Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 9

Personal life

There have recently been some edits in the first paragraph of this section. But the whole paragraph is lame. The only citation is to an article that was written as part of the advance publicity for the movie Bobby Fischer Against the World. It shouldn't be difficult to make a case that Fischer was eccentric, but the article doesn't, and neither does our text. All the history of Fischer demanding better playing conditions, more money, etc. is generally regarded not as eccentricity, but as hard (and sometimes shrewd) bargaining, as we have noted elsewhere in the article. Moreover that wasn't Fischer's "personal life", it was his career.

So if I blew that paragraph away, would it then be appropriate to start over and say that Fischer was eccentric and to give examples? Some Wikipedia biographies are organized in such a way that one can easily drop such a paragraph into the "Personal life" section. But in this article, we have been mentioning and discussing Fischer's eccentricity all along: the dropping out of school, the association with the Worldwide Church of God, the anti-Semitism, "I was tortured ...", and so on. This is something that stands out when one compares the article about Fischer to the articles about, for instance, Morphy and Steinitz. For better or worse, we have mixed his career with his personal life, and there seems little point in trying to summarize his eccentricity at this juncture. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree that that introductory paragraph isn't good. I would like to say that it isn't needed at all, but really there should be a little text before the first subsection head. I'm not sure that that text has to say that Fischer was eccentric. Quale (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It is true that a multi-sub-section section like this normally needs an introduction. But that is moving me in the direction of combining the previous section, "Life as an emigré", with this one, all under the title "Personal life". I am beginning to see the point of having separate "personal life" sections in Wiki biographies. It more clearly separates things that make the person notable, from things that are notable because he did them or was part of them. This could grow to be a project. Gotta start somewhere. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the 'Anti-xyz statements' subsections could be moved to the Personal life section, and the Death, estate dispute, and exhumation subsection moved to Life as an émigré or be made a separate section after Life as an émigré. The Anti-Semitic statements subsection mentions the early 1960s—it is difficult to see that as part of his life as an émigré. On a somewhat related note, Fischer is part of the "Jewish chess players" category, which I think he would object to. Also he is listed under "American people of German descent" (for Hans-Gerhardt) and "American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent" (presumably for Nemenyi). Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have reorganized the Life as an émigré and Personal life sections, and removed the Hungarian-Jewish descent category. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

From WP:Categorization, I gather that people are supposed to use Categories as a navigational aid. I have never used them, at least not as they were intended, but I can imagine someone thinking, "Who was that famous chess player, had a German name, maybe if I see a list I will recognize it ...". So that justifies Fischer being in the American people of German descent category. But I can also imagine someone thinking, "Who was that guy, didn't he have a Hungarian birth father but was named for his wife's husband, and he went on to be famous ...", and having Fischer in the Hungarian-Jewish category would help. In other words, perhaps, we should err on the side of putting him in too many categories? Just a thought. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fractions

Gack -- the new 1/2 is horrible -- very attention-getting, especially when they appear near to each other (as often happens in this chess article). I see that MOS:FRAC says, "do not use special characters", such as ½, but what was wrong with them? And, besides, are not the alternatives all much worse? (Isn't that why the special character was invented?) Bruce leverett (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I note that the MOS guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ewen (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The symbol with the diagonal bar was far less distracting. Now, if you're going to be using many fractions with differing values, the newer style might make sense, but in Chess articles, 1/2 is as fractional as we get in this regard. I'd argue that the "1/2" is not so much a number as a symbol indicating a draw (or, an odd number of draws). WHPratt (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

an addition for "In popular culture: In film" subsection -- Requiem for Bobby Fischer (2010)

Here's the trailer on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jX0DVbTc4 https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_requiem_for_bobby_fischer/ Amazon has the DVD: https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Bobby-Fischer/dp/B00U2YNMFY You can stream it for free with Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Bobby-Fischer-English-Subtitled/dp/B00TILJ31E Phantom in ca (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a fairly obscure Serbian documentary, not sure if it qualifies as "popular culture". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean like Me and Bobby Fischer (film festival in Iceland) and Bobby Fischer Live (???). I guess the question is "popular" in which culture/s? If you watch it, it is a very worthwhile resource for Fischerphiles.Phantom in ca (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Text which seems to be non-NPOV

'Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time.' 'Fischer showed great skill in chess from an early age' 'Fischer experienced a "meteoric rise" in his playing strength.' The above examples probably are non-NPOV.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 'Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time', the editors of this article are trying to follow WP:SUBJECTIVE:

[W]e might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language.

You will note that there are many citations in the footnotes to this statement, and in addition, there are non-visible comments in the source. Of course, we still get flak for this -- casual readers often think that the article is trying to say that Fischer was the greatest chess player of all time. It's not an ideal situation, but it's the best we have done so far. Note that articles about other famous sports figures have the same problem.

Regarding 'Fischer showed great skill in chess from an early age', this looks reasonable to me -- it does not use "puffery", and the rest of the sentence gives three examples to support it. I would add that showing skill at an early age was part of what made Fischer notable.

Regarding 'Fischer experienced a "meteoric rise" in his playing strength', I too have scratched my head over this. One could justify it using WP:SUBJECTIVE (note that "meteoric rise" is a direct quotation from the cited source), but I suspect that it is unnecessary. Also, a rise of 500 rating points in a year, while unusual, is far from unprecedented. What is really remarkable is that he went from class B in early 1956 to U.S. champion in early 1958. So we are not being terribly accurate here.

This is not the only place in the article where we may be leaning too heavily on the prose of Fischer's contemporaries and biographers, prose which was written in a style that is less appropriate for an encyclopedia. One must be careful about it, but if you find a better way, boldly try it out. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically none of it is N-POV?211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is such a thing as justifiable puffery. When Muhammad Ali said he was the greatest, he could actually back it up. That said the word "meteoric" is problematic in an encyclopedic context per WP:WTW. I'll attempt to address this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

1959 Candidates tournament

User:Ewen: I wonder if User:Fielding99 was doing the right thing for the wrong reason. In an encyclopedia, it seems unnecessary to use words like "outclassed" to describe this situation; simply saying "He lost all four of his individual games to Tal, who won the tournament" would be sufficient. Or, am I being too draconian? It's not bad to add a little color here and there, particularly when we are describing things that made Fischer notable (I wouldn't put this tournament in that category). When I look at other Wiki chess biographies, there seems to be a more matter-of-fact approach. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce. As I said in my edit summary, "outclassed" does seem a fair description, to me, of the 4-0 loss to Tal in their individual games. Looking at estimates of their relative contemporary playing strengths on Chessmetrics, 2.5-1.5 would have been the most likely outcome. Keres described Fischer's result vs Tal as a "debacle" and estimated that Fischer was "not yet the equal to his older colleagues" (Wade & O'Connell, p324). Maybe Keres' "debacle" description would be a better word? As a precedent, the article's descriptions of Fischer's 1963-4 US Championship result draw heavily on quotes to give colour to the text. Ewen (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Subjectively, I have no problem with "outclassed", but one of the highlights of WP:NPOV is "Prefer non-judgmental language." There is a lot of judgmental language in Bobby Fischer, and as a result, it doesn't always read like an encyclopedia article; it often reads like a journalistic feature article. This affects credibility. For all the labor that has gone into researching this article over the years, it is a shame if some reader concludes that it was written by adoring fans.

Having said that, I admit that it can be helpful to provide the reader some guidance as to what's normal and what's not, particularly in an unfamiliar topic such as chess. Just to give one example, in the section on the 1972 World Championship, we write, "Fischer lost the first two games in strange fashion: ... " The word "strange" is highly judgmental, yet, it is the Right Thing To Say here.

Regarding your own example, our handling of Fischer's 11-0 score in the 1963-4 Championship, I admit that I savor two of the quotations, the one where Brady is quoting Byrne, and the one where Fischer is quoting Kmoch. Moreover, it's important for us to capture the media sensation that resulted from this performance. It's possible to overdo it, however. For instance, I don't think that the quotations of Saidy and Larsen add much to this. Anyway, we are somewhat straying from the original topic, which was judgmental language. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is Fielding99. The Candidates collided against Fischer. This has been confirmed by several Soviet players who participated in the tournament, and is even confirmed elsewhere in the article. Thus, Tal’s 4-0 score is tainted, as he could rest against their Soviet players, while Fischer had to press in every game. It was not a fair competition. The word “outclass” is normally an acceptable, if colorful, way or o describe a lopsided score, but is inappropriate in the face of cheating. I was right to delete it, and the editors were foolish o remove my deletion.

I should add that Wikipedia is pretty pathetic when it comes to chess history, with editors stubbornly clinging to antiquated and factually disproven sentences.

But by all means, do go ahead and describe Tal as outclassing someone he cheated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing the 1959 Candidates' tournament with the 1962 Candidates' tournament. There were no accusations of collusion (that I know of) regarding the 1959 tournament. If you read the article further, you will find a description of the accusations of collusion regarding the 1962 tournament, which, as always in Wikipedia, you are welcome to inspect for errors and omissions, and welcome to correct them. But before complaining about, and correcting, "antiquated and factually disproven sentences", check your facts. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic background

Fischer's ethnic background is adequately, or perhaps more than adequately, covered in "Early years" section, including the subsection about Paul Nemenyi. The irony of Fischer's anti-Semitism in spite of his Jewish background is mentioned in the first sentence of the section on "Religious affiliation". That one sentence is plenty. An entire new section on "Ethnic background" is unwarranted. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer Jewish ancestry

Hey guys, I offered new and updated, extensively researched information, showing Bobby Fischer was Jewish by genealogical and ethnic standards. Being Jewish by religious belief is different. The information I included, namely Clea Benson's copy of the FBI memo to the CIA, which emerged in 2009, was not mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact, in the subtitle "Paul Nemenyi as Fischer's Father", it erroneously states that the FBI did not have a file explicitly confirming Paul as Fischer's forbearer. This is based on information available before Sep.2009, which is outdated. The way this article is formulated, one might come to say there is little basis for labeling him as Jewish. This runs contrary to factual evidence, and that should be made clear. Maybe Bobby did not want to be Jewish, but that doesn't change his ethnic denomination. And to reiterate, religious affiliation and denomination is a matter of his beliefs. Encyclopedia Judaica discusses people who are Jews by genealogical ancestry, many of whom were total atheists. So Bobby's letter to them is ludicrous. S. Kossin (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence. The section on Paul Nemenyi already says that there is "detailed and compelling evidence" that Nemenyi was Fischer's biological father, so you do not have to worry about a reader coming away with the idea that there is "little basis". However, it is true that the 2009 source that you have cited is at least as reliable as the 2002 source that the article is already citing, so it would be reasonable to make a correction to the article. For instance, you might change "FBI files do not identify Nemenyi as Fischer's father, but note that Hans-Gerhardt ..." to "FBI files note that Hans-Gerhardt ...", and you might add a citation of your 2009 source to the citations at the end of that sentence. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. Please take a look at my revision to the Paul Nemenyi section, as a mysterious person undid them for no reason.

The "mysterious" one is *you*, an WP:SPU who doesn't know how to edit an Infobox, WP:Edit wars instead of WP:BRDs while introducing poorly referenced text, introducing WP:OR & WP:EDITORIAL, while lecturing in all caps what is "COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE WIKI COMMUNITY". --IHTS (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@S. Kossin: You read like some sort of enthusiast, using Wikipedia to publish conclusions that other outlets aren't covering to your liking. As you can see, you don't have consensus for these changes, so you ought to go elsewhere. As IHTS point out, the community deplores the use of all caps in edit summaries, especially when proclaiming that your edits are all good, right, and true. We're not convinced. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

While IHTS may have been a little brusque, I too would have reverted your most recent edits. The detailed exposition of the FBI files on Fischer, including full quotations, is over the top. I suggested that you do no more than add a footnote to cite the source you have located. I would still hold to that recommendation.

Generally speaking, in any Wikipedia article, it is necessary to avoid getting bogged down in details. Wiki is an online encyclopedia, and Wiki articles are just summaries of current knowledge, not full-scale monographs. A typical reader might have typed "Bobby Fischer" in his favorite search engine because he saw a reference to Fischer in some other Web site, and wanted to get more background. The whole question of parentage would be of little interest to such a reader. Even the sections we already have, before your edits, are borderline; they are there for the benefit of chess aficionados, not for the majority of Wikipedia readers.

Here is another thing that I neglected to mention earlier. While Hoover's memo is interesting, it doesn't add any direct evidence about Fischer's parentage. Hoover was looking at the same source material as everybody else, and while it is reassuring to see that he came to the same conclusion as everybody else, it does not add anything special to the argument. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, @Chris Troutman, Bruce Leverett has already agreed with me that the source is reliable. Why aren't you convinced? And, I don't see how anyone could justify leaving factually incorrect information on the site. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? That users can revise information that is outdated? We are discussing information that has been known to be incorrect for almost ten years. If nobody else corrects this, it diminishes the reliability of WP. Finally to @ihardlythinkso , check what you are undoing. The sentence about "Ironically,..." could be deleted without touching the revisions to Paul Nemenyi. So no, you haven't done your homework. What you have done is engaged in harassment. Disparaging my editing skills should have nothing to do with this conversation. To be clear your behaviour is poor, not to mention the integrity of deleting a valid update.

@Bruce Leverett, can I leave it to you fix this in a matter you see fit? S. KossinS. Kossin (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to Ihardlythinkso, do you realize that Bobby Fischer's hatred toward Jews is what the whole section was about? I should not even need to provide a reference, as the following paragraphs adequately explained. Deleting my sentence as "poorly referenced" was wrong. S. KossinS. Kossin (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I will be honored to make an appropriate correction.

Perhaps I should not scold, but there has been plenty of incivility to go around in this thread and in the edit summaries in the mainspace article. The first thing to remember, for the more experienced editors here, is that User:S. Kossin has evidently been editing for only 4-5 days, and therefore WP:BITE is supremely important. If you're unsure as to where is the line between a stern admonition and a rude insult, sit on your hands. Now some advice for the new editor: if you see experienced editors getting snippy with you, time to sit on your own hands. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

An anonymous editor (i.e. an IP address) got there ahead of me. I have made some minor tweaks to his change (including moving it into an earlier paragraph). I hope that this strikes the right balance, by updating the discussion without giving undue prominence to the question of parentage. Also, in this thread of conversation, I have taken the liberty of correcting misspellings of my name in other people's contributions. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To Bruce Leverett:

   Well, I cannot agree with your placement of the information. It is confusing to the reader, as the next paragraph discusses the details of their findings, much of which came prior to their "continued work" and final publication. It would be more appropriate to place it where it belongs chronologically, coming after their initial evidence. Furthermore, the FBI note is a piece of detail in the evidence, which certainly belongs in the last paragraph. 

You can simply relocate your edit to the end of the second paragraph. I haven't touched it because I want to hear what you have to say first.

Secondly, for user's benefit, may I ask you provide a template for J. Edgar Hoover? Once you mention his name, some people don't know who he is. I have known him to be the one who built the FBI's formidable reputation, but to the average reader it's just a name. So a link to his Wikipedia entry would be helpful. I respect the fact that to you his name is obvious. Thanks S. Kossin (talk) S. Kossin (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the mention of J. Edgar Hoover to be a link to the article about him. Thanks for the suggestion! If you did not already know how to do this, check it out -- it is a simple and handy thing to do.

I do not think the chronology, or which things Benson and Nicholas found before 2002 and which things they found after, is important or worth focusing on. Also, the FBI note is not part of the evidence, it's Hoover's summary of the evidence; just a cover letter, really. However, I'm not in charge here -- this is Wikipedia! If you like your version better, we can look at it, either in the article itself or here in the talk page, and argue about it some more.

It occurred to me that the question of Fischer's paternity could be compared with the question of Jinky Young's paternity mentioned later in the article. Like Nemenyi, Fischer had an affair with the mother, took an interest in the child, and even made payments to the mother in support of the child. But the question really was not settled until the DNA tests had been done, and it turned out that the child was not his. Benson and Nicholas complained that their audiences thought all their evidence was ho-hum -- only DNA tests would really resolve the issue. In response, they spent several more years gathering even more evidence, but none of it was much more interesting than the first round of evidence. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Category: Jewish chess players

An anonymous editor (IP address) removed this category, and I have restored it, not without hesitation.

The category itself has survived two attempts at deletion. It even has a talk page (Categories have talk pages?), on which Fischer is mentioned. So, I'm wading into an old debate.

Indeed, the question of whether a person is (was) "really" Jewish is perplexing. As we mention in the article, Fischer evidently wrote to Encyclopedia Judaica to tell them to remove him from their compendium. But apparently, they did not; I guess that their usual practice is not to try to figure out whether the person actually adhered to the religion (which question is probably in many cases hard to answer). If Wikipedia is going to have a category like "Jewish chess players", then as a practical matter, Wikipedia may have to follow the same practice. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought that EJ did remove Fischer, but I may be wrong about that. I have always viewed the category as being primarily chess players who were ethnically Jewish, but it should also included any players who converted to Judaism. I'm not sure we have articles about any converts, however. Jews in chess have been the subject of a fair amount of discussion and commentary, some of it antisemitic but most noting the out-sized contributions Jews have made to the game. Quale (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about EJ. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Conversion to Judaism is rare but not impossible. I don't know of any notable chess players who are Jewish converts. In any case I agree with the removal of the "Jewish chess players" category. In general categories should be uncontroversial per WP:CATV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree w/ removal. (Why torture the dead?) --IHTS (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Fischer's Jewish ethnicity is a defining characteristic and has received a lot of commentary and discussion, much of it by Fischer himself. It isn't the most significant thing about Fischer, but it is significant. It isn't significant because I think it is or because Wikipedia thinks it is, it's significant because much has been written about it in WP:RS sources. Quale (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there are quite a few Categories of the form "Jewish X" for some profession X", e.g. Jewish classical musicians, Jewish cricketers, Jewish comedians -- I got those by typing "Category:jewish c", no telling how many I would find in the whole alphabet. Presumably all of these have the same problem as "Jewish chess players", that is, a person can be born Jewish but can renounce Judaism later, do you put him in the category then? My earlier idea that "maybe there shouldn't even be such a controversial category" is a non-starter.

So, we are stuck with a category that is controversial. So if we put Fischer in it, then from time to time people will take him out (as has been done), and if we don't put Fischer in it, from time to time people will put him in (as has also been done). So there are two questions: (1) Out or In? (2) What do we say to people who disagree?

I wonder if this question has been discussed before, in connection with some other category that is inherently controversial. Can anyone suggest where I could post a question and get the eyes of some experienced editors on it?

Here's my stab at an answer to (1): categories are used to enable people to find things. If you call up some category and there are a few bogus entries in it, you'll waste some time following up on those entries. But if you call up some category and it doesn't have an entry that you would have been interested in, that entry is lost to you forever. Therefore we should err on the side of putting things unnecessarily in categories, rather than on the side of leaving dubious things out of categories. That's my idea, but I despair of trying to use it in an edit summary for, e.g., putting Fischer back into this category.

But to repeat, if the consensus goes against me here, that's fine. We can't win here, we can only try to stick to a consistent policy, whichever way it falls. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a category for searching. --IHTS (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't be a category for searching, but I don't think that's relevant to category membership in any case. Wikipedia also has List of Jewish chess players, and so the usual "list or category or both (or neither)", comes into play. (I say both.) As long as we have both it makes sense to have the same members in both, with the exception that lists can contain items that don't have individual articles (although many people will falsely, loudly and obstinately claim that every list entry must have an article). Jewish chess players have been a subject of study and discussion as a general topic, and Fischer's Jewish heritage has also been a subject of study and discussion in particular. Our biographical articles, list articles and categories should reflect what our sources say. It's true that sometimes people will take exception to this and make changes, but welcome to wikipedia, that happens over almost any thing that bothers somebody, and Fischer's story in this regard is very bothersome to everybody. The best solution is to stick to what the sources say. Quale (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Quale reminds us of what might be called Rule 1, "stick to the sources". I was not sure how to apply this, but for starters, I have looked through the obituaries that we cite, and none of them called him Jewish, though a couple mentioned that his mother was Jewish. This is inclining me to change my mind, though I will look through some more sources when I have a chance. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Fischer entry in that list is supported by a reference to "The Big Book of Jewish Sports Heroes". For Fischer to be listed as a Jewish hero is dubious. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC) After checking, he does not seem to be mentioned in that book. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Profile of a Prodigy, Frank Brady, 1973, p. 2: "According to Talmudic law the religion of a child is determined by the faith of the mother. Regina was born Jewish, though she was not particularly devout. Bobby, therefore, was considered a jew." I think there are quite a few other sources as well. Quale (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also want to look at Brady's 2011 book, but I do not have my own copy. Both the Worldwide Church of God, and Fischer writing to Encyclopaedia Judaica, happened after 1973. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have Brady's 2011; don't believe it mentions writing to Encyclopedia Judaica, as does Edmonds & Edinow 2004, pp. 26–27:

As his mother was Jewish, under Jewish law he was Jewish himself, although this was a label he always rejected. When he discovered that he had been included in a list of famous Jews in the Encyclopedia Judaica, he wrote to the editor to declare how distressed this mistake had made him and to demand that it not be repeated. He was not and never had been Jewish, he said. And in what he must have regarded as confirmation of this status, he revealed that he was uncircumcised.

There's alot in Brady's re his religious evolution, here's brief summary (pp. 314–15):

Bobby's attempt to find some deeper, perhaps religious meaning to his life took a wide and twisted path. At first, as a child, there was Judaism, of which he never really felt a part; then Fundamentalism, until he became disillusioned with the leaders of the Wordwide Church of God, Anti-Semitism also became a quasi religion—or certainly a profound belief—for him, and one that he never really abandoned. At one point of his life he embraced atheism, although not for long. He was intrigued with the cult of Rajneesh himself, rather than the guru's practices. Finally, near the end of his life, he began to explore Catholicism.

--IHTS (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have asked the question at WP:Help desk#Problematic_category. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If the bulk of sources don't call him Jewish, and he rejected being described as Jewish himself, then he shouldn't be categorized as Jewish. Just like any other religion, a person can be born into it or convert into it, just like they can reject it, or convert from it to another belief system. It's not an ethnicity, it's a belief system. When someone converts from any other religion to another, or rejects their religion entirely, we don't insist they're still of that faith. A Christian who becomes atheist is not still considered a Christian. A Muslim who converts to Christianity is not still considered a Muslim. Orville1974^talk 04:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Orville1974. Willbb234 (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"It's not an ethnicity" -- that is incorrect. From Jews -- "Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group". So this argument fails straight away since it is based on a false assumption about what Jewishness is. I also have to say that a "bulk of the sources" argument isn't very effective on its own. The bulk of the sources don't describe Fisher as anything other than a chess player, but we aren't going to limit the article to that. The bulk of the sources don't say that Fischer was born in Chicago, but it's a fact reflected in the article and in the categories. You need a compelling source that demonstrates Fischer was not ethnically Jewish. Currently that is argued by several Wikipedians but based on no sources at all, the only source currently in evidence says Fischer was born Jewish. Quale (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I intended, when saying "bulk of the sources don't call him Jewish", to only refer to those sources that addressed his religion (in other words, those that say he was, and those that say he wasn't). I was not considering those that didn't address it at all. The article you linked also describes Mormons (a religion that's existed for less than 200 years) as an ethnoreligious group . . . If your rationale is similar to that of Jewish faith and law, which declares matrilineal descent as the sole factor of Jewishness, and that once a Jew always a Jew, then you're saying every person on this list List of former Jews has no freedom to choose their own belief system because they were born into a religion that won't ever accept their departure, and that they all have false assumptions of what Jewishness is. Orville1974^talk 19:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

All the major religions are also ethnicities, because people are expected to bring up their children in their own religion. I doubt that we will get to a conclusion by arguing over how much Jewish religion overlaps, or doesn't overlap, with Jewish ancestry. Also, for most of the persons in the Jewish chess players category, we have no way of knowing how deep their commitment was to the religion, or even whether or not they renounced it; Fischer is different only in that he was more notorious.

I was hoping to hear from editors with experience with comparable figures. But in the mean time, I looked up Felix Mendelssohn. This article says, "A grandson of the philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, Felix Mendelssohn was born into a prominent Jewish family. He was brought up without religion until the age of seven, when he was baptised as a Reformed Christian." But the article is in the categories: Jewish classical composers, Jewish opera composers, Jewish classical pianists. Looking at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn, I see that this categorization has been challenged at least twice (2010 and 2014). (That talk page, unlike Fischer's, has not required 9 archives.) I suppose that if we kept Bobby Fischer along the same path as Felix Mendelssohn, I could at least cite precedent. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Marx is only listed in the "Jewish descent" category. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has used Who is a Jew? yet (if they have, my apologies for the duplication). Per the lead there, "Opinion polls have suggested that the majority of Jews see being Jewish as predominantly a matter of ancestry and culture, rather than religion." suggesting that it is not something which people may opt out of, any more than a Nilotic person or Melanesian could. However, the lead there also supplies several other definitions, some of which would call Fischer in or out depending on whether they are used inclusively or exclusively. FWIW, my !vote would be for there to not be any <ethnic group><sport/profession/etc> type categories because they're always going to lead to such hard places. I'd rather see a separate cat for <chess players> and another one(s) for whatever ethnic or religious terms seem appropriate. Matt Deres (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Theological POV

User:StutzTCB is edit warring and attempting to insert a theological POV into the article. Fischer describing the church as "satanic" is significant and shouldn't be edited out. Likewise the previous wording about allegations of sexual misconduct specifically involving Garner Ted Armstrong is better than vague stuff about "internal scandals". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It is particularly important to preserve the letter and spirit of the quotation from Edmonds and Eidinow. As editors, we cannot blithely mangle direct quotations; WP:QUOTE refers to "unedited, exact, reproduction of the original source". Removing the reference to Fischer's accusation of "satanic" conduct is a startling failure to reproduce what Edmonds and Eidinow said. Even if, for example, you were to replace the quotation by rewriting what Edmonds and Eidinow said in your own words, you would still be obliged to mention the accusation of satanic conduct.

I am less certain of the reference to Garner Ted Armstrong. The question I have is, did these scandals affect Fischer's thinking? I do not have copies of the sources handy to clarify this. The scandals were lurid enough at the time, but we should mention them only if, for example, Fischer mentioned them.

Though this series of edits has come close to an "edit war", some net improvements have been made; thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 began the edit war. It’s his own personal article after all and he’s been camped out on it for quite some time just look at his page. And if some net improvements have been made through my edits then why call upon your admin buddy to revert them all and then protect the page? Smacks of further ownership. The quote from the link in question was NOT MADE BY FISCHER but by The NY Times reporter who wrote a 2003 piece on the preachers death. Completely irrelevant to anything at all to do with this article. And what about the negative descriptive adjectives used describing the church or any church. Unless they are devil worshippers why call any church of God a church of satan!? Complete and utter nonsense to allude to this decades old sidebar to what User:MaxBrowne2 describes as an “important Chess article” in his reason to revert. User:MaxBrowne2 states he had to address my improvement edits “one at a time”, clearly demonstrating his “ownership” over ANY content improvements or Any edits in the article, then he accuses me falsely of edit warring after he agreed with my first edit to exclude the defaming descriptive negative adjectives being used describing that church. Now that edit User:MaxBrowne2 agreed needed made and was an article improvement — well it too has been reverted after User:MaxBrowne2 reaches out to his admin pal to revert and protect. I’m a new editor and I’m done playing in this all boys club - with all you fools. What in the world does a 1978 rumor of a sex scandal about a dead tv preacher Armstrong have anything at all to do with Chess, or his ability to play chess? Did Neil Armstrong and the moon landing also affect his ability to “concentrate” on the game?! Because the moon landing occurred closer to the time of his big tournament play than this preacher rumor in 1978!! Anyone who wants to keep this totally irrelevant crap in this “important” CHESS article is nutty themselves. Show me proof Fischer was ever a “member” of that church. Just because he donated money to them does not mean he ever joined up. I visited a church with a friend, one time only, and I put money in the plate when it was passed around, that did not mean I joined them every week and became a permanent member. Now, this guy here below points to another 1972 quote from a Los Angeles Times reporter “bonds of satan”?? This is a quote by the REPORTER who wrote the article, NOT FISCHER! And WTF does that have to do with Bobby Fischer directly HIMSELF!!??

The article is about Bobby Fischer, not chess. Fischer was from the mid-1960's until 1977 a member of the Worldwide Church of God. Garner Ted Armstrong was denounced by his own father in 1972 as "in the bonds of Satan" and presumably this would be troubling to any follower of the Church. If you want a relationship to chess, consider how it influenced Fischer's playing schedule at Sousse, or his decision to publish My 60 Memorable Games. Ewen (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ewen. Fischer was NEVER a member of that church he only donated money once. And you presume he WON HIS TOURNAMENTS because he was so badly psychologically affected by a sex scandal involving a tv preacher?!! You could maybe begin to make an argument if he lost!! Maybe his opponents lost because they were going through a divorce or engaged in an extramarital affair! Why not include some odd irrevelant speculation about that theory. Fischer’s opponents lost because they were so distraught over something going on in the church they supported with a donation. And he then wrote a book about CHESS after he was so traumatized and upset about the preacher! Wow, I like Joel Osteen. If I found out tonight he was involved in some scandal I just could not even function enough to make it to work this week. (attempted humor) —StutzTCB(UTC) (talk • contribs) 00:33, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

Not technically a member. From Brady (2011), p. 210:

His connection to the Church was always somewhat ambiguous. He was not a registered member, since he hadn't agreed to be baptized by full immersion in water by Armstrong or one of his ministers. And since he wasn't considered a duly recognized convert, he was sometimes referred to as a "co-worker" or, less politely, as a "fringer"—someone on the fringes or edges of the Church but not totally committed to its mission.

--IHTS (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ihardlythink, okay, technically he wasn't a member but he followed the church's teaching for many years, to the point of withdrawing from the World Championship cycle at Sousse because he insisted on observing their Sabbath, and the publication of M60MG is recorded as being influenced by Fischer's believing the Church's assertion that the Rapture was imminent. I never presumed that rubbish you put in my mouth, so shut up.

(Ewen (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC))

Correction; The paragraph I objected to was written by StutzTCB, not Ihardlythinkso. Apologies to IHTS but without tracking every edit it wasn't clear. This is why we sign stuff, StutzTCB! Ewen (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when I indented StutzTCB's reply to you, it inadvertently broke up his post; the next para of his post is reply to Max below w/ same timestamp. (Sorry for confusion.) --IHTS (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

StutzTCB I see you have edited your previous comment to address my later comment. You're new here so you don't know that it's not great practice to do that. It's also good to sign your comments with four tildes (~).

Although Fischer wasn't technically a member, he did a lot more than attend and donate once. He donated considerable amounts of money, was supported by the Church in return and he followed its teachings. Fischer was strongly influenced by the Church for a time, and that's relevant to his personal life. Arguably, it also influenced his decisions about attending chess tournaments and publishing his best-known book.

As for the 1972 "bonds of Satan" quote, it's relevant for two reasons; Firstly it comes before the 1978 date you find important, and secondly it is echoed in Fischer's own 1977 accusation that the Church was "satanic".

Ewen (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ewen I don't disagree w/ your central thesis here. Just some geeky details, e.g., Fischer followed most Church teachings but not all. Brady (2011), p. 210:

The Church imposed a number of rules that Bobby thought were ridiculous and refused to adhere to, such as a ban on listening to hard rock or soul music (even though he preferred rhythm and blues) and prohibitions against seeing movies not rated G or PG, dating or fraternizing with non-Church members, and having pre-marital sex.

--IHTS (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The prohibition against pre-marital sex is fairly mainstream in christianity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmCYaZFjwtM MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How does it matter whether the prohibition is mainstream in Christianity or not? —BarrelProof (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Am sure was tongue-in-cheek. ;) --IHTS (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 falsely accused ME of “attempting to insert a theological POV into the article.” This twisted theological crap was ALREADY THERE TO BEGIN WITH INSERTED BY SOMEBODY ELSE — NOT ME! The quotes are not Fischer’s but the REPORTER who wrote a 2003 NY Times article about the preacher! This theological crap you fellas are fighting so desperately to KEEP INSERTED has nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby Fischer! Ps. I don’t care to sign my posts so please block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The procedure used by User:MaxBrowne2, of addressing your edits one at a time, is SOP in Wikipedia. The advantage of dividing big edits into little pieces is that if people need to revert them, they can revert just what they want, without a lot of trouble. That's especially important when making "controversial" edits. The definition of a "controversial" edit is one that somebody else disagrees with, so, yeah, you were both making controversial edits. So he wasn't asserting ownership, he was just conceding that you might want to revert his stuff. Cut the guy some slack.

It appears that an admin has decided to protect the page. Even I can't edit it. Hey man, I'm the real owner! (Attempted humor.)

Why do you think that the admin was acting at the request of User:MaxBrowne2? I was under the impression that User:MaxBrowne2 agreed with me that the dispute was not getting out of hand, and that he was willing to work with you some more. But I could be wrong, is there some conversation on some notice board that I should be reading? Bruce leverett (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So where are we at now? I agree that describing the WCOG as an "apocalyptic cult" is a violation of NPOV. But direct quotes from Fischer should be left intact. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I like to look on the positive side if I can, and even though the dispute has been a little unpleasant, removing the "apocalyptic cult" language was correct and made the article better. So I think some good has already come out of this, although we are temporarily back to status quo ante. Obviously direct quotes from Fischer should be left intact. Did the article lose a quote? When I compared current to the July 10 version I don't see any changes. So we need to nix "apocalyptic cult" again as you correctly did before. And I agree with Bruce's point that the sex scandals shouldn't be mentioned here unless we have a source that says sex scandals affected Fischer's relationship to the church. Otherwise this is a WP:SYNTH violation that implies a reason for Fischer's split with the church that isn't in the sources. Quale (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If I am reading the article's history correctly, it's protected until Friday. It's possible that we could all sit around and make plan for what to do on Friday, or, on the other hand, we could just disband and resume normal operations on Friday, having possibly cooled off in the mean time.

The admin who protected the article, also reverted it to just before the first edit by User:StutzTCB. That is why it looks like status quo ante. There seems to be general agreement that that first edit was a good idea, but that's how things stand until Friday. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of the term "cult" is too POV. But the WCOG was certainly "apocalyptic". Specifically, their prophesies were "end of world" prophesies. And it was the failure of these end of world ( aka apocalyptic) prophesies to come true which led to Fischer's break with them. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we could probably get away with using the word "apocalyptic", if it would help, although the WWCG continued in existence after Armstrong's prophecies had come and gone. Fischer complained that Armstrong was a "false prophet" because of those failed prophecies. But to jump from this to concluding that this was Fischer's reason for breaking with them, doesn't look entirely sound. The prophecies had expired in 1972 or 1975, and this was 1977 or 1978. Besides, how unhappy was he really that the end of the world hadn't come? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If we are focused on what Bobby Fischer thought of the WGOG and the Armstrongs, and are questioning the veracity of sources, shouldn't we take into account Fischers interview by Len Zola? While the publication had an agenda against the WCOG and Fischer did subsequently sue the publisher, it was over invasion of privacy, not being misquoted. The WGOC threatened a libel suit but never persued it.

There is no mention of "satanic" in the interview. But he does mention other things. Regarding money, he says "they cleaned [my] pockets out frankly", that he "was giving money so that Rader and these guys can have their parties in Beverly Hills". Regarding mental control "every time you try to think a sane thought you think it's of the devil. They keep pushing that thing." Regarding false prophecies ""This doesn't seem right. I gave all my money. Everybody has been telling me this [1972 would be the date the WCG would flee to a place of safety] for years. And now, he's half-denying he ever said it when I remember him saying it a hundred times. And then on top of it, he won't even apologize for saying it." When you put it all together, it's hard to accept his sincerity. That's the problem." Regarding the pyschology of Herb Armstrong "He's freeing you, and finally you're coming to know the truth that will set you free, free, free, and the next thing you know you are really a zombie. You are completely under the power of Armstrongism. Good luck... you're going to need it." Finally, regarding Garner Ted Armstrong Fischer "never understood how it could be that Herbert Armstrong seemingly had so much love and compassion and his son seemed so selfish and nasty. They're just the same people. They just have a different way of doing it, you know. Well, Herbert wrecked his son. I can see how that old man could ruin his son. " ---- Work permit (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This interview is like a rambling catalogue of what Fischer didn't like about Armstrong, and it tells you more about Armstrong than you might like to know, but it doesn't tell you much about Fischer. Edmonds and Eidinow did what we expect secondary sources to do: they read more than one interview and/or news story, presumably sorted through what was important and what was not so important, and summarized the whole event (Fischer's break with WWCG) in one sentence. I'm OK with that.

I am assuming, of course, that the word "satanic" came from some other interview or news story. I don't have easy access to all the source material that Edmonds and Eidinow used. If they didn't get that word from something that Fischer himself said, then that would spoil it for me, for sure. But for now, I'm assuming they went through the regular journalistic drill. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is quite an important interview. He doesn't use the word "satanic" here but he does call Armstrong a "huckster" and makes some quite insightful comments about cults in general. He later unsuccessfully attempted to sue the publishers for violation of privacy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Another important link, to an LA Times article by Bella Stumbo from 1983. It mentions his disillusionment with the WCOG due to unfulfilled prophecies rather than sexual misconduct. The "satanic" reference is to a leaflet he distributed called "The Hidden Hand of a Satanic Secret World Government". He did call Armstrong a false prophet and a huckster but I think Edmonds and Eidinow may have taken a leap too far in attributing his use of that word to the Worldwide Church of God. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

She is probably misquoting the title of the tract by Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich... I'm learning more about this stuff than I ever wanted to know. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think the WWCG deserves more context then it receives in this article. While I do believe strongly that second sources should be used, this doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye or shouldn't question them by looking at primary sources. For example, by referring to primary sources we can see "Satanic" is a hot soundbite but not relevant to Fischer's fall out with the church. Sex scandals seem nothing to do with it either. However, some of Fischers quotes in articles such as the interview can make more real what Fischer "vigorously attacking its methods and leadership" meant to him, as well as his concerns that "prophecies by Herbert W. Armstrong went unfulfilled".

This article is not about about the Armstrong or the church. It's about Fischer. What the church actually was is not relevant. What he thought about the church is. ---- Work permit (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

John Eidinow can be found on the net anyway, he has his own site. I wonder if he could give an attribution for Fischer describing the WCOG as "Satanic"? I haven't found any outside of that one source, which is not footnoted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I contacted John Eidinow via his website, and he has acknowledged, but it's all in old files somewhere, so I should not hold my breath.

Of course the article has been unprotected for some time. I will make one or two easy edits when I get a chance, but I figure that I am less ready to make substantial changes to this part of the article than some other contributors to this thread of discussion. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Kasparov

This is going to get complicated soon if it hasn't already. How about "Pre-Carlsen"? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia not editorialize (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH). Older assessments obviously couldn't include later players. If we have a source that specifically says those specific old assessments are of lesser weight we can cite that. Absent a source, the only choices are to say nothing (the dates are plain so the readers can draw their own conclusions) or to omit the old assessments entirely (editorial judgment for inclusion or exclusion is allowed, moralizing in Wikipedia's editorial voice without a source is not). In this case I think either silence or omission would be fine, what isn't fine is "Pre-Kasparov" or "Pre-Carlsen". Quale (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps remove them from the lead altogether, or say what the body of the article says: many experts put him first, but the majority many (which may or may not be a majority) do not. As it stands, the lead does not accurately summarise the article. The very act of listing sources which put him first, and not the ones who don't, seems like WP:UNDUE. But failing that, at least remove the ones which are out of date. Adpete (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Edited Adpete (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Since the majority of references say he is arguably the best player of all time, should we use that phrase? Many consider him to be arguably the greatest chess player of all time.? ---- Work permit (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fairly ok with the text ("Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time"), I just don't like the way the footnotes are used: they're too brief and so only push the argument in one direction. There is already a link to Comparison of top chess players throughout history, but since this article is specifically about Fischer, I think it would be better if that lead sentence had a link to the legacy section, i.e. "Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time" (and the Legacy section should, in turn, have a prominent link to Comparison of top chess players throughout history). With that, I think the footnotes can be removed (or better, moved to the Legacy section), and then the reader can go to the more nuanced discussion there if they want to. Adpete (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Ben Klassen

Coming here to avoid an edit war. Ben Klassen is briefly mentioned in the section about Fischer's anti-Semitism, because a work by Klassen was found in Fischer's library. Editor User:Arminden wants to elaborate further on Klassen, adding a Wikilink to white supremacist. But since this is an article about Bobby Fischer, not an article about Ben Klassen, and since we have already classified the work by Klassen as "racist" earlier in the same sentence, I demurred. Would like to hear from others before I revert again. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for notifying me about this talk page topic. I always hold the position that the user should be able to understand from the article text all that's relevant, without the need to click on links or read ample footnotes, as long as this doesn't expand the text too much and make it unreasonably long and boring. Here I read through the article, came across the name Klassen, and had no idea who he is. Racists come in every shade and colour, that's too vague, so I added his specific type: "white supremacist", from his own article's lead. Now he's less incognito on a page dealing with a chess topic, not with racism. If it had been Himmler or Farrakhan, I wouldn't have felt the need to add anything, but Klassen meant nothing to me - and probably to the majority of people reading up on Bobby Fischer. Now I let go, do as you see fit. Cheers,

Thanks for explaining what you had in mind. I had the same initial reaction (several years ago) -- who is Klassen? This is what the link to his article is for, of course. By throwing in a couple of words of clarification, we save some readers the trouble of clicking the link, but it's not a bad article, and if a reader is not interested in clicking the link, how interested is he in what our article has to say about Klassen? Since you are graciously deferring to me, I'll probably revert, unless there is more discussion here. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the description is unnecessary and should be removed. "White supremacist" is not the lead descriptor on Klassen's own article and the sentence in Fischer's article begins by talking about "antisemitic and racist literature", which provides sufficient context. If Klassen is too obscure, then I would suggest simply removing the reference to him and his book, as Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seem sufficient to provide examples of the "antisemitic and racist literature". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal while leading Interzonal

The idea that Fischer withdrew while leading the Interzonal is a beloved Fischer myth. It's got some truth in it, but is mostly false. He had been leading the tournament at one point, yes. But when he exited, he very definitely was not.

When Larsen sat down to play Fischer in Round 15, he had 10.5 points out of 14 to Fischer's 8.5 out of 12. Fischer was in Tunis on the day of this game, talking about walking out but not actually doing it. In the end he tried to make it to the game. The embassy sent a special car to try to get him there on time, but were unable to do so. After this game, Larsen was 3 points ahead, and Fischer was out of the tournament whether he liked it or not, by virtue of it being his 3rd forfeit.

So the truth is that Fischer didn't "withdraw", and he wasn't leading when he left the tournament. But he had been leading at one point, and might have still been leading had the scheduling dispute never occurred. But that's what might have happened, not what did happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurkeDevlin (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We are citing four sources in this section: Schonberg, Plisetsky & Voronkov, Horowitz, and Wade & O'Connell. Do they agree with your assessment? Do you have a more reliable source?

I do not have those four at my fingertips, so I looked at Brady (1973) and the contemporary (1967) New York Times article. They both use "withdraw" or "withdrawal". I would hesitate to put Wikipedia at odds with our sources.

Each time Fischer traveled to Tunis, he was withdrawing. It is true that each time, he tried to change his mind, and the first time, he even got away with it. I would have to say that there is little precedent for a player withdrawing from a tournament at that level, and then changing his mind. I have no problem with the present wording of the article, "... causing Fischer to forfeit two games in protest and later withdraw, ... ".

Since he was no longer leading by the time he actually left Tunisia, one could say that the title of this section is not quite right. Feel free to come up with a better title. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Was Bobby Fischer's Father Jewish?

Is it established as fact that Paul Nemenyi was Fischer's true father? S. Kossin (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You're asking two separate questions. I think that both Nemenyi, and Fischer's mother's husband, G. Fischer, were Jewish. So yes, most likely, his father was Jewish.

Second question, was Nemenyi his true father? It appears that you and I, along with other Wikipedia editors, participated in a conversation about this in May of 2019, in this talk page. It has been archived, and can now be found at Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 9#Bobby_Fischer_Jewish_ancestry. I don't know of any more recent developments. —Bruce leverett (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Thanks Bruce; you're a nice guy for showing me this and being polite. I did not know how to find archived conversations and I would prefer they were left in plain sight for the benefit of future editors who may not know about them. I came to the conclusion that the wording of this Wikipedia entry attempts to obscure Fischer's Jewish ethnicity. Maybe that's not a big issue, but considering how much conversation I have seen about whether or not Fischer was a Jew, I think it would be fitting to give a clear and concise sentence explicitly addressing that question. And ofcourse, we all agree he did not practice the religion of Judaism.

I will share with you that I feel this question is important on humanitarian grounds. This is because in recent history Jews have been hated as a race and alleged to be an "inferior" race. This is reffered to as anti-Semitism meaning bias against descendants of Sem(Shem) one of Noah's sons who Jews claim to descend from. (Not to be confused with anti-Judaism which can mean bias on basis of faith rather than race.) In order to combat this supremacist notion that Jews are an "inferior" race, it is important to point out who is part of this race. Bobby Fischer was an amazing chess player who many admire including myself, but also many who share his views on Jewish people as a race. When we can show them that he himself was a descendant of two european Jews, they will reconsider the factual basis for their hatred. This is only a service to the public if it is indeed true. But whatever information is available should be easily and clearly understood. Thank you. S. Kossin (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the goal, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Quale (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspected that you might have missed the archiving. Near the top of this talk page, you will find a list of links to the archives, of which there are nine. Not all talk pages are archived, but this one is.

I agree with User:Quale (and with the link that he has furnished). If you can somehow find a way to make a "teaching point" from Bobby Fischer's ethnic history, it is natural for you to want to make it visible on the Web somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line: Based on Wikipedia's article and it's references, can I call Bobby Fischer a Jew as far as ethnicity?

It seems that given the information in this article I should rightfully be able to do so, but the wording of the article makes it seem otherwise. A lot of focus is put on Fischer's hatred for Jews; why not point out his ethnic background? It should be just factual information about him provided by this website, which is designed to tell you facts. If you want to know someone's ethnicity it should be simpler than this.

Furthermore, I am reaching out to you Bruce, to settle what I found on another entry. In a Wikipedia entry titled "Jewish Chess Players" Bobby Fischer is listed. However, the source given is a book I never heard of, and there is another note there saying:"verification failed". I want to provide proper source+verification but I don't know what I need to do or how to do it. I was disturbed by the talk page there which has a comment saying this is misinformation and Bobby should not be listed. However, it is not misinformation rather it is the conclusion of his many biographers and their sound evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Kossin (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The section "Paul Nemenyi as Fischer's father" summarizes what we know about Fischer's parentage. I think you know your way around that section and those sources. If the wording there is unclear, you can either try to fix it, or at least describe the problem in more detail in this talk page, so we can discuss it.

Parentage isn't everything. What sort of religious upbringing did Fischer have? If there are useful primary or secondary sources about this question, I am not familiar with them. As an adult, Fischer unambiguously disavowed Judaism and even took up anti-Semitism, as is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Again, if there is something unclear about the wording of those sections, we can try to fix it.

Regarding List of Jewish chess players, I see that there is an entry for Fischer, and that it cites a book, and that this citation was checked by User:Hrodvarsson, who determined that it was bogus (presumably because Fischer is not listed in that book). There would be two possible courses of action here: remove the entry for Fischer in that article, or replace the citation by a better citation. But this entry illustrates the main problem of identifying people as Jewish in Wikipedia. If Fischer was born Jewish, but later repudiated Judaism as an adult, should he be listed as Jewish? There was a lengthy discussion of that question earlier in 2019 in this talk page, which has been archived (now you know where to look). I have argued both sides of this question. If Fischer were still alive, we would have to adhere to Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) rules. As you know from reading Bobby Fischer, he once wrote to the publishers of Encyclopedia Judaica and asked them to remove him (and I think that they did). But of course, he's no longer alive. But in any case, the problem with List of Jewish chess players is best discussed in that article's talk page, rather than here. I see that you have already placed a comment in that talk page, but you should note that the conversation to which you appended your comment took place from 2011 to 2018, and there is no guarantee that any of the other participants are still watching that article or its talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Bruce for your clarity and logic. Is there a separate word for an ethnic Jew versus a religious one? I am focused on describing the factual truth as we know it, which is: he was racially and ethnically from Jews, both parents, but did not practice jewish religion, while also expressing hatred toward ethnically jewish people (who, most of the time, were not even religious). In general, both Jewish religion and modern antisemitism, classify Jews separately from their religious affiliation. Since the term "Jewish" is ambiguous in this regard, I am looking for a term that better allows us to distinguish between the different meanings, and specifically describe that he is racially a descendant of the Jews, while not a Jew regarding his faith. The term 'Jew', arose to describe one's connection to the biblical tribe of Judah; a completely biological description. For this reason, the primary understanding of 'Jew' would be a genealogical one. The term 'Judaism' is only ascribed to that religion because it was a faith typically assumed by those people: descendants of Judah. Hence, the religious connotation is secondary.

The way this affects a discussion about Jewish chess players is that a player's faith has less to do with his prowess than his hereditary traits. Listing Jewish players is of far more significance when using the biological definition of a Jew. Is there even a list of Roman Catholic chess players? That's not because they can't list any. So you get what I'm saying. The term "Jewish" is obviously being used as an ethnic indicator in this context. As such, let us just clarify the information to people so they can know his jewish origin, without being misinformed about his religion. S. Kossin (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The category “jewish chess players” should not be used here. Bobby Fischer was ethnically half-German half-jewish and obviously strongly identified as a Christian. Therefore the category should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to examine the earlier, lengthy, conversation about this category, in Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive_9#Category: Jewish chess players. Over the years, editors have taken, and defended, both sides of this question.

I am not so sure about the "half-German" part. As is mentioned in the "Early years" section, Fischer's mother's husband had a Jewish-sounding name, "Gerardo Liebscher", but went by "Hans-Gerhardt Fischer", presumably to deal with Nazi anti-Semitism during the 1930's. But he could not have been Bobby Fischer's father anyway, since he was separated from the mother (could not enter the U.S.) during the war. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well Bruce if you don’t know then you should side with me on this issue because “jewish chess players” is totally controversial here and should be removed immediately! (Also the working theory is that his father was German and non-jewish so we should stick with that until further review)

Also I would like to add how come no one knows whether his father was jewish or if he was a non-jewish German? Lol it is so absurd that nobody knows...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not like this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I do not like the following text.

Although Fischer's mother was Jewish, Fischer rejected attempts to label him as Jewish.[16][418] In a 1984 letter to the editor of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Fischer demanded that they remove his name from future editions.[419]

This makes it look like we ourselves are labeling him as jewish (when he wasn’t jewish and also did not identify as jewish). " Therefore the text should be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.129.90 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As Fischer was born to a Jewish mother, by Jewish custom, he was considered Jewish. So it would be misleading for us to say that he was not Jewish. Of course, as an adult, he repudiated Judaism, and at that point, one may legitimately say that he wasn't Jewish. Articles and books about Fischer, such as his obituaries, generally say that he was born Jewish but that he later repudiated Judaism. So, as Wikipedia editors, we are expected to follow theat general practice. Hope that clarifies what the editors are doing. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fisher wasn't Jewish and we don't say he was, only that his mother was. I'm not seeing the issue here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Bruce, Just because Orthodox Jews define Jewishness that way does not mean it is a hard and fast rule that everyone agrees with. Which therefore means it is debatable whether he was “born jewish” or not

I say he was not “born jewish” that is my opinion take it or leave it!

In my opinion there are only 2 ways one can be undeniably jewish

1. someone born to 2 jewish parents.

Or

2. Someone who identifies as jewish

Neither of which apply to Fischer...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for taking the trouble to go to this talk page and explain what you had in mind. I don't take it for granted that people will be so polite.

Wikipedia is a big project, and when we get bogged down in questions like, was Fischer Jewish?, it's a real drag. Often, the best way to avoid that is to follow our sources, no matter what. If all the newspapers and books say Fisher was blah blah blah, then we have to go with that, even if we think it is not quite right (and I assure you, we have editors whose opinions on this topic are all over the map). Bruce leverett (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bruce, I just wanted to let you know Christians (like myself) as well as reform jews do not accept the Jewish mother rule and many of us consider it to be hogwash, just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fischer's mother was Jewish" and "Fischer rejected attempts to label him as Jewish" are both verifiable statements. The article takes no position on whether Fischer was Jewish, the answer to that is "it depends how you define it". By the way, it's respectful to capitalise the word "Jewish". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's respectful to write the word 'capitalize' correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And I just want to add Fischer was NOT jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not American, respect my variety of English please. You will find both spellings in any dictionary. The fact that you consistently write the word "Jewish" with a lower case j comes across as disrespectful. If that's not how you intend it, then please get into the habit of capitalising the word. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please get into the habit of stop being so sour and upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

OK you're not interested in discussion, you just want to troll. Nothing useful for improving the article will come of this. We're done. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assertion about opening '1. d4' under "Opening Theory"

As the section says, Fischer played 1. e4 consistently throughout his career, famously saying in one of his books "Best by test." However, this section states that he only opened with d4 in a serious game once in his career, and references a blitz game during the blitz tournament held after the USSR v Rest of the World team match in 1970.

However, Fischer used 1. d4 in Game 9 of his world championship match with Spassky, in 1972. I haven't checked the games from the "revenge match" held 20 years later. He also used 1. c4 and played d4 on the second or third move more than once in that match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphcook (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In game 9 of the 1972 match, Fischer had Black. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

He never opened with d4 in a serious game. The only queen’s pawn games he played as White came about after transposition. P-K3 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer Parentage

Hi fellow editors: In light of modern findings in FBI records (released in accordance with the freedom of information act), I pointed out the prevailing position of those who have investigated Fischer's parentage, in the first instance where it applies. This was done so that the reader is informed that what is stated on his birth certificate is not accepted as fact. S. Kossin (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation of Bobby Fischer

First, I want to address a concern previously raised by someone (an IP address) about this section: When discussing who is considered Jewish, it is imperative and responsible to consider the method of classification used by the Jews themselves. After all, they are the ones that will either include(accept) or exclude(require formal conversion to) members of the group.

The aforementioned user references Reform Judaism to bolster his/her position that BOTH parents must be Jews. This is incorrect. In fact, Reform Jews have an expanded definition; that EITHER parent can pass on Jewish lineage. I hope this clarifies the issue. Based on his birth to a Jewish mother, Bobby has legal Jewish status as classified by Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform branches of Judaism.

Secondly, I have found material asserting that as a child, Fischer did consider himself Jewish. His repudiation of it came later on into his life. So saying he wasn't BORN Jewish would be a misnomer even by that user's own standards. I added the information with the pertaining source reference. If anyone has an objection, feel free to discuss it here. S. Kossin (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim that he took Judaism seriously as a youth looks dubious to me. His mother was not observant. If it were true, it would almost certainly be reported in the several biographical accounts of Fischer (e.g. Brady). He did at one point refuse to play on the Sabbath, but that was due to the influence of the Worldwide Church of God, not Judaism. The single source mentioned is a non-specialist book about Jewish athletes and appears to contradict everything we thought we knew about Fischer. I'd be interested to see the actual quote from the book, which I have not been able to find online. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Max, I completely understand your doubt on this point, as I myself am unsure if it is true. However, I do know that non-observant Jews of that time and place were still cognizant of certain laws. While they would not keep Sabbath the Orthodox way, many would still try not to do proffessional work if they could avoid it. In short, "taking Judaism seriously" is subjective, and the inference is that at he at least identified as Jewish, the way his mother did. She applied for help from the Jewish Agency (charity orginization) who, in general, only offered it to Jewish people. I see no reason to believe that he, as a young child, would find reason to disavow himself from his mother's identity. I will change "took Judaism seriously" to took "was conscious of his Judaism".

As far as the veracity of the statement in the book, I am not qualified to judge whether the author is mistaken or not; I am just stating what it said, and quoting it almost verbatim- I added the word "Jewish Sabbath" instead of just plain "Sabbath".

Also, I am fully aware that he joined a Christian religion which also avoided work on the Sabbath. However, it is not at all contradictory; rather, it would be supportive, as it would have been an easy adjustment for him, thus increasing that religion's appeal to him by familiarity. Have you found him partaking in a match on the Sabbath BEFORE he joined the cult? That would be a way verify. S. Kossin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the author of that book conflated Fischer's later refusal to play on the Sabbath with Judaism. Given that it's a non-specialist book which doesn't cite its own sources, I am not comfortable with including the claim in Fischer's wikipedia article solely on this basis. If a better source is found, fine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will investigate this further. Basically, we want to find that his avoidance of competition on the Sabbath preceeded the timeframe of his membership to the Christian group he joined. Fair enough. I shall remove the edit until better support is found. S. Kossin (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't use chessgames as a source for things like this but the dates could be verified using another source such as Wade/O'Connell which I don't have. In the 1955 US Junior championship, chessgames has him playing on 15 July, 16 July and 17 July. 15 July was Friday, 16 July was Saturday, 17 July was Sunday. (The Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday evening at sunset and ends on Saturday evening at sunset; conceptually the day beings and ends at sunset.) Fischer was 12 years old and this was one of his earliest recorded tournaments. So this evidence directly contradicts the claim. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never read anything that indicated that Fischer ever considered himself religiously to be Jewish and never anything that indicated that he observed any Jewish religious rites or traditions. In one early interview he begrudgingly admitted he was part-Jewish, but it seems clear from context that he did not find this a happy admission and he did not identify as Jewish. Later he claimed to be not Jewish at all. The early admission is of interest only to show that Fischer's anti-Jewish sentiments grew much stronger later in his life, and also to demonstrate that there is reason why many people have considered Fischer to be an ethnically Jewish chess player. Quale (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you stated. This distinction between having a Jewish religious denomination and Jewish by ethnicity seemed beyond the capacity of the editors to understand. I am glad you articulated it so well. Religious affiliation is too narrow a section to inform people if he was Jewish.

Can we agree to make a specific section for the question: Was Bobby Fischer Jewish?

S. Kossin (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We already have a section entitled "Religious Affiliation". How deeply do we really want to delve into this topic? He was a chess player, not a theologian. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated the problem. Religious affiliation is not necessarily what people want to know when discussing if he was "Jewish".

Quite frankly, the section should be revised, because religion is not what Fischer was discussing when he said he was only "part-Jewish". There weren't any attempts to label him as a religious Jew, and therefore, there is no instance where he rejected being labeled as a religious Jew.

What was being discussed was ethnicity. And that's what Fischer rejected. He commented there are "too many Jews in chess", when, of those Jews, only one was religious. Religious affiliation was clearly not his issue with Jews.

Ethnicity is an important part of any famous person's Wikipedia entry. Barrack Obama's entry says he was African-American. I expect a section about religion, and an additional separate one about ethnic background, so that his dispositions are accurately recorded; not conflated as they are now. S. Kossin (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is satisfactory on the current matter, we should not overcomplicate this issue, or give such a weight to it, I concur with Bruce leverett.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

You haven't understood what was said here. This isn't a matter of complication. It's a matter of conveying information accurately. There is no excuse for presenting this matter as religious when it wasn't, no matter how arduous the job may be. Misinformation is unsatisfactory.

The article as it is now needs revision.
S. Kossin (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

.I understood everything perfectly, of course not supporting misinformation, but to infilitrate so deep to the "Who is Jew" (which has still debated parts) question would be far beyond the article's scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

Then let us categorize his aversion to Judaism as an ethnic one. Why are you ok with misinforming people that it was a religious matter? Again, let us have a section concisely listing all of the pertinent information necessary to judge whether or not he was ethnically Jewish, along with his own attitude to that question. It doesn't have to get deep, and it will save a lot of unnecessary "talk". (Have you checked all of the archived discussions?) S. Kossin (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop alluding I would ok with misinformation. I was following the discussions also in the past. I concur with Quale.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

I don't agree that the article needs the revision you seek, and I think that another section listing what you consider to be "all of the pertinent information" would be WP:UNDUE weight and WP:POV pushing. In my view the subjects of Fischer's ethnicity and religious beliefs are already given an appropriate amount of coverage in the article now and the pertinent information is already there. That doesn't mean the article can't be improved in general or those parts in particular, but Fischer was notable as a chess player and not notable as a theologian or critic of religion, and the structure of the article should continue to reflect that. You have the power yourself to save a lot of unnecessary talk, all you have to do is use it. Of course I have some of that power myself, as long as I don't post in this section again. Quale 02:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I still don't get it. We have a section entitled "Religious Affiliation", and a section entitled "Antisemitism". I thought we had the bases covered. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that being Jewish is not just a religion but an ethnicity, so one can be a non-observant Jew and still be considered Jewish. Is there a better section title than "Religious Affiliation" that we can come up with?-- P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a slippery distinction, which we should try to avoid. All religions are ethnicities, because people try to bring up their children in their own religion. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

All religions are not ethnicities; most are more like clubs which you can join or leave depending on your personal beliefs (or whether you like the pastor). The older religions like Judaism and Zoroastrianism are different; they have a considerable ethnic and cultural component as well, to the extent that regardless of what you actually believe you are always a member of the tribe. I doubt Freddie Mercury practised the Zoroastrian religion in any meaningful way, but it was part of his ethnic and cultural identity and so he had a Parsee funeral. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Christians think that they are somehow different from Jews and Zoroastrians in this way, but we are not. Are you, or am I, going to have a Parsee funeral?

But, sorry for leading the conversation on a tangent. We have a section about Fischer's religion, and we have a section about Fischer's handling of ethnic issues. Fischer rejected Judaism as a religion (by joining the WWCOG), and he rejected his ethnic origin (by espousing antisemitism). These sections of the article are by no means perfect, but there seems to be consensus that the emphasis, or lack thereof, is appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins describes himself as a "cultural Anglican", and I guess I'm a "cultural Catholic"... same as Ireland and most of southern Europe. But the conflating of ethnicity and religion is far stronger in Judaism (and Zoroastrianism) than it is in Christianity. Christian congregations tend to be multi-ethnic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Not sorry for addressing this difficult discussion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that "Religious Affiliation" is too narrow a section to accurately state the information that is included therein? I have not heard any explanation as to why his refusal to be labeled as Jewish pertains to his religious affiliation. I showed very clearly that the attempt to refer to him as Jewish was not pertaining to religion.

This isn't POV. This is factually verifiable information. S. Kossin (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)