with Ihardlythinkso hatting intemperate comments they made, I want to make a point as an un-involved third party. I support hatting those comments as they were indeed "off topic" and I encourage Ihardlythinkso to either be more considerate of other editors or perhaps leave the project until they can discuss issues civilly. Not only is it counterproductive to argue over such minutiae, returning to cover your tracks seems to evince guilt. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hatting a discussion in which one is personally involved is inappropriate and is directly contrary to WP:TPG. This message is repeated on the template documenation. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Two points of information: I did try to tell IHTS that such hatting was inappropriate [8] because of his involvement and also because not all the hatted comments were on the same trivial topic. Later IHTS found it necessary to move another editor's comment from one section he had hatted so that he could agree with it. Ewen (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman, you don't know what you're talking about. And, this Talk page is for discussion related to article improvement, period, duh. IHTS (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"this Talk page is for discussion related to article improvement" - but, IHTS, you're not the final arbiter of what is, and what isn't relevant; so you shouldn't be unilaterally hatting other people's comments, "duh". Ewen (talk)

From WP:TPG: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Don't worry, I used caution. (And for the 1001th time, I won't be discussing content issues w/ you, I already explained why. So for the 1001th time, stop addressing me. About anything.) IHTS (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You "used caution" - in your opinion. Not enough caution it would seem - you hatted comments on more than one topic, and confused another editor so you had to retrieve her/his comments from your hatted section. The guidelines ask that editors should not hat if they are involved in a discussion. Obviously you think that you know better.

You may find it convenient if I don't "address" you but I think you'll find that we both have a right to reply. Ewen (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Many consider him the greatest chess player of all time"

What is with these American articles that always have to be "the greatest" or "the best" of all time? This is entirely unencyclopedic. First of all, "many" is vague. On the linked article it's clear that he had one top year but was surpassed in the long term. "Many" of those don't consider him the greatest, or even one of the (let's say 10) greatest either. Of course American sources like to take pride in this, but the only possible declaration here should be "one of". Otherwise it should be moved from the second sentence. This is just bragging. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Fischer, it is generally held to be true. Obviously its not everyone and a lot rate Kasparov higher. I see your point but if one player was going to have that in their lead section, Fischer isn't a bad shout.Jkmaskell (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is okay as it is now, on this issue. 'Many' is vague, but it does not mean 'most', which would be questionable. Checking Comparison of top chess players throughout history, Fischer is rated highest by computer analysis of moves and his 1-year peak is the highest rated by Chessmetrics. Magnus Carlsen reckons that Fischer at his best may have been better than Kasparov; and Fischer is rated as best by Miguel Quinteros, Viswanathan Anand and the readers of Chess Informant. I think that qualifies as 'many'. It depends what you mean by 'greatest' obviously but Fischer probably tops the list for reaching (but not sustaining) the highest strength of play, and also for his effect on the popularity of chess and the work ethic of players. If those are the attributes that matter most, then he was the greatest. Ewen (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not American bragging, it's a significant question in the chess community, so much so that there is a well-cited article called Greatest chess player of all time. If you go there you'll see that one writer has said that the majority of experts would say Kasparov, but Fischer is certainly in the mix. Kasparov and Fischer are probably the only candidates with a significant number of expert supporters, so it's fair to say "many" think Fischer was. Adpete (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Fischer page says, "Many consider him the greatest chess player of all time." The Kasparov page says, "... considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." The Karpov page says, "Karpov is considered by many to be one of the greatest players of all time." The Spassky page says, "He is known as one of the greatest players of all time." The Petrosian page says, "He was recognized as the hardest player to beat in the history of chess by the authors of a 2004 book." The Tal page says, "Widely regarded as a creative genius and the best attacking player of all time." The Alekhine page says, "He is widely considered one of the greatest chess players ever." The Capablanca page says, "Considered one of the greatest players of all time, ...." The Lasker page says, "In his prime Lasker was one of the most dominant champions, and he is still generally regarded as one of the strongest players ever." The Steinitz page waffles somewhat, but says, " However, an analysis based on one of these rating systems shows that he was one of the most dominant players in the history of the game." Mercifully, the pages for Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Botvinnik, and Euwe do not make such claims, at least not in their lead paragraphs. I did not look at the pages for Morphy, Anderssen, or the FIDE world champions (Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov).

When you do what I just did, which was to read a whole bunch of world chess champion wiki pages, indeed the claim that someone is the best of all time loses some of its excitement and charm. Here are a couple of additional things to consider. First, if a person was ever world champion, he is more or less by definition one of the best of all time. Second, there is no such thing as a "reliable source" for a claim that some player was the best of all time; that is, any book or article you might cite is no better than citing your brother-in-law. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, all but the Fischer and Kasparov pages say something along the lines of "considered one of the greatest" not "considered the greatest". I agree that it's redundant to say that about a world champion and some of those pages should be fixed. I do not agree that there no such thing as a reliable source of best of all time. Plenty of excellent players and commentators have their opinions, and those opinions are much more important than mine (or my brother-in-law's). Adpete (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's good that the statement Many consider him the greatest chess player of all time. includes a wikilink to the article Comparison of top chess players throughout history, in an attempt to provide an objective basis for this statement. Jeff Sonas's Chessmetrics data show that Fischer had the highest one-year peak rating, but over longer periods Kasparov was #1. Thus, it's debatable whether Fischer or Kasparov was the "greatest". Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history is cool. Even though "greatest of all time" and "top ten of all time" questions are inherently unresolvable, a lot of creative and enjoyable writing has gone into them, and that page is a handy summary.

On the other hand, as you may have guessed, I think all those variations on "X considered greatest Y" are unhelpful, unimaginative, and overall fairly useless. Is this what people are looking for in an encyclopedia? Of course not.

Here's a suggestion. Every page for a chess world champion should have a link to the Comparison page in its "See Also" section. (Some of them don't yet have such a section, of course.) Then, all the "X considered Y" sentences can be just removed. Yes, all of them, not just all except Fischer and Kasparov, all of them.

Well, maybe some of them that are trying to be informative would be kept, but without the superlatives. For example, the description of Tal might be modified to, "... widely regarded as a creative genius and a dangerous attacking player." I think that if Wiki editors were challenged to come up with a one-sentence description of the reputation of a current or former world champion, but without superlatives, and without stuff that needed citations, we could do it in every case, and it would be a noticeable improvement over what is out there now.

I would love to boldly start this little project, if people didn't think it was totally crazy. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. A lead paragraph - which should serve as a brief one paragraph description - of Kasparov (and perhaps Fischer) should mention this. Just as it does (or should) for other sportspeople generally regarded as best in their field. To choose two rather clear-cut examples, it's hard to imagine a lead of Don Bradman or Wayne Gretsky not mentioning it. Adpete (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

After rummaging around Wiki pages for some famous hockey and baseball players, I took perverse comfort in realizing that other sports have this problem about as bad as chess. I will back off from trying to solve it; thanks for your cautionary words. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)