Talk:List of Jewish chess players

AfD

Note: and article with this name was deleted as a result of this AfD in 2005. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

Publishers

Google books - are they really the publishers when they provide an online image of a physical book? Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

No, they're not. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy G4

This is a split of another article, not a re-insertion of the material previously deleted here, although there may be commonality. AfD would be sensible if deletion is proposed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

NPOV Introduction

The introduction is currently a list of books including one "book" twice under different titles. There is already a book list at the bottom of the page. Adjectives should be minimised such as extensively. The introduction would be better to cover the rationale for players being in the list. Perhaps something like this would be a better balance:

There have been many great Jewish chess players in History including the first chess world champion Wilhelm Steinitz #ref. Jewish chess players have also been influential in the development of chess theory such as Hypermodernism#ref. The Museum of Jewish Heritage is developing a special gallery dedicated to Jews in sport and chess including Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Tal, and Judith Polgar.#ref

According to Harold U. Ribalow in his book "The Great Jewish Chess Champions" a Jewish chess player is "???" #ref. The players listed below meet the following criteria... Tetron76 (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If a book appears twice, feel free to point out which it is (if it is in fact the same book). It should if that is the case be deleted in one instance. I disagree as to whether the intro is appropriate -- it certainly is. I recognize that Tetron had an animus against reflecting the cat of Jews, as reflected here. As reflected at that discussion, Tetron's anti-list-of-Jewish players animus is not a consensus view, and there is no need for it to be reflected here with censorship. Also, no reason to reflect the anti-Jewish-list/cat animus by tag-bombing the article w/a non-consensus view as the basis. Finally, there is nothing whatsoever that supports the POV claim above.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

it is not censorship, I did not tag the entire list as POV. I think there should be an introduction and I suggested a manner that would allow this to happen. Listing all the books you can find on the subject doesn't make an introduction. You need to indicate the information from the books or otherwise they are references. As discussed in the CfD History, Jews and Chess and Chess in Jewish History and Hebrew Literature are both the same dissertation. It should also be noted that Oxford Academia Publishers is clearly a dubious publisher. It is a mistake to blend RS with questionable sources. My objection to the use of extensively because there is not actually the evidence to support this as being extensive by scientific standards where you commonly get works with citations in the 100s and 1000s.Tetron76 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an introduction. There is no POV issue. The para you refer to is w/regard to the coverage of the topic of the list in various books, per se. It is on-point and relevant. It is notable, to me at least, that you jumped from seeking to delete the cat, where your effort and thinking was demonstrably non-consensus, to tag-bombing the article. I can think of one other editor tries that approach, but it is not an appropriate one. When you say the two books are the same dissertation, are you saying they are the same book, with the same ISBN? Also, the book that you attack is certainly a source for the fact that it exists and that it covers what the intro says it covers -- there is absolutely no RS issue there (not that I agree with your "dubious" comment in any event).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will leave this alone but you are wrong on both counts. I only tagged this page following on from the latest edit. I don't know if you have read all of the books that you are placing in the list but you get an ISBN for self published books too. But when you repeatedly include bad sources it generates the impression that other sources are of the same ilk. Your reasonable sources such as The Great Jewish chess Players (found complete version) and can I play chess on the Sabbha (seen only first 54 pages doesn't start on chess until page 54) are diminished by including bad sources with them. The inclusion of a book on stamps also makes it look like the information is not there to support your case. Yet there is probably enough information to warrant this list but it has to be presented in an encyclopedic manner. The easiest way to do this is to show in the introduction how inclusion is being decided, or by stating what the sources think is meant by the term Jewish chess player.Tetron76 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Bobby Fischer would have liked to be included.

In the end this is a question of faith.

And if everyone should be free to believe in what one suits best, one is surely free to clearly state that he doesn't want to be included. Fischer's stance about being called Jewish is very well known. - Is the list maintainer the one to tell a dead person that person's faith?