Talk:Bobby Fischer

Icelandic American?

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 signatory states that "Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals", even if you argue the USA isn't a signatory 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 inacurate 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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.124.239 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but here goes...

The issue is with the relationship between nationality and profession. Yes, Fischer was Icelandic, but he was never an "Icelandic chessplayer", nor was he an "Icelandic-American chessplayer", nor an "American-Icelandic chessplayer", because in all cases he never played serious chess when he was a citizen of Iceland. However, it is correct to say he was an "American chesplayer" since that is exactly what he was when he was active. For those who argue that the Icelandic nationality must be included, I direct them to the Wikipedia feature article on Charlie Chaplin which refers to him as a British comedian even though he had Swiss citizenship for many years. We could leave off his nationality, but I haven't heard a credible argument to do so. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An "Icelandic American" is an American of Icelandic ethnic or/and national origin. (Helgi Thomasson of the San Francisco Ballet is an Icelandic American; he was born and raised in Iceland and is now an American.) That label cannot logically apply to Bobby Fischer.

Rather, he was an Icelander of American national origin and Ashkenazi ethnic origin. (Both his mother and his biological father were Ashkenazi Jews; thus, Fischer was ethnically an Ashkenazi Jew - or if Gerhardt Fischer really was his father, then he was half-German and half-Ashkenzi; but he was born a Jew in any case under Jewish religious law and Israeli secular law.)

Thus, Fischer is correctly described by any of the following four labels:

1. Ashkenazi American - an American of Ashkenazi ethnic origin

2. Ashkenazi Icelander - an Icelander of Ashkenazi ethnic origin

3. Ashkenazi American Icelander - an Icelander of Ashkenazi ethnic origin and American national origin

4. American Icelander - an Icelander of American national origin

Bobby Fischer died a dual citizen of Iceland and the United States. Although he stated, in 2004, that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship, he never formally did so.

As a Jew by birth, he also qualified for Israeli citizenship under the 1949 Law of Return. But he never claimed Israeli citizenship; and the fact he so clearly and obviously renounced his Jewish heritage and identity (if he ever psychologically accepted either of them) may have nullified any claim to Israeli citizenship that he might have attempted to make.

71.198.146.98 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, do NOT edit content on talk pages. I reverted the heading, but left your content as is. As to your comments, it appears to me you are ignoring the comments of others and just giving us your views. You suggestions are wrong, for reasons already stated. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, please put all new comments at the end. BashBrannigan (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The problem is also that this would be considered as "original research" unless you provide a published source which describes Fischer this way. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Telephone/cable TV installer???

I thought I read years ago that during his years of obscurity in California that he worked as a telephone/cable TV installer, but there is nothing here about that. Did he? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Fischer ever had a real job. Wikipedia doesn't include "urban legends". BashBrannigan (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny! ("Bobby the Cableguy". I'm sure, with friends around the world, he'd work for some dumb company to pull down a bluecollar paycheck each week. Maybe for the medical/dental insurance!? Funny!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if there's ever a movie done about Fischer (why isn't there?) it will probably include the cable guy part, even if untrue. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Column problem

Can someone fix the problem in the "References" section? The last several references have their own column way over to the right, expanding the whole article to an unreasonable wideness--I don't know how to remedy this. Thanks! Blake Burba (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

looks ok on an iPad with safari. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm using a MacBook Pro w/ Safari, and there's definitely an issue. Blake Burba (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

naming book titles in Fischer's library doesn't belong in article

Am continuing to review the discussion and RfC in Talk Archive 1, and so far I agree with all editors expressing view that stating Fischer's library belongings (without a sourced, qualifying comment) doesn't belong in the article. Because it is laden with undeniable innuendo. (194x... was right, it doesn't belong.)

He was also right about disincluding unsubstantiated handwritten notes. And comment over disappointment Fischer can't be branded insane, since no medical diagnosis. Because these ideas don't fit comfortably with other editors' predisposed, personally-held POVs. So persecute 194x... !? (Fair? It seems in a way to be a small, twisted parallel to persecution Bobby faced throughout his life. Which is twisted, because perhaps this is what 194x... was after. The "nail-me-on-a-cross-like-Jesus syndrome". A shame.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with the position I took in that discussion, I don't agree. What sourced qualifying comment do you want? The paragraph I see in the article is referenced. If you can find another reference that covers Fischer's personal library and unpublished writing the article might be improved by adding it. But 194x was a troll who received a one year ban from arbcom, and we are much better to be rid of him. Quale (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if 194x... is Osama Bin Laden's clone, or cannibalizes children, it has no bearing re his arguments about exclusion of Fischer's library possessions, unsubstantiated notes, or statements about Fischer being insane, from the article. Continuing to attack him is purely ad hominem and clouds any evaluation re inclusion vs exclusion. The fact arguments can't be evaluated on their own without continued attacks on 194x... is unnecessary and unhelpful and suggests reason might be taking a back seat to some degree in discussion. No more ad hominem, please; I feared I couldn't put an opinion here without drawing more ad hominem arguments, and sure enough your response justified my fear. Even after I asked to exclude it. (I do not want to write any more about ad hominem, but will continue to object if others inject it in discussion.)

Let's get specific on the reference. What exact reference are you referring to, and, what do you think it is reporting? (We might be discussing two different things. Again.) Just because some fact has a source, doesn't mean it is appropriate for inclusion. Are you using sourcability as justification for inclusion? (Because that, obviously, would be a logical fallacy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, what kind of reference I "want" to justify inclusion, that would be a qualifying comment which removes the naked innuendo when just the "fact" is included in isolation. I agree with this idea, copied from the Archive 1 discussion:

I agree that there is a consensus to include the material, but would also note that several users (me included) are concerned that BF's anti-semitism is not conflated with Nazism or white supremacism. It appears that there is an RS that clarfies this, and I think the wording should be such that the reader is not left with a false impression. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

anti-Israel statements

I don't see the point of specifically mentioning "anti-Israeli" statements (in the title for that matter). I understand "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic". It is a noteworthy biographical fact that someone has denounced his own country/ethnicity, etc. But Israel? How is that important? If Fischer had made antagonistic remarks about Denmark, would you have specified "anti-Danish" statements? By the way, I'm sure Fisher made slanderous statements about other countries. By the same logic, this should be stated too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.58.153 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. With Fischer there was a special coupling of America and Israel. He basically saw them as one and the same. (And BTW, in the article it says "anti-Israel" not "anti-Israeli", which are different things. Fischer hated policies, not individuals.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading article change/sentence: "Despite the outstanding arrest warrant in the U.S., Fischer said that he believed the passport was still valid."

That sentence makes it look like once someone knows there is an outstanding arrest warrent against one, one should always believe his passport to be invalid. (And it's not even proven he knew about the outstanding arrest warrent.)

That's just misleading, and there were better versions before.

Fact is the following which was publisied by Fischer himself (and if I remeber were stated in this article in previous versions with original Fischer audio-files and copies of papers as source - the dead link now in the sources section) :

1. ) Some year(s) before he went to the USA embassy in Switzerland and got more pages inserted into his passport. Despite a possible arrest warrant.

2. ) The alleged copy of the letter informing Fischer of the passport revocation shown to him by the USA embassy while he was in detention in Japan, that the USA said was sent to Fischer on the Phillipines had either no date or the wrong address (can't remember which one it was), and the letter was said to be sent at a date while he was in Japan.

The sentence is nothing less than putting the blame on him, while actually the 'USA just not dared to try to seize him while he was in Switzerland.' (Fischer)

I'm not going to change anything, I know it's Wikipedia. (It was already enough to read the "discussion" about him being an "American chessplayer", which is just misleading for all readers who look for the real - and this means legally binding in the real world - pieces of information.)

At least I have learned that - according to some people here - I'm not a chess player, as I never played professional chess. Darn!