User talk:Bruce leverett

Hi Bruce

Thanks for reviewing the change for the edit of Judit Polgár#Kasparov_touch-move_controversy. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your point of view. I state my arguments therefor below.

The main changes to the article are the changes to the following parts: "Allegedly, Kasparov played 36...Nc5", "so if Kasparov did remove his hand" and "Kasparov's fingers were free of the knight for about 1/25 of a second".

I removed "Allegedly" and "if Kasparov did remove his hand" as there is with information today no doubt, that the knight was released. I corrected the time of the release as well; this follows at the end. I added two new sources for the statement that the knight was released and one new source for the account of release duration. All three sources are available online.

The first new source is the newspaper "The Los Angeles Times", which I consider as reliable.^[1]

The second new source is the spanish newspaper ABC, which I find appropriate, the tournament was in Spain.^[2]

The third new source is the newspaper "The Baltimore Sun", again I have no reason to doubt reliability.^[3]. By the way, I don't find it necessary to mention how long the knight was released, but as it was already there, I just wanted to correct this part.

I do not base my understanding of these sources alone. The sources itself should be enough. However I will add additional facts which underly my change.

A further source: Karpov makes himself this statement, indirectly but clearly,^[4] and additionally the TV producer is mentioned having made this statement.^[5]

Simple Wikipedia: The article about Polgar in Simple Wikipedia states «She was also unaware at the time that the re-move was caught on tape by a television crew." There is no source for this statement. I don't need to base my statement on this article. But still the statement is there, this means something. And anyway it is just most trivially true.

YouTube video about the issue: In "World Champion Takes back a Move against 17 Year old Judit" on YouTube from Antonio Radić, a serious YouTuber, says at 0m 32s: "And I remember seeing this footage of this particular event, and I remember seing the moment when Kasparov drops the piece and Judit was very displeased with what Kasparov has done but I searched the entire internet but I cannot find any evidence of this footage, other than, you know, people on forums asking what happened to the footage."

The video footage regarding the move is on YouTube: "Linares Chess Tournament,part 2." on YouTube (with Russian commentaries), "¿Trampa en ajedrez? Judit Polgár vs. Garri Kaspárov, Linares 1994, CHESS" on YouTube (move only) and "Strong Players Made Terrible Touch-Move Mistakes - Part 3" on YouTube (with some comments).

The newly released documentary "Judit contra todos" contains the video footage: On 28 January 2020 Movistar Plus broadcasted the episode "Judit contra todos" as part of the documentary "Los Otros". The trailer can be found on Twitter, embedded in interviews the mentioned release of the knight is at 1m 17s. It is also here.

Duration of the release: The mentioned video footage is in slow-motion. The video can be extracted frame by frame. It is in slow-motion, frames repeat. There are about five different frames identifiable where I see the knight released. Additionally, it is physically not possible to release the knight and grab it again under a quarter of a second. This statement is easily verifiable by anybody. How can you grab something and release in 1/25 of a second? The statement in itself is absurd.

I have put together above all the arguments. From them, the performed change from my point of view is 100% correct.

I am sure you will consider the material as is and I am looking forward to your further suggestions.

On top of it, I am asking you for your support if there are formal problems with the change. I am not an experienced Wikipedia author and happy for any advice, which should not stand in the way of correcting the article.

Dlb (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dlb: I'll answer on Talk:Judit Polgár. Thanks for your patience. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you questioning that his name was Robert James? What sources do you claim in your favor that he is the only one to be listed by nickname and not his real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr chagall (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Slow edit warring is still edit warring. Except in the most formal contexts such as legal documents, he is always referred to as Bobby Fischer, just as William Jefferson Clinton is always Bill Clinton. Look at any chess book or newspaper article on him. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally, when you use a Wikilink, the thing you put between double square brackets should be the title of the article. The title of our article about Bobby Fischer is Bobby Fischer. Of course, as you know, it is possible to play around with this. For instance you could write Robert James Fischer, and thanks to the miracle of redirection, the reader who clicks on the link will get to Bobby Fischer. Or heck, you could write XYZZY, and the link would take you to Bobby Fischer. La de da. But better to play it straight.

When I referred to "Sources", I meant, of course, almost all of our sources. Look at the "References" section. Very few of those books and articles use anything except "Bobby Fischer". Wikipedia is utterly dependent on sources. As editors, we are expected to avoid making choices like that ourselves, but to follow our sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Glossary_of_chess#Blitz/Blitzkrieg Adpete (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ah yes, you’re right, i put in two factoids but by having them in one sentence i imply they’re connected, which i didn’t mean to. i wanted to adjust the intro for two things - one, as written it leaves the impression that the 50-move rule is the last word on in. as i understand it the 75-move rule was added to give arbiters control. second, and perhaps i’m wrong on this, but from reading the history it seemed that the discovery of longer and longer endgames, if anything encouraged the rolling back (in 1992) rather than try to capture that in the rules, which is not what the intro says now. Psm (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Psm: Re-reading the History section, I see that the history is even longer and crazier than I had thought. It's possible that we should not mention this in the introductory paragraph at all, just to avoid confusion. Otherwise, if you think you can tweak it to make it clearer, go ahead and try, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You have reverted my contribution on chess origins, although I had tried to compose a neutral text which presents all different theories, India, Persia, China, Central Asia. Apparently you did it because I used my real name and I referred to my book. I understand. So, OK to remove the reference to my book, but then I don't understand why you censor my text. I've been working on this topic for more than 30 years, I have written a several books in French and also in English, published by major publishers, for instance Praxeo in France and McFarland in the US. I've been invited to give speechs on several international conferences, on the BBC, on French TV, etc. In short I believe that I have accumulated a knowledge on the subject which is more than a general knowledge. The book that you have removed the reference has been recognized by several experts as a valuable update on the field 100 years after the monumental work from HJR Murray. Me and my co-author have been helped by several authorities and experts all cited in the book, and our text has been carefully reviewed by pairs under the supervision of the publisher. See https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/a-world-of-chess/ The paradox of this situation is that if what I've contributed was said by anyone with no special knowledge it would have been accepted, but because it is by someone who has books on the topic, it is forbidden because suspect of making self-promotion. And of course you are entitled to take this decision on your own, without referring to nobody else. If you know this topic, I will be happy to discuss that issue with you in case you have some interesting elements to bring to my knowledge.Cazaux (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cazaux: Thanks for the courtesy of taking this to the talk page. I will try to make some helpful suggestions. But, real life gets in the way, it may take me a day or two to get to it. Also, it would be a good idea for this discussion to be at Talk:Chess rather than my personal talk page, so if it hasn't already been moved there by the time I get to it, I'll move it there. Also pinging @Pawnkingthree:. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you, I'm not a professional at WP and when I click on your name I'm directed here. So no offense meant. Feel free to redirect this dialog where you find more appropriate and let me know how to get there. Hope you understand that not everyone is expert in WP like you are. Btw, you also upset me qualifying my work of unreliable source. But I'm civilised although being French and I will be pleased to discuss this issue politely with you by PM. You can find how to join me on my site history.chess.free.frCazaux (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gisela Kahn Gresser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Marshall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

About this, the preferred revision is not essential for me. User:HernánCortés1518 is a new account whose contribution I noticed here. I am satisfied with the effort and conclude that this is a good faith editor. From there I saw his list of edits and found the reverted tag at Saint Petersburg.I then saw that he had made a good faith edit over the wording, and User:Danloud came along and hammered the rollback as if to treat the new user as an out-and-out vandal. All it needed was a summary as you provided. So I have no qualms about the single word which need to be raised at the talk. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: So, the reason you reverted me, that too for no reason, is because I used rollback in a "wrong way" against a new user? In which sense can the word "from" be used there? Please explain if you can. Putting words that do not fit in a sentence, ultimately disrupts the article, and is also vandalism, even if it was "good faith". This is Wikipedia, millions and millions of people come here everyday to read articles, and learn. Articles need proper spelling. I used the rollback to revert a wrong addition, which needed no summary, to be honest, It is self-explanatory. Now, I have never used my rights to vandalise or push my power against "new" editors or IP's. If the edit was not disrupting the article, then I would have let it pass. Its not about abusing power, its about vandalism and disruption. I can see that the editor I reverted has good intentions, but what is wrong, is indeed wrong. I did not rollback all of his edits, just like the one you mentioned on Kazan. I even checked his whole edit history, after the Saint Petersburg rollback, way before you pinged me here. I do not think this is anything as serious, as you made it to be. Danloud ^(talk) 11:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see what the problem is. The documentation for Rollback says,

Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools.

So yeah, if the original edit was not vandalism, using Rollback on it was a bad move. But really, it was a bad edit, and so the resolution to this can't involve restoring it. Whatever. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:Danloud. Don't even worry about it now. This is not "Incident of the decade". Even I self-reverted and re-reverted myself because of temporary confusion. No, clearly that isn't the way to write in standard English (adding "from"). I too only glanced at the example. It was Rollback which I saw first causing me to think, "ah, is this new user really a good faith editor?". When I saw he made the mildest of changes that was not obviously disruptive, that was when I reacted, or over-reacted. But now all of us are on the same platform, we can all move on happily. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of chess grandmasters, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the grandmasters article back to your version. In my view, that is the format that the subject matter expert editors have selected and should not be radically changed without a good reason and discussion. Cheers.VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you took some abuse going it alone last month when trying to prevent damage the to the list of GMs. I was on a little wiki-break, although coming back to this makes me want to extend that vacation. Quale (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Itskesha can go screw themselves for leaving a vandalism warning on your page. Now that it's weeks later it's stale, but that could have be reported to an admin for action. I tend not to do that because I don't feel like running to an admin all the time, and actually it just makes Itskesha look like a foolish little pissant. They really are just trying to provoke a reaction. It would be great if they could earn admiration and respect by making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but instead they act up hoping to get negative reactions. Quale (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Quale. I'll be kind and give you the opportunity to retract your insults and apologise to me. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What's annoying is not the abuse, but the fact that I had to guess at your design rationale, and I quickly got out on a limb. My mistake, to try to defend someone else's concept without their assistance; I should have known better.

The implication is that you are tethered to this list, that is, when some new editor comes along and questions the design decisions, you have to be there to defend them. With most Wikipedia articles, that's not a big deal. There are lots of people who know the rules and can set newcomers straight. But this list is uniquely large, and the design decisions are non-trivial, and anyone who first looks at it has a steep learning curve. So there you are.

Would it help to move the material to Wikidata? I don't know much about that milieu. Are there fewer people who are cruising around looking for a brawl over there? If it would make the list safer from predators, then the lack of a proper edit history might be an acceptable price to pay. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't need to guess anything - the column isn't necessary, so I said so in my edit summary on my first edit. This was then explained to you on the talk page with several policy explanations on several occasions. There's no "steep-learning curve", please don't patronise me. But the fact of the matter is, is that birthplace isn't a necessary column in this article. Nobody is looking for a brawl, stop getting so defensive because you and "other people" are having their edits repeatedly questioned through policy. For the 10th time, "because I like it" or "it's like this in some book" aren't nonsense reasons. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's worth overthinking. The article is 13 years old, there's a lot of history. I think I explained the reasons for any substantive changes I made on the article talk page, but some of those changes were done years ago and there's a lot of text on the talk page making it impractical to wade through in an attempt to catch up in a hurry when involved in a discussion. The article does pose challenges because of its size, and that has sometimes attracted unwelcome attention from editors who don't know or care anything about chess but who are aghast at its heterodoxy and then start a crusade to burn the witches. For me the bottom line is whether an edit makes the article better or worse. For many editors "better" only means strict conformance to their idea of wikipedia rules. (Almost invariably this is not actually what the guidelines say.) Compliance with core guidelines is important to me too, and I spent many hours improving sourcing of the table to meet WP:RS and WP:CITE. (These efforts are far from universally appreciated. One of the two most vocal defenders of orthodoxy is actually on his second or maybe third crusade having laid siege to the page months ago when he removed about 1600 source citations from the table. The other crusader claimed that birthplace was unsourced, a wanton and recklessly false accusation.) Since the intent is to make the article the best it can be, if you find it difficult to support any choice made in the article then to me that suggests considering whether a different choice might not be better. Along those lines I've noticed that at times you might look for simple ways to appease critics if the concession doesn't seem too large. While I admire the desire to attain peace, I'm opposed to any concession that makes an article even slightly worse. If you surrender a few times on what may seem to you to be small things then the demands will never stop. The cumulative effect of ten edits that each make an article only slightly worse will greatly degrade it, so it's important to hold the line before allowing a downward slide.

Finally, as far as replacing the table with a wikidata query goes, there isn't anything in the article now that is influenced at all by that possibility. If or when it happens it would replace the table entirely. I also didn't mean to suggest that this is imminent. Sure, maybe it will happen this week or this year, but maybe it will be two years or five or never happen. Two-year-old discussion about this can be found on the talk page, but I don't think it went anywhere. Of course someone may turn up tomorrow with a fully functional implementation too. Quale (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, despite the challenges due to the size of this list, I didn't mean to suggest that our problems are unique. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is much larger and more complex than List of chess grandmasters so it might be an interesting example to compare. Not surprisingly quite a few of the classical music lists are long for the same reason the list of GMs is long. There is at least one list of classical music compositions that somehow assembles sublist tables into one large table. I didn't understand how this was done at first glance and didn't study it in detail although I had hoped to go back to it to take a look. (The advantage of the sublists is that they were in other list articles separated by type of composition, so they could have "List of symphonies composed by XXXX" and "List of operas composed by XXXX" as separate list articles and automatically combine them in a "List of compositions by XXXX". Not only did this give more manageable broken out lists but it made editing quite a bit easier since edits were on much smaller list articles.) Quale (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional discussion of the pros and cons of using a template. I was not trying to make peace with my discussion of this, but really toying with an idea, but "toying" is the right word -- my appetite for actually tweaking the interface used is limited, and I would only have run with this if it got an enthusiastic reception.

I would have been happy to withdraw from the Birthplace argument, since editors' minds were not going to be changed. I wrote and posted my ruminations about WP:UNDUE, etc., only because I was having fun, and also because I thought perhaps other editors might find them interesting. I do not plan to continue with that. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're having fun there's no need to stop. Generally I don't enjoy this kind of battle on Wikipedia. True collaborations with the goal to make articles better are a lot more fun. You and Cobblet provided a small but great example of cooperative work improving the encyclopedia on Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili, and that kind of interaction is a lot more rewarding than dealing with siege warfare on the GMs list. Also I realized an hour after I wrote my bit against appeasement that it sounds critical or an attempt to influence your behavior. I really just meant to explain why I try not to bend under circumstances that will make an article worse, I did not intend to criticize others who take a more conciliatory approach. Getting along with other editors is important too, and I think everyone should use the approach that they are comfortable with and that they think is best. And generally the more civil approaches are to be preferred over the more confrontational. Quale (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough I applied for a job to be the grading database administrator for ECF ( English Chess Federation). Collating results calculating the National Grading and submitting rating changes to FIDE was part of the job. Michuk (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please try to calm things down at Talk:Castling, you're good at that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I was in bed while most of the juicy arguing was going on. The article now seems to be OK, at least for Feuer-O'Kelly, will check the talk page to see if soothing words need to be said. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I just want you to notice that I disagree with you revert of my edit in Saint Petersburg. The link to Moscow is relevant, as the text is talking about the capital of Russia and both cities were that at different epochs. The reader could find useful a link to the other city to learn the history or the location inside the country (as was my case). So, in my opinion, in this case applies the MOS:OL policy : Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, and the link is perfectly correct. What do you think ? Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not a bad thing if a reader, seeing the text, becomes curious to see the article about Moscow. There are, at the bottom of the article, various navigation aids, some of which have links to Moscow. But Wikilinks, right there in the article where the reader has to look at them and be distracted, must be used sparingly. If the reader is not likely to know what something is, then one ought to link to the article about it; but everybody knows what Moscow is, even if they know relatively little about it. I think that is the general spirit of MOS:OL. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I have misunderstood the spirit of the MOS because I'm used to see a lot of links in the text and I'm not getting distracted by them. Ok, lets left the article as you think is better. Cheers. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the revert? I updated the table to show the 2022 winner of the tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.240.41 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to introduce myself.
Besides chess-related topics, what do you like to edit here? I like to edit pages on all sorts of things myself, whatever needs fixing.
I just made a disambiguating comment on another article for an album called Seeing Eye Dog. I found the name to be quite confusing, so I just added a note directing others to the nonprofit group The Seeing Eye (that trains dogs) if that is what they were looking for.
I also enjoy fixing grammar and punctuation. I just added an Oxford comma to the page Wildwood, New Jersey. Do you happen to know anything about these topics? Perhaps we could collaborate? Joesom333 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are interested in editing chess articles, you might want to check out WP:CHESS. By the way, there are other "projects" like this one; that's just the one I know most about.

Like you, I edit other articles, in spite of having, in most cases, relatively little background knowledge of my own. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Good job on your chess edits!

Joesom333 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing to you with regards to the reversion you made of my edit to Magnus Carlsen's page, specifically the inclusion of Smyslov in the list of comparisons to former WCs. I'm not necessarily opposed to this inclusion, but I'd like if you could expand on precisely what you think the criteria for players in this section should be. As I stated in my edit summary, if we were to include all comparisons made by people who meet WP's standards of notability, we would need to list every world champion. And while Kasparov is one of the greatest players of all time, he is far from being the end-all in these discussions, so drawing the line precisely there seems kind of arbitrary. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not have a useful set of criteria at my fingertips. I reverted your edit because your reason given was that you hadn't seen the comparison to Smyslov; but having restored the status quo, I do not know why one set of comparisons is quoted and not others. These appear in several biography articles of chess players. If you want to start a discussion of this, perhaps the best place would be in WT:CHESS. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm newer to Wikipedia, not familiar with how these things work. I've opened a thread there. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have mentioned graduate work at Cornell. A recent edit at History of programming languages may have been made by someone you could know. Quale (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I was at Carnegie-Mellon, not Cornell, but I remember his 1971 book about compiler construction from those days. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Aggh, it's terrible that I confused CMU and Cornell. Obviously two fine schools starting with C is enough to confuse this old man. Quale (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Re: revert of revision #1125242211)

A: He wrote one of the essays published in the book. (It's a compendium of essays published in the NYT, one of which is titled: "Garry Kasparov: What We Believe About Reality") It's a good essay and it's mentioned in the Section "Other post-retirement writing". Sorry if I'm not seeing the move correctly here.

Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edits on Napoleon Opening, Danvers Opening/Wayward Queen and 1972 world chess championship. However, for Nxd5 would recapture the pawn is vandalism? I edit to help Wikipedia. Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply vandalism. (To say that something is vandalism is a serious accusation. I appreciate that you are editing in good faith.)

However, there was a discussion of this sentence in Talk:Two Knights Defense, and it appears to me that the sense of that discussion is that the original text was correct.

In the sources that we cite (chess opening books, etc.), Nxd5 is not encouraged, and in games at the highest levels, it has been abandoned. We do not have the authority to go against this. Wikipedia is not a recognized authority on chess openings. We should report the prevailing opinion on Nxd5, not report our own opinions. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thus I will stop this and try finding reliable sources before editing unobvious statements on opening pages Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much! By the way, you have cited "Chess Openings for Kids" in the article Sicilian Defense. Is this the book by Watson and Burgess? I ask because there is also a book "Chess for Kids" by Basman, and who knows what other material is available with confusingly similar names. So I am inclined to edit the citation to fill in authors' names, publisher, and publication date. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Some articles say "that begins with the following moves" and others don't? Sorry for my confusion Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that some articles have this and others don't. However, it is unnecessary, and we should not add text unless it is helpful and/or necessary. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have been too biased, because schliemann first played 3...Bc5 before 4...f5, and Jaenisch was a chess professional and one of the best of his era while Schliemann was a lawyer by profession... but anyway WP:COMMONNAME i read about. Sorry. Jishiboka1 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jishiboka1: I was not the one who reverted your edit about Schliemann/Jaenisch. That was User:MaxBrowne2.

I know that, when I was young, I never read the name "Jaenisch Gambit", only "Schliemann Counter Gambit" or "Schliemann Defense". However, I think that in Europe and perhaps elsewhere, it is also widely known as "Jaenisch Gambit". I have confirmed, by doing Google searches, that the latter name is popular.

Our criteria for choosing names for openings are based solely on notability. It is true that Jaenisch was, in some ways, more important in the history of chess than Schliemann. But that doesn't matter; all that we care about is how the two names are used for the variation in chess books, magazines, websites, etc.

We should expect that our readers are people who have heard of the variation but do not know anything else about it. So to help them, we should mention both names and clearly indicate that they are alternative names for the same variation. Notice, by the way, that if one types "Jaenisch Gambit" in the Wikipedia search box, one gets a disambiguation page that has links to two places, one of which is the appropriate section of the Ruy Lopez article. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source for calling 1.c4 b5? the Jaenisch Gambit? It's garbage and I'm sure a player as strong as Jaenisch would never have played it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that Hooper & Whyld call it the Jaenisch Gambit, but I don't know where they got it from. If you look at Carl Jaenisch, there is a reference to the Jaenisch Gambit, which is sourced to a book by Jaenisch translated from the French by George Walker. On page 28, if you can comprehend the strange notation, Jaenisch devotes part of one sentence to mentioning that 1. c4 c5 2. b4 is a "sort of gambit by Salvio". This is not even the right variation (it's not 1. c4 b5), so it makes me wonder what Hooper & Whyld had in mind.

Beyond that, I did a Google search, and came up with one Youtube video and one Lichess presentation about 1. c4 b5, but other than that, mostly pages and pages of the Ruy Lopez Schliemann/Jaenisch. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your vigilance concerning the above article. Technically, the GA assessment I did shouldn't have happened, as the user who proposed it has barely made any contribution to the article. I can guess the tendentious purpose for their propising it. Still, it's an important article and I'm glad I only noticed that point afterwards! All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would still assume good faith on the part of the part of the proposer. I notice that he/she has recently made some of the changes you suggested. It may be, however, that this editor is not familiar with the GA process and underestimates the amount of effort and time required.

I myself am not prepared to drive Garry Kasparov to GA. However, I will try keep an eye on things, and help out when I can. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again – and I understand that a GA drive can ve onerous. I see you removed the 'PCA' from 'the title'. You might well be correct, but might not you have clarified what title he held or was playing for? That would be very helpful in moving – even slowly – towards GA status. Just a thought. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Some improvement like that might be appropriate, but as the first step, I found all the places where "PCA" had been added incorrectly, and removed it.

Generally, the chess world championship has been organized by FIDE since 1948. In the interlude from 1993 to 2006, first the PCA and then a company called Braingames organized their own world championships, while FIDE continued to organize its own, which was less prestigious because it didn't have Kasparov. In 2006 the title was "unified" (see World Chess Championship 2006). This is background. It is possible that the article would be clarified/improved by adding some of this background here and there. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can you help with the almost complete GA drive by finding a better source for the one you deleted as being substandard? Im busy today. Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am traveling, cannot do much w/this until Tuesday. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, can I ask your advice, as a current player. From my GA edit, something was running through my head, then I remembered it this morning. I was thinking that it would be more accurate to revise "Kasparov's favourite opening systems were the Queen's Indian with White and variations of the Sicilian Defence with Black" to "The most common opening system Kasparov faced as White was the Queen's Indian [Defence], while variations of the Sicilian Defence was his favourite approach with Black". I've played chess, but not for years, and it seems self-evident that the defence White faces depends on whether the opening move is e4 or d4. I was also amazed that, from the 365Chess site cited, he must have played d4 more often than e4, if the QID is the most common response he was given. Then I realised that the page cited must be incomplete, covering only three recent tournaments and just over 200 games. Do you know if his career statistics are available anywhere, especially those identifying his most common openings with W and B? I'll have to delete that sentence in the article otherwise. Your thoughts are very welcome. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend that you strike that sentence, for several reasons. However, you might be able to find a source for the claim that Kasparov was an expert on the black side of the Sicilian, and if you can find such a source, use it.

The major chess databases are not reliable sources for claims about what openings a player liked, what openings he played most often, what openings he did well in. They tend to be full of noise, such as simultaneous exhibition games or blindfold games, or outright casual games, etc. Also they may be missing games, or games may be registered incorrectly, etc. One has to look for conventional reliable sources, i.e. actual human beings.

As you noticed, Kasparov played both 1. d4 and 1. e4, and varied his choices after the first move, as well. And, he varied his openings with Black. His career was long enough that he wasn't playing the same openings at the end as at the beginning. This is by contrast with, for example, Fischer, who never played 1. d4 (although he too was notoriously hard to prepare for).

I do not know if Kasparov was renowned for his skill with the White side of the Queen's Indian. But since there are so many important alternatives for Black on the 2nd and 3rd moves against 1.d4 (such as Double Queen Pawn, the Dutch, the King's Indian and Gruenfeld, etc.), one cannot really say that the QI was someone's "favorite" variation with White. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the way to go, thank you. I'll make that change tomorrow Billsmith60 (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Bruce. I note that the QI is claimed to be the most common opening with White here: https://www.chess.com/players/garry-kasparov#legacy - although the number of times he employed it is different (20 v 37 in 365 Chess). Variations of the Sicilian are clear enough on both sites for Black. If you think the sentence can remain, how would you phrase it? In fact, would you mind going ahead and making the change yourself, for you're more clued into chess than I am. Thank you and regards Billsmith60 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Do you think it would be fair simply to state

Looks like you forgot to continue that sentence :-)

The bad news is, that bio from chess.com is not something you can cite. It doesn't even have an author's name, so the author is just an anonymous hack like ourselves, and it doesn't cite sources. For all we know, the author got his opening stats from some place no better than 365 Chess.

The good news is, he found something interesting: Kasparov really did play some of the interesting games in that variation (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. e3) of the Queen's Indian, back in the 1980's when the Petrosian variation (4. a3) was popular. I realized this while looking at the footnotes in my copy of NCO, a major opening reference published around 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find some opening book (or article) that either calls 7. e3 the Kasparov variation, or gives him credit in some other way. If I had such a book or article handy, I wouldn't hesitate to cite it.

I will think about what to do with the sentence. I can make it better than what it is now, but I may not have enough of a library to really bring it up to the standard of verifiability that I would prefer. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha, if only forgetting to finish a sentence was the worst of my lapses! Yes, you are indeed on to something interesting. A GA can always become better, after all. Please revise the offending sentence as best you can and, in the meantime, I'll see what I can find, of a reliable nature, on Kasparov's 7.e3 variation of the QID, as you keep your thinking cap on anout it, too. Ta, Billsmith60 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've had no joy with finding a published source re Kasparov's preferred openings, esp. with White. Hence, I emailed his "office" to ask if they can help. We'll see! Billsmith60 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've just noticed the query about "favourite openings" under "Contributions to Opening Theory" in Talk. I recall wondering about that myself during the GA process and our discussions. It seems as if the sources are the issue: do you agree? All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, we have a problem in the chess biographies of using sources that are not very reliable to describe people's opening repertoire; maybe some of these articles go back to early days of Wikipedia, when ideas about reliable sources weren't so crystallized as they are now.

Also, I'll repeat what I said in the other conversation: we shouldn't be talking about "favorite" openings (or "favourite"), or at least, we should do so very carefully. Particularly with Kasparov, who tried many openings over the years, with both colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User Mozartnut has been simply copying var names and ECO codes from what she/he finds on Chessgames.com. She/he has already caused me a headache. --IHTS (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

May have started Jun 10 (from glancing at their contrib list). I am proceeding in chronological order. I have even found (at least) one change that was OK, so far. This could be a long slog. Not all names/ECO codes copied from chessgames.com; indeed, if only I knew where they are coming from. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, am discovering the same. And yeah, a long slog. --IHTS (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Explain your reverting the subject revision. algocu (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I put a link to WP:SDSHORT. This is part of a discussion of how to write the short description for an article. It recommends that the short description be no more than 40 characters. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your fix causes a timestamp mismatch hit on the archived URL and archived date parameters in a citation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani: I see what you mean. I noticed that the access date was earlier than the archive date, and I thought this must be wrong, so I corrected the latter. Would it instead be appropriate to correct the former? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tsumi (詰み) is the correct Japanese term for a forced mate sequence in shogi. Tsume is rarely (if ever) used. I changed the term to tsumisuji (詰み筋) because you somehow don't seem to like the terminology I used in my previous edits. 133.106.230.200 (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is much to be gained if you would stop disrupting the contributions of people who are actually smart/competent and knowledgeable about the subject. 133.106.57.51 (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Tsume is frequently used, at least in the English-language literature of Shogi. An example is this book.

There is another Wikipedia article, Tsume shogi, about the same topic. That article, and the link to it from this article, have been present since at least 2009. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The book and the Wikipedia article are both using tsume to refer to tsume shogi ("tsume puzzles"), not a forced mate sequence. Quote from Tsume shogi: tsume (詰め) is the Japanese term for a shogi miniature problem ... The term tsumi (詰み) means the state of checkmate itself. Please stop restoring inaccurate terminology to the article. 133.106.206.172 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@IP 133.106.206.172: Ideally the best place to discuss a content dispute such as this is on the article's talk page because it makes it much easier for others to participate, and because it also allows a record of the the discussion to be archived for later reference. I suggest, therefore, this discussion be moved to Talk:Shogi (the templates {{Moved discussion to}} and {{Moved discussion from}} can be used to link the two discussions together). The WP:ONUS, however, generally falls upon those wanting to make a change to establish a WP:CONSENSUS through article talk page discussion to do so; otherwise, continuing to revert back to your preferred version (even if you 100% sure you're right) is going to be seen as edit warring, unless the dispute involves a major Wikipedia policy violation that needs immediate attention. You WP:BOLDly made an edit that was subsequently WP:REVERTed in good faith; when this happens, it's generally best to follow the bold, revert and discuss cycle (not bold, be reverted, revert back to the way one thinks is right and then discuss) and seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page per WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Finally, it's also best to WP:AGF and avoid any comments about other editors or their motivations when involved in content disputes because such comments might be seen as WP:NPAs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce levertt: Trying to resolve something like this via edit summaries with links to user talk page discussions usually doesn't work per WP:REVTALK. You can revert and at the same time seek further discussion about this on the article's talk page instead of trying to do so here. My guess is that there are probably more people who might be interested in this discussion watching "Talk:Shogi", then there are watching your user talk page. You too could've moved the discussion to Talk:Shogi or suggested it be moved there as part of your initial reply to the OP. WP:BRDR often is a good idea when something you revert is reverted back, particularly within a short period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion to the article's talk page. I've added {{Please see}} notices to the talk pages of WikiProject Chess and WikiProject Japan to let those projects know about the discussion. Perhaps one or more of their members will comment. The user who originally edited the content to the article, however, hasn't edited in a few months and might be busy. You may, if you want, post something neutral on their user talk page to let them know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN3 § User:133.106.216.64 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: ). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm notifying you as a courtesy since I mentioned you in the AN3 report. You may comment if you feel I've misrepresented the situation or have anything to add to the report. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Paul Morphy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paul Morphy for comments about the article, and Talk:Paul Morphy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Remsense -- Remsense (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I made an edit calling Garry Kasparov one of the greatest chess players of all time and you reverted it. I would like to ask why 102.89.32.116 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) I would guess it's probably for the reason they plainly gave in their edit summary:

Avoiding "greatest of all time" statements. Most recently discussed in Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#The Greatest?

Hope this helps. Remsense诉 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That section was too long. Can you please help me summarize what he said? 102.89.22.14 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to objectively source statements like "greatest xyz", and they generally add very marginal value to articles. The consensus is to let Kasparov's achievements to speak for themselves, and attribute what other people think when it comes up in the article. Remsense诉 02:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with "greatest of all time" claims in general, and the one you tried to add in particular.

• You can't say "widely considered" without citing at least one source. Indeed, for a while Bobby Fischer cited at least a dozen sources for its "greatest of all time" claim.
• Even if you cite all those sources, and you say something like "widely considered to be the greatest" instead of just "the greatest", people will endlessly challenge this in the angriest, rudest way because they think you are claiming YOUR man is the greatest rather than THEIR man. Who needs that aggravation? Wikipedia is supposed to be used to settle arguments, not to start them.
• There have only been about 20 world champions in all the history of the world championship of chess. So, just about every one of them has to be "one of the greatest ever", not just Kasparov, Carlsen, and Fischer, but even the lesser ones like Euwe and Smyslov. It's like you're stating a tautology.

Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

He holds Croatian citizenship, which makes him also a Croatian, this is a fact. His political activism is the reason why he applied for and was granted Croatian citizenship, meaning that his choice of residence (which is Croatia) and his current activities (political activism and Chess promotion) are also reflected by and alleviated through his second citizenship (which is Croatian). This isn’t something that happened overnight, but has been going on for ten years:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/chess-champion-garry-kasparov-croatian-citizenship

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/chess-grandmaster-garry-kasparov-abandons-russia-over-opposition-to-putin-i3z3vecr Not sure how a common but incorrect way of addressing someone is relevant or trumps facts, so-called »reliable« sources or not: Tigran Petrosyan used to be routinely called »Russian« by United Statesians and their media during the time of the Soviet Union’s existence, just like Tals and other non-Russian chess players, that wouldn’t make them Russian to my knowledge. Kasparov is Russian AND Croatian, and if the wikipedia’s encyclopedic claim is serious, this has to be included in the introductory paragraph.

ChessBase, which for chess related matters is a relevant and reliable source, calls him Croatian:

https://de.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-ist-nun-kroate

Even the Russian wikipedia entry lists him as Russian and Croatian.

--esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's awkward to be participating on my own talk page in a discussion that should be on the talk page for the article. People will not look for the discussion here. I would ask that if you want to reply to me, put your reply in Talk:Garry Kasparov. The topic has been discussed many times there; look at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#Nationality in the lead sentence, and Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#Russian v. Azerbaijani for recent examples. I might add that we have a similar problem at Bobby Fischer, with editors who want to call him Icelandic.

We should expect to follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, unless there is a very strong reason not to. I am looking at MOS:CONTEXTBIO, and in particular at this sentence: In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable. Although Kasparov is still active politically, his notability mainly derives from his career as a chess player, which was when he was Russian (or earlier, Soviet). He retired from chess years before he gained Croatian citizenship.

Every different language Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, and they can be different from each other. I looked at the Russian wikipedia entry for Kasparov just now, and the first sentence says "... a Soviet and Russian chess player ...", although his Croatian citizenship is mentioned in the infobox, and later in the lead paragraphs. There are several other languages whose wikipedia entries I have looked at for information about chess players, but I would not rely on anything but the English Manual of Style for authoritative guidance on how to treat nationality. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted the latest change again and told that user on his Talk to stop reverting it without disussion as per the 3RR. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: Did you read Talk:Garry Kasparov#Played under Croatian flag? Bruce leverett (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "elevated as a new conservative figure" falls woefully short of encapsulating how the Goldwater speech effected Reagan standing. To address your concerns about verbosity, I revised the text to read "launched his rise as a prominent conservative figure." Is that an acceptable compromise? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit I was not fond of "elevated as a new conservative figure". I am a little suspicious of "launched his rise" (journalistic cliché) and "prominent ... figure" (ditto), but I am not familiar with this part of his biography, so I'll let you take the lead. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980: I now see that we are using "prominent conservative figure" in a repetitive way, both in the first paragraph and in the second, so I am scratching my head over how to fix this. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, how about we say "leading" instead of "prominent"?Emiya1980 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Also, in the first paragraph, "he is considered one of the most prominent" looks to me like a combination of MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:WEASEL. Maybe "he was an important figure in American conservatism"? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I see it as a statement of fact. Prominent simply means "famous" or "important" so I don't see how the change you recommended is really needed. If you feel it toots Reagan's horn too much, you can scratch out that part of the sentence altogether. However, I think other editors might have a problem with that because it removes a big reason behind why he's a famous historical figure. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course every subject of a Wikipedia article must be "notable", so one doesn't have to say that Reagan was "prominent" (or, as I suggested earlier, "important"). It is reasonable to quantify, or qualify, just how notable the subject is; linking to the article Reagan era is good for this (not every president has his own era). But I also like the link to American conservative, because he is particularly an icon to conservatives. I will try to keep those links while tightening up the sentence. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to say "important" instead of "prominent", you have my go-ahead. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

From the 1988 CSM article on Fischer vs Greenblatt computer: "Obviously it is out of its book, as this is a very weak move which loses valuable time. Soon, in a desperate attempt to maintain material equality, Black will irremediably ruin his position. Black should have played 7.... BxN"

My goodness, Bisguier's commentary is terrible, 7... Nxd5 is the only move Stockfish ever considers. I suppose it is difficult to see because the follow-up appears to lose a piece, 7... Nxd5 8. Nxd5 f5! 9. Nxb4 fxe4 then if White moves the f3 knight Black wins the piece back with ... Qd4+.

(In the long run Stockfish prefers 3... Nc6 (Maurian Defence) as the best response to the King's Bishop's Gambit because of 4. Nf3 g5!)

There are NYT Chess columns from 1978 on each game. They probably aren't as interesting as the CSM article though - behind a paywall. I don't think I downloaded them when I did have a subscription, I wonder if Byrne had better commentary.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/12/archives/chess-look-who-left-his-cave-to-pull-a-computers-plug-onward-ever.html https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/30/archives/chess-fischer-vs-the-computer.html https://www.nytimes.com/1978/08/06/archives/chess-he-is-still-in-top-form.html

There's one more quote not easily findable:

Archive at boston.com - Ask The Globe column in 1981 wrote: "An anonymous friend of the former chess champion says that Fischer plays only against a computer since he forfeited his title in 1975." Cancerward (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this research.

It is a little strong to say that Bisguier's analysis is "terrible". Looking at recent GM games, people are still playing 7...Bxc3. 7...Nxd5 does not seem to have caught on, although after 8. Nxd5 f5! 9. d3 fxe4 10. dxe4 Bd6 the position is about even. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on François Mitterrand. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Instead of edit-warring, please revert your edit of 03:53, 22 October 2024 at François Mitterrand, and instead try to achieve consensus for your change at the existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies' first sentence. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The correct page in Chernow for the Washington title is on page 187 of the biography. If you prefer the modern form then you could add the hyphens to the Washington title which is already used within that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Missed that, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure why you are obsessed with not describing American politicians as 'American politicians', when the other presidential biographies (see Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush etc.) do. GiantSnowman 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I would direct your attention to MOS:OPENPARABIO, which is the guidelines for writing the first sentence of a biography. The example given for François Mitterrand demonstrates the concise style of writing this sentence. If you wish, I would be willing to explain how the concise style of writing this sentence for Zachary Taylor (or Mitterrand) satisfies the five-point checklist given in that policy, but that might be better done in the talk page of that article, rather than here.

In that policy, the example of Cleopatra demonstrates the same style. The other examples, Petrarch and Cesar Chavez, don't lend themselves so easily to such a concise way of writing the first sentence. I came to this discussion from U.S. Presidents, and in particular Ulysses Grant. The first sentence of Grant's article was in the concise style when the article went to GA in 2015, and most of the president articles also used the concise style until some time in the 201x's. But by late 2024, most of them were using the other style. I do not know what has been motivating this. Many of the changes did not have edit summaries, and those that did, did not give a rationale. I do not know of any policy that instructs or recommends that first sentences be padded. Even Britannica biographies of U.S. Presidents usually use the concise style.

It is true that I (and other editors) have refrained from modifying the articles about Clinton, Obama, and Bush. When I started thinking about Bush, I realized that writing about a living person, I instinctively felt the need to use a different etiquette, even though I didn't know just what etiquette I wanted to use. I decided to leave the BLP's alone, as well as "almost" BLP's like George H.W. Bush. Editors who are more familiar with BLP biographies are welcome to tweak them, or not, as far as I am concerned.

I ask that, as a courtesy to me, you do not use words like "obsessed", even when you think that I am incorrect. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

What has been motivating this is clearly community consensus (even if unspoken) that your favoured 'concise' style is not appropriate. I note that the Mitterrand article itself does not even use the concise style! GiantSnowman 07:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added the bibliography for Silk Roads. Best wishes. File Éireann 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No prank, rather lack of expertise. I removed a few parameters and got an error message. When I left everything in the error message was not present. I shall do a few more of these and become more proficient. Thanks for helping.

Hi Bruce,

Nice to meet a chess player. Since I'm mainly working with the German Wikipedia, my edits here (in the English one) are rather rare. With my latest one I just wanted to help a little, since a link Lengfellner system existed already and redirected to French Defence. However, there was no information available, whatsoever about this system. That's why I added a sentence.

Unfortunately you cancelled it. My advice would be - if I'm allowed to give one - if there's anything you don't know, then please do not delete it, but try to verify it by yourself or ask for verification. Do you need more sources than the newly added one to www.365chess.com? Best wishes --00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) OS (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion should have been started in Talk:French Defence, rather than here. Who would look for it here? But anyway,

• 365chess.com is not considered a reliable secondary source. If you know of a textbook, or a magazine article, that uses this name, it would be much better to cite that instead. Outside of Wikipedia, everyone thinks he can put any name he wishes on a chess opening variation. So this variation may have, for all I know, a dozen names in various places. But the only ones that Wikipedia should cite are those that fit the criteria of WP:Reliable Sources.
• If there isn't a reliable source for this name, then French Defence should not use the name, and the link that redirects to this article should be removed.

Bruce leverett (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast reply. Within the article the reference [17] already exists "C00: French, Labourdonnais variation – 1. e4 e6 2. f4", and also directs to www.365chess.com. That's why I used a similar link. I learned about this system only recently, and wanted to learn more about it. So I searched the Web, found several articles and videos, and also the said link in the English Wikipedia to French Defence. Please improve this article and remove the link at will. Best wishes --OS (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I thanked you for your edit to Abraham Lincoln that you explained by writing "Given that we say president of the United States", not necessary to throw in "American", or "politician", or "statesman". First sentence must be direct and to the point." That is all true, but, in addition, every U.S. president, by definition, was an American and was a politician. We've been going back and forth on that on Jimmy Carter's page; I sarcastically suggested in Talk that they add that Carter was a human being and a mammal. But I've lost the battle. As for "statesman," that word means "a politician I like," so it should not be there because it is an opinion, not a fact. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the topic on Talk:Jimmy Carter. Until then, it was just an edit war. On the talk page, there is a chance for further discussion.

After Carter died, a lot of editors suddenly started tinkering with his article. I think this might be because people hesitate to edit BLP articles, but when the subject dies, they suddenly are not afraid to contribute. When I saw what was happening, I decided to wait for a quieter time to try to start a discussion about the first sentence.

In August, I started a discussion of the same topic in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#First sentences (the talk page has since been renamed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Presidents of the United States). Some very experienced editors contributed to both sides of that discussion. I have brought up the same topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies' first sentence.

Historically, almost all of the Presidents pages started out with the first sentence saying something like "XXX was the Nth president of the United States, serving from YYYY to ZZZZ". One exception (or close to it) was Zachary Taylor. Most of them were switched over to the more verbose style some time between 2014 and 2017 (a couple of them much later). By the time I brought up the issue at Wikiproject Presidents, only three of them were still using the correct (concise) wording. I don't know why this happened. I haven't seen an edit summary where someone explains just why he is making this change. It seems weird to me, flying in the face of every guideline for serious writing (such as Strunk & White). But it happened. Since then, most of the articles about Presidents, except for the BLP's, have been switched over to the correct style, some by me, some by other editors. But there is still plenty of opposition, and so I still have all the presidents on my watchlist.

Of course, the problem extends well beyond the Presidents; you can see it in a lot of politician biography articles. I don't know where this will lead. Without understanding why people are switching articles over to verbose style, I am missing an important part of the picture, I think.

On Wikipedia, you aren't supposed to crusade about stuff like this, so there is a limit to my own personal involvement. I'm just hoping that a general awareness of the problem will spread to other experienced editors. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and the links in it. When I said that I've lost the battle, I meant that I decided that it's not worth more of my time. Speaking of the Jimmy Carter page, I don't think that "humanitarian" should be in the opening sentence. He was one, and that's great, but he wouldn't have a Wikipedia article if that had been all he was. Also, I don't think that his reaching 100 belongs in the first paragraph. That's not exactly an accomplishment; it's trivia. But I'm not going to bring up either issue. "Humanitarian" has been deleted and put back several times, and I don't think that anyone but me here has objected to having reaching 100 in the first paragraph. What is "BLP"? Maurice Magnus (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

BLP stands for Biographies of Living Persons, see WP:BLP for details.

There will always be some judgment that has to be exercised as to what goes in the first paragraph. Also, it can and will change over time.

As for "humanitarian" in the opening sentence, I'd have to look at it more closely. Some people really do have two careers that are worth mentioning up front. A good example is Ulysses S. Grant. His Civil War career is quantitatively more notable than his Presidency, i.e. far more books have been written about it. I don't know if I would consider Carter to be in that league, but I'd need to find time to do some more reading about that. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

stop removing the word "politician" from pages about politicians DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Presidents of the United States#First sentences, or starting a discussion on the talk page of one of the presidents you have worked on.

In general, I and other editors have been modifying presidents pages to adhere better to the usual rules of serious writing, specifically those mentioned by MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. The first sentence is your chance to catch the reader's attention, rather than put him to sleep. It should be direct and to the point. Adding, for example, "American politician" to a sentence that already says "president of the United States" cannot be justified. Or as Strunk & White says,

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

Almost all of the presidents articles started out with first sentences that adhered to the rules, but many of them were modified as you have described between 2014 and 2017 (some even later). I have not been able to figure out why this was done -- often there is no edit summary, or if there is a summary, it doesn't give a rationale. If you can give me any insight as to what has motivated editors to do this, even if you disagree with me, I'd be grateful.

I am aware that other articles about heads of state, as well as U.S. politicians other then the presidents, have also been modified in this mysterious way. It isn't any more justified there than with the presidents. Look at MOS:FIRSTBIO: two of the five examples of first sentences are for Francois Mitterrand and Cleopatra, and they are written in the normal, correct, way. I am not planning to work on articles beyond the U.S. presidents; I'll just have to hope that other experienced editors can pick up where I have left off. Wikipedia is only a hobby for me, and besides, if you go on a crusade about something like this, people notice, and they get annoyed. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Crusades? They were 100% justified. If your gonna remove "politician" for some presidents do it for all presidents. Some U.S. presidents still have "politician" on it. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I was tempted, but several things have held me back.

When I first thought about modifying a president who was still living (I don't remember who it was, maybe George W. Bush, I realized that when you write anything about that guy, you have to think about etiquette and about your relationship to him (of course I have never met him, but I instinctively thought of him as someone I could be talking to). So I laid off of those guys. Let someone else who is better prepared to write about BLP's handle it.

There are also some articles where the first sentence has a long and usually ugly history that I was not ready to jump into. This goes especially for the first few presidents -- the "Founding Fathers". I eventually got brave enough to tinker with some of them. I've gotten into arguments about this with some very experienced editors, guys whose judgment I often rely on, and I can handle it. But it's OK with me if somebody else would take a stab at these articles, which some people have done. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Your approach highlights the importance of thoughtful editing in maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. Thanks for sharing your insights, and I hope you continue to contribute where you feel most comfortable. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

On the Women in chess page you removed “In 1991 Susan Polgar became the first female Grandmaster to earn the title with a complete set of GM norms based on performance rating and satisfying the rating requirement” saying the reference was not reliable enough. Ok, but then when I tried to remove the same sentence backed by the same reference on the List of female chess grandmasters page, the removal got reverted, with the reverter writing “this is correct. I've already discussed it with bruce, who brought up the concern, before. also the concern brought up on the other page is slightly different.” (You can see that written here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_chess_grandmasters&action=history)

But I don’t understand how the concern is different, why it should be on one page but not the other?98.115.65.145 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:List of female chess grandmasters, you'll see that I'm having an argument with the person who created that article and brought it to FA. (One other person has contributed to the discussion.) I think that the claim about Polgar should be removed from that article, as well as from Susan Polgar, whereas that person demurred.

The subject of how to write about Gaprindashvili's gaining the GM title has come up in several talk pages, over a number of years, and I have probably argued several different positions, so I am not going to try to figure out when I agreed with whom and why. At any rate, it would probably be wise to hold off making changes about this until the argument has been resolved one way or the other. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are still paying attention to this, I would say that, for what it's worth, the argument has gone relatively quiet. If you wanted to pursue this, it would not be a bad time. Your ideas may be different from mine and/or those of the editor I was arguing with, OK with me.

There may be subtle reasons to handle the issues differently in the three different articles. One bit of courtesy that I learned about recently is WP:FAOWN. That would cause me to be extra careful in modifying List of female chess grandmasters, if I were disagreeing with the editor who brought that article to FL (I meant FL instead of FA), whereas I might be less inhibited in modifying the other two articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the terrible text in chess about amateurs and heuristics and had intended to revisit it, but I would have done something timid. You handled it better. Quale (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just in a somewhat dogmatic mood last night. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a good revision to the sharp entry on the glossary of chess article, but having trouble figuring out how to phrase it well, particularly cause of the sentence that says "can be used to describe moves, maneuvers...". I'd like to include something about being relatively forcing/having few available accurate moves since that was something I didn't realize was part of the nature of sharpness (when I was new to chess) while reading about the term on wikipedia a couple years ago, but adding something about few available moves feels like it clashes with the "can be used to describe moves", as it seems weird to say a move can have few available moves. What do you think might be good? Dayshade (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure we should be saying "few available accurate moves" here, for approximately the reason you describe. If, for example, an opening is sharp, it isn't necessarily going to be forcing on every move; there are going to be quiet intervals.

Off-topic, could I give you some advice on starting talk page conversations? First, since we're talking about Glossary of chess, we should be talking in Talk:Glossary of chess, not here in User talk:Bruce leverett. There are lots of editors who are interested in chess and may be interested in the glossary, and may even have the glossary on their "watch list"; having the conversation there enables them to easily find out about it, read it, and possibly contribute to it. Second, when you start something on a talk page, always first hit the "Add topic" button near the top of the page. This separates your new conversation from previous unrelated conversations, and gives you a heading without your having to learn how to do boldface, large font, et cetera. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd only gotten in the habit of messaging directly since in the past I'd often gotten no replies when leaving on a page's talk page. But that was a while ago and not for chess articles. Since you're assuring me I'll get replies, then I'll switch to that. And normally I would add a new section but opted not to cause the original two messages were so short, but I'll make sure to always add a new section going forward. Also, what are your views on indentation style? I've always preferred to only add indent if a reply is to something that isn't the most recent reply, but it seems everyone else prefers to always indent, but not sure if it's wanted to be applied each time (ie the replies in order have 1, then 2, 3, 4, 5 indents etc, which seems to be a bit unwieldy to me). Dayshade (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The path of least resistance is generally to just hit the "reply" button, which also automatically gives you an extra level of indentation. The situation where you might not want that is when you make 5 replies in a row to the same thing, without anyone else having interrupted the sequence. In a case like that you might well want to put all your replies at the same level. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I noticed there isn't an entry for "accurate". Which made me think, maybe even if such an entry is added, maybe it should say "few available good moves" instead of "few available accurate moves"? More understandable for laymen. Dayshade (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"Accurate" doesn't belong in this glossary because, as I said of another proposed entry, it is "not a technical term". That means that its meaning in chess is not specific to chess in a noteworthy way. Nobody learning about chess has to look up what "accurate" means; they already know what it means from other contexts. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, well thinking back to when I was totally new, I am not sure if I would have understood what it meant, but it is definitely guessable. Maybe "accuracy" would be more of a technical term than "accurate"? And seems a little less guessable, but still guessable. And as for "few available accurate moves", I still feel like it would be good to add something like that, or maybe some qualified version of "volatile", cause from googling it seems like comparable ideas are common to describe sharpness. I also feel like double-edged is a bit vague. I guess I'm wanting a bit more detail on the entry cause I remember still being confused about what sharp meant when I was starting out a couple years ago, using wikipedia frequently to learn. Which I think warrants some expansion but not sure what. Dayshade (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to be making things up here; we are supposed to be paraphrasing, or quoting from, reliable sources. This may not be obvious from looking through Glossary of chess, parts of which go back to the earliest days of Wikipedia, when the use of explicitly cited sources was not so rigorous. But since here, in the glossary entry for sharp, we are citing a source, we should be adhering to that source.

I don't have easy access to that source. Consequently, if I wanted to add stuff to the glossary entry, I would either have to find a copy, or cite an additional source, from which my added stuff would come. I don't know where your "few available accurate moves" comes from, but it has to come from somewhere, not from us anonymous editor drones. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess from googling, although I'd have to see if there's a more reliable source. I think it just comes from players explaining the implications of being double-edged or risky. Maybe words like "volatile", "forcing", "complex", etc might be better, or an explanation along the lines of that there are unusually many losing moves in the position, or maybe something about how theoretical knowledge or calculation is more necessary than in solid positions, hmm. I just remember not finding the current definition of it very helpful two years ago when I got into chess, so I think some sort of expansion would be nice. Dayshade (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I just made a section on Talk:Glossary of chess if you wanna continue there. Up to you. Also what do you do about paywalled sources? I see a lot of those and am not really sure how to verify if I don't want to buy the book. Perhaps a public source might be better. Dayshade (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Paywalls are a major annoyance in this line of work. In some cases you can go to the Wayback Machine if you have the URL of an old article but it won't let you get to it. There is also an archive for books, but I don't think that many chess beginner's textbooks, which are handy for us to cite for the glossary, are in it yet. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any other feedback on edits I've made to chess articles? Dayshade (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you be interested in weighing in at Talk:King's Gambit? Dayshade (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would take me a long time to get up to speed on this (because I would have to review all your edits and the reverts), and I am kind of busy right now "in real life", so by the time I was able to comment, MaxBrowne2 and/or Quale would have probably already taken care of it. You're getting free consulting from these guys, hope you are enjoying it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. We are looking for more input though. As for the consulting, yeah I guess I am kind of spamming a bit. But if people are critical I feel eager to resolve it. Dayshade (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is another editor saying something about your edits? Further, why are you making a stew or something about including a visit made by Kasparov? Stately2 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to in "another editor saying something about [my] edits". Can you give me a link to this? Thanks.

I assume by "making a stew" you mean this edit. The edit summary was supposed to be self-explanatory, but if you disagree, bring it up at Talk:Garry Kasparov (rather than here). You can also look at WP:RS. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Has it been discussed on that talk page? If it's merely something you and I don't agree on, it's easier to hash that out or iron a wrinkle. My point: the size of an article is not comparable to the things you bring up. Stately2 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, one should bring up content issues on the talk page of the article. It may seem at the moment that it's "just you and I", but everybody who edits this article has a stake in it, and already another editor has gotten involved, by reverting your second attempt to make the same edit. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I remember we also talked about pictures at the Bertrand Russell page in January. Happy New Year, almost! I appreciated your and others' advice in interpreting MOS:LEADIMAGE then and wonder if you could help me with mine on Woodrow Wilson. I'm not sure I understand why this is not a better picture. It is entirely the same, except that more of his face is visible, being not turned away or darkened; it is also larger. I would rather have this picture, even, than that to which you reverted, just for the wholeness of face. Also, I am unsure why you elected to revert the caption, which baselessly asserts the photograph was taken in 1914. Any advice you could give I would greatly appreciate! JJLiu112 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The photo you changed to is distinctly brighter, in a way that I thought was not good. Of course, we are talking about personal taste, which is kind of silly of both of us. I have come around to thinking that the choice should be made on the basis of familiarity: if some photograph is well-known due to frequent use in published sources, it's good. For instance, I might go to Amazon and search for "Woodrow Wilson", and if I see a book jacket that has the same photo we are using, I am happy. I just tried that exercise, but did not come up with either of our photos.

In any case, we have to start a discussion. The last discussion of the infobox image of Woodrow Wilson was Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 4#Lead image 2024. This doesn't prove anything, particularly as the photo you prefer wasn't discussed, but it shows that there are a lot of editors out there ready to come out of the woodwork if you change the lead image. If you want your change to stick, even if only for a few months, you should start a discussion and see what kind of buy-in you can get. It might be more fun if you start the discussion with as many plausible photos as you can find in Commons, not just two as were used in the 2024 discussion.

Regarding the caption and the date, I don't know where they came from, and I only reverted the caption because it was easiest to do that while reverting the photo. It looks to me like photo B in the 2024 discussion is another version of the photo we are currently using, and its metadata clearly says 1914. But I do not know how to get more information about that; clicking on the "Cowan's Auctions" link gets to a URL that is no longer good. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input which I appreciate. I think that insofar as the photo ultimately comes from Harris & Ewing, I am right in taking the LOC's uncertainty. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Was wondering if you saw my latest reply at Talk:Giuoco Piano (I don't think you quite understood what I saying originally) and if you had any advice on how I might go about reducing my conflict with MaxBrowne2 in general? Btw, wanted to thank you for your constructive approach to criticism. Dayshade (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been letting MaxB carry the ball. I do not have a large library of Giuoco Piano books, which is what you need to decide which names are "common" and which are "somebody's pet name". So I was just speaking on general principles.

If various texts want to name something after Greco, but they have different ideas of exactly what the Greco variation is, that especially is a situation where the state of the art is not stable enough to be in an encyclopedia.

It's not inappropriate to refer to 7. Nc3 as the start of a "Gambit line", since it is a gambit, but the open games are full of gambit lines. What we are doing now, as I write this, is calling it the "traditional line", and then explaining in the first sentence that it offers a pawn sacrifice. This is OK, but the word "traditional" is out of place here; chess openings aren't based on tradition, they're based on combat. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I really don't like the way he treats me and ignores most of my follow ups after his unconstructive criticism I'm trying to make into constructive things I can use to improve. For "traditional line", I thought using traditional works well because it emphasizes a line that was most common in the past. For "gambit line", you approved of the previous version using that label then? Dayshade (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm also curious specifically about the noting "Greco Gambit" in the prose question. There could be a sentence saying something like "...has been used to refer to 5.d4, 6.cxd4, and 7.Nc3", but I wonder if there's a problem with it I don't see? Dayshade (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how the information that "Greco Gambit" has been used to describe X, Y, and Z is of any use or help to the encyclopedia reader. He/she is not (necessarily) a would-be Giuoco Piano scholar, just a person trying to get started in the Giuoco Piano.

BTW, I'm holding you to a higher standard than the article, and some of our other opening articles, have been held to before. This may seem unfair, but when a guy comes along who is motivated to clean something up, may as well take advantage.

Rather than "traditional line", "old main line" might be a better choice of words for essentially the same concept. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be such a horrible ogre, Dayshade, but you need to understand how Wikipedia works. We can't take raw data such as chess databases and put our own interpretation on it, like labelling something the "modern main line" just because there are a lot of recent games in it in the database you are using. Likewise we can't analyse chess positions with an engine and then post the results in articles. All we can do is reflect what is in the reliable sources. The terms "reliable source", "notable" and "verifiable" have specific meanings in the wikipedia context which you need to thoroughly understand. See also WP:NOT. You can do original research with databases and engines, I do quite a lot of it myself. But anything you post in article space must be supported by reliable sources. It is not optional. So find sources that support your position before writing "white usually...." "black usually..." etc in article space. We're an encylopedia, not a database dump. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that WP:PRIMARY allows basic statements like "White usually", and chess openings couldn't be any lower stakes than the higher-stakes articles strict interpretations of those policies are aimed at. I've confirmed that inlines are not required for non-biographical non-quote non-contested information, so feel free to add CN tags to anything you want me to hunt down a source for. What I've been trying to avoid is things like "is considered best" and other things that suggest evaluation, which I was doing when I started out last summer. Don't worry about being an ogre, it's okay, I'm glad you're talking more. Also, so we don't spam bruce, feel free to respond elsewhere. Dayshade (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The rules as written say that it's OK not to cite supporting sources for non-biographical, non-quotation, non-contested information. But years ago, I realized that in practice, almost everything is contested, even things that I thought couldn't possibly be contested. This is true almost everywhere in Wiki that I have worked, but certainly in chess-related articles. It's a burden, and it makes us look ultra-pedantic. Every Wikipedia article that Google ever fetches has citation footnotes after almost every sentence. But that's the way it goes.

In chess, in particular, something like "Nf3 is usually played" is guaranteed to be contestable. Usually played among GM's, masters, amateurs, or beginners? Where -- in the U.S. (where I live), in Europe, Asia? At my chess club, or at the World Open, or wherever? There has to be a better method of saying that Nf3 is important enough to mention. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Lots to think about. I guess that means "frequently" and the like are better than "usually" as they're much less contestable, as frequently doesn't imply more than half or anything, just a significant rate of play. Although, I reserve usually for things that are only moves or close to it, for the most part. Anyway, what do you think of my new "main line" (in the Classical section) section with its subheaders at Petrov's Defence? Particularly with regards to citations. Dayshade (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

And another thing, are there any opening articles or sections of opening articles that you find particularly exemplary? I wonder if you feel that way about Budapest Gambit, but I have to say that article does clash a bit with the rest of the opening pages stylistically. But I wonder if there are any aspects that should be propagated elsewhere, like putting the full line in italics under section headers? Dayshade (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)