Jump to content

Talk:Bobby Fischer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 101.184.155.231 (talk) at 07:55, 15 February 2016 (→Mental illness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relevant reading: http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/a-psychological-autopsy-of-bobby-fischer-25959 Ewen (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just because you don't see the distinction, doesn't mean that it does not exist. Ewen (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Fischer&oldid=705062606"