Talk:Bobby Fischer

Icelandic American?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to Bobby Fischer as an American-Icelander? Naturalized American citizens hyphenate with their native origin first, followed by their adopted country. I am not arguing for any kind of hyphenation, but since Bobby Fischer technically emigrated from the United States to Iceland, wouldn't it be more accurate to reverse the order of "Icelandic American" to something like "American-Icelander," or whatever adjective/noun Icelandic nationals use?

I had wrote previously that he was an Icelandic American instead of American and an user undid it on the grounds that he didn't have an Icelandic origin. While is it common to refer to an American citizen of Icelandic ancestry as an "Icelandic American" it is also accurate to refer to a person who holds both American and Icelandic citizenship as an "Icelandic American" with no other term being more appropriate to refer to such a person's nationality other than that one.

• • • • This is extremely misleading. Fischer was an American. He was born in the United States, grew up there, and represented the US in numerous Olympiads and other tournaments. Late in life, with the likely onset of mental illness, he left the US and spent the rest of his life abroad, with stops in Hungary, The Philippines and Japan. When no other country would accept him, he turned to Iceland, where he lived for his final few years. Nonetheless, he died a US citizen.

The article should describe him as American, but should accurately note his final years in Iceland.

````Fielding

Well your edits simply aren't accurate. You changed the article to say that Fischer "was an Icelandic American chess player". He wasn't. He never played competitive chess while holding Icelandic citizenship as he retired after his second match with Spassky over a decade earlier. There are also undo weight problems and the like but we've been over that many times here before. It isn't unusual for someone to stumble across this again for the first time not having been through the earlier discussions. Check the Talk archives for more. Quale (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I, the person who changed the post to "Icelandic American" instead of American, beg to differ from all of you. The european convention on nationality to which Iceland is signatary states that "Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals", even if you argue the USA isn't a signatary to that Iceland is. Even if it wasn't, the notion that every nation says by its own rules who are its citizens and nationals is widely accepted saying he wasn't an Icelandic is to deny somehow Iceland's sovereign power of giving/taking its nationality to its people. Besides all that, all the arguments I read that were against listing him as an Icelandic American were due to the fact that he represented the USA on tournaments his whole life but Chess Tournaments, I must tell you, have no legal saying on anyone's nationality. The other argument against listing him as an Icelandic American was the fact that he became an Icelandic shortly before his death, also unnaccepted because how long one has held one's nationality doesn't alter one's nationality in any legal or factual way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence you wrote says "Icelandic American chess player" which is simply not true as explained to you before. Quale (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To support what Quale is trying to explain to you. The issue is not citizenship. Yes, he may be considered Icelandic and you'll notice in the category box at the bottom of the article lists Fischer as "Icelandic people". But you are missing the point. You simply cannot say he was an "Icelandic American chessplayer". Again, he was not an active chessplayer when he was a citizen of Iceland, so "Icelandic American chessplayer" is misleading and just plain wrong. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So in the end you all agree he was an Icelandic American person just not an Icelandic American chessplayer, however, one cannot change the fact that he was both, he was an Icelandic American chessplayer who acquired a world fame when he was solely American still in the end he was both an Icelandic American and a chessplayer (even if a retired one), to me this article is innacurate and the attempts to keep it this way are biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and btw, after a few lines of arguments pro changing that sentence to "Icelandic American" the best thing Quale came up with to refute it all was "simply not true", is that how disputes are solved in Wikipedia? I thought the ultimate goal was accuracy, oh well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One last remark I have that should please both sides (or so I think) is to edit that to say "an Icelandic American chessplayer (originally American, naturalized Icelandic in his late years)" or "an Icelandic American chessplayer (originally American, later naturalized Icelandic)" or anything similar to that. 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Your suggestion is too convoluted. And I'm sorry, but your arguments aren't persuasive. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who is sorry because Bob Fischer being Icelandic American isn't some sort of argument or discussion it's simply a fact, but whatever keep this innacuratepedia the way it is. I just ask you to keep this discussion here where it is so people who are really interested in the truth and the facts know that Bob Fischer was an Icelandic American even though those extremely biased torwards an American point of view for some reason choose to keep the article innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

nonsense. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the non-sense for refusing to call an Icelandic man Icelandic...whatever... 177.17.38.41 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Quale and BB - the article clearly explains the convoluted issue of Fischer's citizenship in his last years. To head the article by stating his dubious dual nationality gives undue weight to this coda to his biography when his fame comes from his activities when he was undoubtedly a citizen of the USA. I suppose we should list Karl Marx as English or Pablo Picasso as French. I don't know why it would be American bias to claim Fischer as American anyway - apart from his chess there's not much about the man that I'd want to be associated with. Ewen (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To call Fischer "Icelandic American," one might as well describe Oscar Wilde as a French Englishman or Napoleon as an African Frenchman, because they all managed to die somewhere else. WHPratt (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon didn't die in France, he did die however as a French citizen. Fischer did not only go to Iceland in his late years but also was a full Icelandic citizen (the government of Iceland granted him full citizenship), I'm not saying here he wasn't American, I'm just saying he was ALSO an Icelandic, he was an Icelandic American, that's a fact. 177.17.24.140 (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fact recorded in the article, and given as much emphasis as it deserves - as a late addition to a life that was almost entirely lived as an American citizen. Ewen (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To explain this again, Fischer's citizenship is NOT the issue. The Wikipedia article for Charlie Chaplin describes him as an "English comic actor". The fact that he spent a good portion of his life in Switzerland and was a Swiss citizen is not relevant. What is relevant for the lead of a Wikipedia article is that he was a famous as a comic and was also famous as English. Likewise, Fischer was famous a chessplayer and was just as famous as an American at the time. Calling Fischer an "Icelandic American chessplayer" is completely wrong since Fischer had not played a single competitive game in Iceland. As Ewen says above, his Icelandic citizenship is given the proper emphasis.. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that should read Fischer had not played a single competitive game for Iceland because of course he played the 1972 World Championship match in Reykjavik. But for sure, he never represented Iceland over the board. Ewen (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I meant "for Iceland". BashBrannigan (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

new addition

A new addition: "After ending his competitive career, he proposed a new variant of chess, and a revolutionary new form of chess clock." One, FRC is similar to a lot of earlier variants. Two, the "revolutionary" clock is very similar to Bronstein delay - the difference is that one waits the increment before starting to count down, the other adds the increment. So I don't think it is revolutionary. Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 23:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he a jew? Can we get this straight

Becomes someones on wikipedia assumes he isn't, there's a reliable source in the article which claim his mother to be polish-jewish, so by the Halakha law, he's a jew, take it or leave it. Userpd (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ruled by the Halakha law. Take it or leave it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of a Wikipedia editor who has claimed that RJF was an observant Jew, or even that he considered himself Jewish. ("Jew" is polyvalent: it is more than a religious identity.) RJF was of Jewish descent. Had he not been a virulent antisemite, this fact might have been otherwise unremarkable. Billbrock (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. See earlier discussion

He is a Jew. I don't understand why this is an issue. His mom is a Jew so he is a Jew. Only the Goyim have "half" English, "half" Italian which in the end are meaningless terms and only means that they are neither...lol. To a Jew to say that Bobby Fischer isn't a Jew is just as ridiculous to a Jew as saying someone is "half" of something. You are one or the other. Bobby Fischer can claim not to be one all he wants, but Jews claim him and it is the group that makes the Jew, not the individual. It is like that with every ethnic group. His "beliefs" about himself are inconsequential. If you are not Jewish ask your Jewish friends if you have any to explain this to you. This is quite funny to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.5.113 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...and this is an idiotic thing. If I consider myself not a Jew - it means that I'm not a Jew. Who the hell are the "community" to tell me who I am. There is a worldwide community of a billion+ people who believe in Allah. Another billion+ community believes in Jesus. All of them are wrong - god doesn't exist. So much for communities.

Judaism is a religion, not ethnicity or "race" --KpoT (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this debate can't seem to go away. But I believe the article properly deals with it. It only refers to Fischer as being of "jewish descent" and not that he was jewish. The relevancy of his ancestry is comparable to the fact that he was an American who turned against America. Ultimately Wikipedia must reflect the consensus of reliable sources. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"U.S." -or- "US"

There are lots of occurrences of "U.S." in the article, and lots of occurrences of "US". Can we have it one way or another for *consistency*? Which way? (Or will someone say it s/b "both ways" in the article - "depending"?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The Manual of Style says that:

In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States, although The Chicago Manual of Style now deprecates the use of the periods (16th ed.); US (without periods) is generally accepted in most other national forms of English.

The article seems to be in American English, and there are links to articles such as the U.S. Chess Championship, so I'll edit the 'US' references to the consistent 'U.S.'.

Ewen (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sometimes-outrageous" radio interviews

Michael C. Price reverted my edit, saying "if that is what the sources say", and, "(the radio interviews) *were* outrageous". It seems to me, his personal opinion, asserted as fact, is both irrelevant, and inconsistent w/ WP:POV. (I don't see any references for the "sometimes-outrageous", and, what Michael thinks the world should know as "fact" because it is how *he* feels, seems the height of perposterousness.

My dictionary defines "outrageous" as "grossly offensive". I, for one, was not "grossly offended" by Fischer's radio interviews. (Why not? Because, I did not take them "seriously". I took them as "theater". Fischer often made comments intended to rile people's emotions. It has/had nothing to do w/ chess.)

If Michael feels it is a fact that the radio interviews were outrageous, and Wikipedia as encyclopedia, needs to say so, then I'd ask him why he, and why does the encyclopedia, decide to take such remarks seriously.

Heavy-weight boxers (Ali etc.) said lots of stuff in pre-match interviews, which could be considered outrageous and inflamatory. Because it is theater. Fischer was a chessplayer, he dedicated his life to chess study. Why would anyone take him seriously on political matters/views, when he is only pulling their chains?

"Sometimes-outrageous" is a POV. Michael's agreement w/ the POV is irrelevant. In my view his decision to take Fischer seriously is his mistake.

Removal of 1972 Fischer vs Spassky photo by J Milburn

"No rationale" for including this photo? Gosh. How about, the photo captures a time and event which represents the pinnacle of Fischer's career and life? And summarizes his accomplisment of his life ambition to be the best. "No rationale" for being in Fischer's biography? Huh?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which phot you refer to. Regards, SunCreator <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The point though, is does the image convey something that words alone cannot? as mentioned in criteria 1 of Wikipedia's Non-free content policy, we must ask ourselves, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" It's at least arguable that in this case it could.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is something wrong with the policy. It doesn't make sense. For example, what photos *couldn't* be adequately explained in words instead of a pic? I would say very few, if that is the standard. (In other words, 99 percent of the photos in WP articles, could be eliminated. Words instead! Why not?) Here is another problem with the logic of the argument: Why even have the pic in the bio-box? Can't that be "adequately conveyed by text" too? So, what is the justfication for the pic of Fischer at top of article? Are all bios allowed one exception to the policy rule? I don't know what the answer to that question will be, but, I'd like to point out that Fischer is 17 years old in that bio-box photo. (In the photo under consideration, he is 29 years old - nearly double his age compared to the bio-box photo. Are there any other photos representing Fischer at his World Champ status, age 29, in the article? No.) I think there are other problems with the argument too, regarding text being able to "adequately" supplant a photo, and especially in this case. But that is a different topic. Instead, I'm wondering about the illogic of extreme application of a poorly thought-out policy to begin with, as justification for deletion in specific cases, including this case. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The bio-box picture is a free image so it doesn't need a justification. I'm also at a loss to understand why a picture of him at 29 would be better than one of him at 17. He was aleady a Grandmaster and extremely well-konwn at Leipzig 1960; and it's an excellent quality image.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just because he was 29. That match was the peak of his career. Most people probably remember him that way. Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 17:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That is one of several chess photos that are under attack. User J Milburn proposed that it be deleted because no article uses the photo. The reason that no article uses the photo is that it was removed by .... J Milburn! A clear conflict of interest. Other chess photos that are under attack are:

• File:FilipAndTal.jpg
• File:Filip02.jpg
• File:Reshevsky1960.jpg
• File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg
• File:ReginaFischer.jpg
• File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg
• File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.jpg
• File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.jpg
• File:SpasskyFisher1972b.jpg
• File:KaspyKarpov.jpg
• File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg

I uploaded all of these except for Filip02.jpg, and I think that one will survive the attack. Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, please take a look at the non-free content criteria, and then take a look at the image page. There is no rationale for the inclusion of this image in this article, and so it cannot be used. That is not in any way controversial, it's simply the case. That is why it was removed, and your reinsertion was clearly contrary to policy. As for the question of whether there could be a valid rationale- yes, I've no doubt that, as you say, "the photo captures a time and event which represents the pinnacle of Fischer's career and life" and "summarizes his accomplisment of his life ambition to be the best." However, that is not a valid reason for a non-free image. Sure, the event is important, so talk about it, but non-free content is used only when its presence significantly increases reader understanding of the topic (among other criteria). Clearly, this event, though important, is completely understandable without the use of an image, and so this one is not required. Bubba, none of that has anything to do with this image, especially your attacks upon me. If you're going to discuss me, notify me, and if you're concerned about my conduct, you know where my talk page is. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn, I am not a WP specialist on non-free image-use policy, so I cannot weigh in or comment. (I'll leave it to others, who specialize in that understanding.) But, in meantime, I *do* object to your statement: "Clearly, this event, though important, is completely understandable without the use of an image". What do you really know about history of World Chess Championships? The fact is, this was probably the last *civil* World Chess competition for decades to follow - both players were respectful of one another, polite even, in every respect. (*That*, despite there were disputes conducted re forfeiture, TV cameras, electronic devices being placed in lamps or chairs, etc. And as opposed to later contests, where mind-control experts were placed in spectator audience by Korchnoi to unnerve his opponent, or contestents staring at one another to accomplish the same effect, or general hostility toward one another, refusing to shake hands, etc., etc. Proof is that Fischer and Spassky remained respectful & friendly until the end; whereas several other World contenders remain arch enemies.) This photo records and depicts the actual tone of civility and professionalism of this event and of both players, more than words can. And especially in the context of Fishcer as a whole, with Fischer's later anti-USA and anti-Jewish slanders, leading many to conclude he was a madman of sorts, this photo is necessary and important. The photo records and depicts Fischer at his highest professional achievement, and his professional best, a standard of conduct which ended up being a lost model of perfection really. And you want to eliminate this photo, because "words are adequate". Maybe to your particular narrow or legalistic POV, but, there is a wider context here, which you are seemingly unknowing of, and entirely dismissing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding, a "rationale" is the same thing as a "purpose". The images do have a stated "purpose", in the "fair use" section. Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The NFCC page states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I can't see how a photo of the two men sitting at a chessboard does much for my understanding. Which game is it? Who's winning? As for this being a *civil* competition, you have to be joking! Fischer was late for the start of the match, late for every game, failed to show up for game 2 and late for the closing ceremony. Ewen (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ewen, no I'm not joking. The things you mentioned were habits or characteristics of Fischer, in previous games and in previous matches. None of those things were aimed at tormenting or harrassing his opponent, and proof of that, none of those things were taken personally by Spassky. In later matches, other WC competitors took deliberate action designed specifically to unsettle their opponents, *that* is uncivil. The important element of intent. You missed the point. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Spassky was extraordinarily tolerant of Fischer. Just because he let things go to keep the match going doesn't mean that Fischer's actions weren't uncivil. OK, Karpov and Korchnoi were pretty vicious but Kasparov was fairly decent in all his many matches. Anyway, it's pretty tenuous to claim that the Fischer-Spassky match was civil, and if you want to support that statement I suggest you quote the opinions of those involved. A photo of the two men sitting at the board is totally irrelevant to this issue. Ewen (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is abou Fischer in general, not just that match: "Nobody had a single complaint to make about Fischer's behavior once he finally sat down at the board. He was the perfect gentleman. There was no gamesmanship. He never deliberately tried to distract or disturb his opponent. He followed the rules strictly..." Bobby Fischer Goes to War, by Edmonds and Eidinow, pp. 30-31. Now in recent years we have had players in the world championship refuse to shake hands and even announce beforehand that they would not speak to their opponent. Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 23:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? The photo illustrates Bobby shaking hands or talking politely to Boris does it? No it doesn't. I'd also emphasise the "...once he finally sat down..." part of the quote. Your book also describes how Fischer was late for every game - sometimes up to half an hour. Civil? Ewen (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a little petty. Fischer had certain habits. (I read for instance, he slept as late as possible, dressed quickly, but caused him to arrive at the board after clocks were started. Perhaps just perhaps, he viewed pre-game thoughts as counter-productive, and avoided them completely that way. Maybe he discovered he could get the best performance out of himself, if he layed off doing a number on his own head with pointless pre-game angst. If that is true, then he was simply managing his own known strengths and weaknesses to maximize his performance, and his top performance was his highest priority. Once the clock is started, it's his time to manage the way he sees best. I believe Fischer was just getting the best out of himself. You rather to deny him that, in favor of your "be on time" etiquette book? This is getting petty. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fischer is business-professional in that shot, unlike the beard he grew wild and teeth emptied of fillings people like to use to pin madness on him later. There *is* a shot from the match w/ players shaking hands and looking down at the board position, both players wearing smiles. (Wish we had that photo instead!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is, we don't "have" any photo of the match. We don't own those photos and they're not free for us to copy. Ewen (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. It seems sad to have none of these great pics in the article. I don't care to become a "WP attorney". Aren't any similar photos in public domain (does anyone know?). Is anyone asking the owers of the photos, permission to release for WP use? Have these Qs been topics in the WP Chess Project?

Ewen, one last comment from me re our debate re civility. I can't help respond to your "Kasparov was fairly decent in all his many matches" assertion. (You mean like, when he stomped out at the end of the Deep Blue match, calling IBM "cheaters" is his followup press conference? I think he also blamed his coaches for his loss [their openings recommendations]. What a baby, and embarrassment for chess! And what did Fischer say about *his* losses? "I take my medicine." No compare.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Finding some public domain images, or successfully requesting that these ones are released, would of course be the best solution. If you are working to get content released, there are a few things you have to remember (what "free" means according to the Wikimedia Foundation, where to send the emails, etc) and so taking a look at this page may be useful. It's something I've done a bit of, you know where I am if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn, thx. (Don't have time for it personally, maybe someone does. Thx for your guidance! p.s. Wasn't edit-warring w/ you; just ignorant re WP def "rationale". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A "rationale" is something specifically required by the non-free content criteria. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "rationale" and a "purpose"? The photos all have a stated purpose? Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A "rationale" is a specific explanation on the image page of why a non-free image meets the NFCC in each in a specific usage, and a rationale for every usage is required by the NFCC. Again, take a look at the guideline. The image in question has a rationale for its previous use on World Chess Championship 1972, but not for its use in this article. That is the reason I have removed it twice. However, as has been explained above, rationale or no rationale, it almost certainly does not meet NFCC#8, as the image simply does not add that much to the article, and the article can survive without it. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias such as Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess by Harry Golombek use many similar photos, so they obviously think it helps. So can you write up what would be an acceptable rationale? Bubba73 <sup>You talkin' to me?</sup> 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and 'paper encyclopedias' are paid for and pay for their content. You're asking when it's OK to use a non-free copyrighted image in an article, without permission from the copyright holder? The NFCC policy makes it pretty clear. The image is interesting and decorative but it's not an essential part of the article we're writing. Ewen (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fischer Image

Is this photo of use to the article? I noticed it has suitable cc usage. Regards, SunCreator <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that user is uploading their own work. I question the legitimacy of that license. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)