Talk:Garry Kasparov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Garry Kasparov article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Former featured article Garry Kasparov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2005.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Rating "facts" (again)

For the third or fourth time, I've removed the "fact" that Kasparov topped the rating list "a record 23 times". I don't believe it. It sounds too low. Please do not restore this "fact" without either (a) a source, or (b) discussing it here. Rocksong 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a much more impressive way of wording it would be something like, "Apart from a brief time in 1994-95, Kasparov was the world's #1 rated player from 1985 until his retirement in 2005". I'm not sure of the exact dates, but I'm pretty sure it's broadly true. Apart from the fact that FIDE kicked him (and Short) off their list in 1993, I think there were only two times: Kramnik equalled him on one list in about 1995 or 1996, and Karpov passed him briefly in about 1994 (though I'm not sure how because they would have been on different lists at the time). Anyway, if we can nail down these details, I think this would be a much better way to summarise his ratings achievements. Rocksong 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, trawling through old usenet posts:

As far as I know, these are the only times Kasparov was headed or equalled on the rating list, from when he took the #1 spot (probably 1985), until his retirement. Rocksong 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: according to Chessmetrics, he was rated continuously #1 continuously from February 1985 (when he overtook Karpov) to October 2004 (when Anand overtook him). [1]

I'm beginning to think that there should be a subsection on his ratings performance, rather than trying to squeeze it all into the introduction. Rocksong 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the above ratings detail and moved most of it out of the intro. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't like too much clutter in the introduction. Rocksong 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
When I edited I too saw 23 quite low but just incorporated into the edit. Good job if you manage to reword so we get to the actual truth. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this November 1995 list official? It does not appear on the Eloquery site ([[2]]) and I believe that FIDE only released lists in January and July at that time.

Reading the post, it seems as though this November list is an official extrapolation (though it is from FIDE), so perhaps Garry didn't lose his #1 rating after all.

I think you might be right. This site http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html also only has January and July lists for that time frame. I can't find it in The Week in Chess (admittedly I can't find all TWIC issues for that time); so all we have is that single magazine article which was reported on USENET. I think we should treat it as unofficial. I'll update the article shortly. Rocksong 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting this old topic: I've just stumbled on the source of Kasparov topping the ratings list a record 23 times: http://www.fide.com/ratings/toplist.phtml?list=men . However this page only counts ratings lists from July 2000 onwards. So the number 23 is way too low, as I guessed, and I'm happy we changed it. Rocksong 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs improvement

Can't anyone find a colour picture of him to replace that black and white one at the top of the page? Also, the description of his last few moves in the game against Karpov in 1993 is extremely difficult to understand. The caption should say which player is black and which is white as well as a comprehensible list of the moves. What does "22" mean? I can understand where c2 is, but it's unclear how the rook moved to c2 and what Karpov did in his turn. Owen214 09:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] centerforsecuritypolicy.org

User Diophantus (→Retirement and career in politics - Disinformation; cited webpage makes no mention of Kasparov) updated this site, yes now at centerforsecuritypolicy.org there's no info about Kasparov. But at web archive you may find his name at the members of centerforsecuritypolicy: http://web.archive.org/web/20060426210216/www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=nsac

So, I don't know, should this info be mentioned in the site or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexandre Koriakine (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, current version includes the following text:

"It become known to public, that Garry Kasparov is a member of supervisory board and advisor for the National Security Advisory Council at least since 2003[15], which is a US "non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security"[16]. After the scandal gained notability in Mass Media, National Security Advisory Council has removed Kasparov from list of its supervisory board members and advisors on their website. Google Cache and Wayback Machine still have cached copies of the site listing Garry Kasparov in the Advisory Council Member list."

Please note word "scandal" here; and this is biography of living person (hence WP:BLP rules). Also note that SourceWatch (wiki; former "disinfopedia") is not an appropriate source. There is only appropriate source here - web site of this Council. I looked there: Kasparov is NOT in the list of National Security Advisory Council bord. Perhaps he was a member of this Council previously, but this is not supported by references that satisfy WP:SOURCE. Should be deleted, is not it?Biophys 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt Kasparov was on the NSAC board; there was link to a web archive, and it is documented in the mainstream press (The Guardian) here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,781387,00.html However there is no evidence presented that he left due to any type of "scandal" (note that the deleted section used the weasel words "in the Mass Media"). So if the article is to say anything, it should simply say that he was on the NSAC board, with a link to the Guardian article, and leave it at that. Rocksong 04:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm the user who wrote that piece (I can't make wikipedia send me forgotten password, so I'm writing anonymous). I agree that paragraph should be reworded. Leaving the link to guardian is ok, but what with the fact that he was on the board since 2002 (Guardian link and Wayback machine both confirm this) and he was removed from the website around 14th of April 2007, and the information about this appeared in the media in the beginning of April 2007? The issue is, since 2005 he was a politic figure and only when information about his NSAC membership became known, it was removed from the website within weeks. How should we put it better? Also, I think the description of the CSP as "non-profit, non-partisan ... vital to American security" deserves its place in the section too, since the section is about politics. What do you all think? And isn't wayback machine link to the CSP site is considered an unreliable source? Oxygen 217.118.95.46 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Some additional info. He was on the NSAC board since at least 2000 till 2006 according to their annual reports. He was also awarded "Keeper of the flame" award by CSP, which is inaugurated to bestow recognition on individuals who devote their public careers to the propagation of democracy and the respect for individual rights throughout the world. It is interesting to note, that from 1990 to 2006 "Keeper of the flame" was awarded to US President, Generals, Secretaries of Defense, Senators and Congressmen -- the people connected with US government and military (with the exception of Steve Forbes, who is, well, a publisher). It's not surprising that CSP's motto is "Promoting World Peace through American Strength" and even respected papers call them a "militarist organization". To sum it up, this information shows another side of Kasparov as a political leader and I believe it should be represented in the main article. After all, all sources in this paragraph are valid and reliable. Oxygen 89.113.48.3 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this Guardian source seems to satisfy reliability criteria. So, if you think this is notable (I am not sure), you can write without any "scandal" that he was (for how long?) a member of this organization "devoted to propagation of democracy and the respect for individual rights throughout the world". But the previous version was created to imply that he is a kind of CIA agent.Biophys 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you do selective reading on what I've written. It was never stated that CSP is "devoted to propagation of democracy". They are pro-American militarist organization, that's what they write about themselves -- CSP "isn't just a 'think tank' - it's an agile, durable and highly effective 'main battle tank' in the war of ideas on national security." (Guardian source links to their annual report). Does this means that they are for democracy and human rights? It's not CIA, but not HumanRightsWatch either.
Here is the blog (and here) that is kind of evidence that Kasparov disappeared from the lists after news broke in Russian blogs. Oxygen 217.118.95.47 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Another description for the Keepers of the flame award from their annual report 2001: "Since 1990, the Center fot Security Policy has recognized individuals for devoting their public careers to the defence of the United States and American values around the world. Those extraordinary individuals are the keepers of the Flame." Oxygen 91.186.18.61 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added information about Keeper of Flame award of 1991, just to make sure that Kasparov actually lied that he forgot about memebership in such organization. He was awarded for his contribution to American security!!! Vlad fedorov 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Vlad, I think you might want to undo your changes. I have already included comments on Keepers of the Flame award, look at the second paragraph in the Politics section. We must follow WP:BLP rules, and while I think all this stuff highly discredits Kasparov, don't mix the award and NSAC membership. He received award for helping to break Soviet Union, but you won't get quote like that, hence you should quote official sources, which are quite politically correct. His words that he was included in the board probably because of copy & pasting nominees of the award is laughable, since there are many other nominees (more than half) who are not on the board. And the second: in the cache before the case, it is written, that "Advisory Council members have dedicated their careers to American security". Now it is written, after Kasparov was removed, that "Advisory Council members have dedicated their careers to peace and security". Feel the difference? But WP:BLP has no place for Wikipedia:No_original_research, so we'll leave all the analysis here. Oxygen 217.118.95.48 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more for the curious. In this rebuttal (in Russian) he suggests that he was included in the advisory board by an accident, simple copy & paste of the Keepers of the Flame nominees list. It is easy to check, that there are many "keepers" that were never on the advisory board (around half of them, AFAIR). Very notable "accident". Selective copy&paste I would say. Oxygen 217.118.95.35 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is so simple in America! One morning you wake up and find yourself in White House officials list and having a thankyou letter from a president. Of course, accidentaly. I love the US. Vlad fedorov 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last human World Champion ?

Should there be a line somewhere to this effect? Kramnik is not the World Champion, a computer is. Kramnik lost convincingly to the latest silicone monster.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Check any reference, Kramnik is the World Champion. Peter Ballard 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously I know he's the human World Champion but he lost to a computer.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Vladimir Kramnik Peter Ballard 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It was not a match for the World Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Russia

Okay, as I said in my edit summary, I think that this is not the place to go into detail about the policies of the member organizations of The Other Russia, unless they can be shown to be Kasparov's personal policies as well. However, my very small change got reverted saying that it's a "disputable question" whether The Other Russia contains "nationalist and hard-left groups and organisations". This is not disputed at all, if you look at the articles The Other Russia, National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevism and Vanguard of Red Youth. If you think it's POV to describe these groups as "nationalist" and "hard-left" respectively, I suggest you take that to the talk pages of those articles. As for your comment about it being the leaders of the parties that have boycotted The Other Russia, why don't you change the text to say that? I have no problem with that. -- Jao 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to give details of Kasparov's allies here for several reasons. One, it explains why Kasparov was questioned by police for "extremist" activities. Surely we need to know the background, that he leads a group made up in most part of neo-fascist, Communist and hard-left elements, in order to understand why he is being questioned. Secondly, Kasparov portrays himself in the Western media as the leader of a "liberal democratic" coalition. It is important to balance this out and show the true make up of the Other Russia. I have provided several links to show that Kasparov supports the presidential candidacy of Viktor Gerahshchenko. We need to understand the Other Russia and Kasparov's activities in context, that he does not wish to "restore democracy" but that he wants to see someone belonging to a hardline ultranationalist and anti-semitic party become president (again, I have provided references for these facts).

I just wish other users would not delete these referenced facts just because they do not wish people to know that Kasparov isn't a democrat and is pursuing another agenda from the one he claims to be pursuing. Shotlandiya 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You just write here sourceless biassed fictions, nothing more. I make the reverts just because all of your edits are very incorrect:
"Due to his assocation with hardline nationalists and neo-fascists like Eduard Limonov and Viktor Gerashchenko, Kasparov was summoned by FSB" - nothing common with reality, it's an absurd.
"Eduard Limonov's National Bolshevik Party, which wishes to ethnically cleanse the former Soviet Union of all Jews and non-Russians" - nothing common with current NBP's program, declarations and actions.
"Viktor Anpilov's Stalinist Workers' Party" - Anpilov isn't member of Other Russia as well as his party.
"despite the fact that they are both strongly opposed to the policies of Vladimir Putin's elected government" - absolutely biassed statement, nothing common with reality in my opinion.
"Kasparov is a supporter of the presidential aspirations of former Soviet Central Bank chief Viktor Gerashchenko" - Kasparov isn't a supporter of any candidate, he's positioning himself as a neutral coordinator of Other Russia's activity. He supports Gerashchenko as well as other candidates, Bukovsky for example. GoWest8 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally, you're trying to represent Gerashchenko as "hardline nationalist". It's just an absurd because he never did any nationalistic statements. Even in his party just a few members signed famous anti-Jew letter. You're trying represent Limonov and his party as "neo-fascists" also. But, as I said, there's nothing common with NBP's actions and declarations for all last years. It's just a heavily revolutionary anti-Putin party. GoWest8 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, you're wrong. Kasparov's association with Limonov, Gerahschenko and Anpilov obviously explains why he was questioned over breaking anti-extremism laws. It's very relevant. Do you deny that Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces oppose Putin? If so then you just don't have a clue. I have provided the references showing that Kasparov supports Gerashchenko, especially since Kasyanov broke away from the Other Russia.

I have reinserted my factual, accurate, referenced information. Please do not remove it again. Shotlandiya 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer to any of my remarks and you're still inserting obvious biassed sourceless lie in the article. Please stop your vandalism. GoWest8 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is vandalising the page it's you, not me. Please do not remove my accurate, factual referenced material as I will simply undo all your edits. Shotlandiya 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you refused to discuss your destructive editing, so that's time to call an administator... GoWest8 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is being disruptive, not me. And you have reverted other people's edits on here again. I agree we need to get this resolved through outside mediation. Shotlandiya 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sadly that you didn't read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:LIVING and don't understand how important to provide correct sources, not just "Kasparov" and "Geraschenko" words in the same sentence...
Look for the second box note on this page, at least... GoWest8 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I don't comment on your very poor standard of English grammar, for example.

I'm not going to edit back but I think someone else needs to take this up. The main issues for me are:

  • We should not mention the fact that Kasparov has been questioned over alleged extremist activities without also mentioning his connections, via The Other Russia, to people like Limonov. Otherwise it does not make sense.
    • Kasparov was questioned by FSB twice, due to 1) his performance at Echo Moskvy on 8th April, and 2) issue of United Civil Front's newspaper [3]. Where you can see Limonov??? GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kasparov does support Gerashchenko's candidacy and I have provided the links to prove this. I can't understand why you keep deleting this fact.
    • Please show me where you can see this "fact" in your links? I can't see it and I know that Kasparov isn't a supporter of any candidat. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is nonsense to claim that Yabloko and the SPS are "controlled by the Kremlin". Anyone who knows anything about Russian politics knows this is not so, even if, in the past, they have found it useful to co-operate with Putin over several issues.
    • Probably you just too badly understand our "politics". I won't explain you things which are already obvious for most people. Leaders of these parties are just decorative puppets.
For example, as we can see, regional branches of these parties willingly co-operate with Other Russia, but later meet resistance from the leaders. Moscow regional branch of SPS cooperated with Other Russia and later it was dismissed.
And anyway, "controlled by the Kremlin" is Kasparov's statement, not mine. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why remove the word "elected" from in front of Putin's government. Do you deny that Putin was elected?
    • Well, it wasn't me who deleted this word at first, but we know how Putin and his parliament were "elected". I don't see any reasons to sharpen attention on this word here. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to try and accept some of your viewpoints. I am willing to accept that we should not put in the NBP's policy towards Jews and non-Russians. That belongs in an article about the NPB itself, not Kasparov. And I am happy to include information that the Other Russia includes democratic politicans as well as extremists.

  • I already said - NBP isn't "neo-fascist" party. Look at its program, look at its declarations, look at its actions - it's even more liberal (more exactly - against Putin's system) party than nationalistic. I even don't understand where you found info about "Jews and non-Russians" - you just provided a couple of senseless links: probably from XX century, about Belarus, and no one word about Jews or non-Russians. ROFL! GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to explain the situation: NBP is actually an anarchist party. This explains why they are liberal and extremist at the same time. They are not libertarian, but strictly anarchist. It is true that NBP was involved into some acts of terror. However, most of them were childish attempts by Che Guevara wannabes rather then well thought-out actions. NBP can hardly be considered a serious political party. Initially, it started as a vehicle for Limonov's artistic expression. Limonov is a writer famous for his shocking extravaganza and eccentricity. Creating a "party" which combined Nazi and Bolshevik stylistics during Perestroyka years was just a way shock people. I don't think he ever meant all this...

So why don't you suggest a compromise, which includes my points, rather than just deleting everything, and we'll see if we can agree on something? Shotlandiya 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Probably you just too badly understand our politics".

Don't be arrogant with me. I understand Russia's politics a lot better than you understand English - I suggest if you want to work on Wikipedia you stick to the Russian language version.

1. As I can see, your knowledge of our politics is too primitive.

As I see you are extremely rude and need to spent more time on your English lessons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:SKILL pls. GoWest8 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put in the main article a suggested compromise - please don't delete it outright but discuss on here before making any changes. Shotlandiya 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes. Kasparov's statement should be here - because this article is about Kasparov! And word "elected" isn't good, because the government isn't electable in Russia. GoWest8 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about "elected"? If Putin wasn't elected in 2003 who was? Kharitonov? Glazev? Malyshkin? 194.60.38.10 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The president can be elected and the parliament can be elected. But what is an "elected government"? Russia isn't country with parliamentary system of government unlike many of Western countries. We should delete either "elected" or "government". GoWest8 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kasparov's October 2007 United States TV appearances

This is the final paragraph from the Politics subsection from this version of this entry:

In October 2007, Kasparov announced his intention of standing for the Russian presidency as the candidate of the "Other Russia" coalition, and vowed to fight for a "democratic and just Russia". Later that month he travelled to the United States, where he appeared on several popular television programs. First was The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert [1]. Next, Kasparov appeared on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher[2]. A few days later, Kasparov appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition [3]. Then, Kasparov appeared on the ABC show Hardball, which is hosted by Chris Matthews Kasparov on Chris Matthews' Hardball.</ref>.

The strikeout text I removed; it's miscellaneous details of Kasparov's various October 2007 media appearances (it doesn't end there -- I'm listening to him on Fresh Air right now). But that's quite unimportant, unless he did or said something really notable on one or a few of those appearances. If so, grab this text, condense it, and make the quote. As it is now, though, it's not really important and quite United States-centric (he hasn't made it to non-US media?). Michael Patrick 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Subsectioning books

Are the books worthy of some subsectioning?--Mokru (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back from the Netherworld

User Quale deleted this following entry as an irrelevant rant. Apparently, he is bucking for a promotion at the Ministry of Truth. BTW, I will reinstate this section as often as necessary - for months on end if required. Philosopher8 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works because it has a set of rules. (See Wikipedia:Five pillars). The rules are not perfect, but they are pretty good, and have created an extraordinarily good encyclopedia. So I see 3 options for you:

  • 1. You accept the rules, and edit according to them.
  • 2. You don't accept the rules and wish to change them: in that case, debate them on the policy pages such as WP:V, not here. Off-topic discussion on this page will be deleted.
  • 3. You don't accept the rules, and don't wish to change them, in which case you leave. After all, no one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia, and there are lots of other projects you can contribute to (or start your own).

Peter Ballard (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish and Armenian descent.

Don't you think that this variant would be better? ...a Russian chess grandmaster of Jewish and Armenian descent,..--Alecxo (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.

Well, i didn't say he was of "Judaist descents" :S--Alecxo (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] overlinked

Many names are overlinked in the article. I removed some of them, but there are too many of Smyslov, Kortchnoi, and others. Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed several more, but some may remain. Bubba73 (talk), 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the issue with linking names? ChessCreator (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove too many. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection". Peter Ballard (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was overlinked, and removed ones other than the first. Put some back if you think they are needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling the style guide has changed (or is inconsistent), and that it used to be limited one link per linked-article. So you were doing what used to be the right thing. I think the current guideline, as I quoted, is common sense. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are definitely right. Iread the link given above, and it is different from what it was a year or two ago, when it said to link only the first place. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B Zhao computer match?

I have deleted the reference to an alleged match against the computer B Zhao because the documentation is too poor. It has been reinstated, and my intention is to delete it again. The only reference is a single, anonymous blog. I can find no mention of it on chessgames.com (which contains many human-computer games, even little-known ones), indeed no other web references at all. For it to be reinstated, I believe better evidence is required. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov was playing many computers at that time so it would not surprise me. That being said the reference supplied is poor and await more links on the B Zhao article. Looked for info myself and because Zhao is a chess players name also, the search results are so many in this case you can't easy find what you want. And not having 30 mins to spare gave up that idea. ChessCreator (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is true, he played many computers. e.g. I looked at his 1994 games on chessgames.com and he even lost a rapid match (must've been a PCA tournament if it was 1994), which is much more significant. Given that, even if the B Zhao match happened, I doubt it is significant enough to be in this article. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, should NOT be in this article. In 1994 Kasparov lost to Fritz. That's not in the article, so a game he didn't lose is of little use. Especially as I believe to played many different computers every year around that time. ChessCreator (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity statements

Kasparov's popularity in Russia is subject to much debate. While polls do tend to indicate that he is quite unpopular, and Putin is the opposite, it is worth noting that most of these polls come from Russian news or the Russian government. Both of these sources are controlled by Putin and would not be likely to confirm his opposition's true status if it is indeed supported. Such details need to be included in the article. --72.205.63.176 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Putins popularity has been confirmed by outside polls. You're seriously grasping at straws by implying that his popularity is a state created illusion. Kasparovs unpopularity can be confirmed by the fact that he marches with neo-nazis, fascists and every other type of social outcast. Why not normal people? Because normal people don't like him and won't march with him. It's that simple. I don't see how you can call his popularity a subject of debate, the only people debating that he's popular are those who don't live in Russia and are completely out of touch with reality. Sbw01f (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Marching with Nazi's. My god, what have you been reading? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think the National Bolshevik Party is? I think their flag is telling enough. Sbw01f (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean he supports their ideas, they just joined the opposition. Kasparov denounces communism, I listened to an interview and one of his favourite fragments was Churchill's speech about the dangers of communism. I can also clearly recall Putin speaking about the "tragedy" that was the collapse of the soviet union. If you want to call Kasparov a Nazi, same goes for Putin in that context. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What?? I didn't call him a Nazi or even imply it. I said the fact that he marches with them is an indicator of how popular he is. He's at the bottom of the barrel for support. Sbw01f (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't dispute that his popularity is low in Russia, but I don't really blame him for that. That's all. The march of discontent had a lot of normal people, and so do his conferences. You're creating a caricature of him. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Games

Did someone delete this section? Why?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feature articles

This article has come on leaps and bounds since it was demoted from a Featured article. I see some more citations are required. What other concerns remain about this article? SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garrik vs Garri

While reading White King and Red Queen by Daniel Johnson, I see Garry Kasparov's birth name referred to as Garrik and not Garri. Other various net sources use Garrik and probably more Garri. Which is more correct and why? Garrethe (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Garrik is diminutive and rather informal form of this name. So I think we should stick with Garri. M0RD00R (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Script removed

I removed the Armenian spelling of his name from the introduction. He is a Russian citizen, born outside of Armenia, and is only half Armenian. The spelling was also wrong to begin with, it read Garry Kasparovi. Hakob (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phallus attack

Kasparov was recently attacked by some remote-control flying dildoes. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0

Anyone who can understand the Russian media care to write something on this? 67.185.62.184 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This incident deserves a mention. Although this article is obviously haunted by chess enthusiasts, internet culture is significant, and that video is a sensation. Youdontsmellbad (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
this page is not supposed to contain "funny moments with kasparov". Create a page about the "putin youth" or whatever it's called and place it there.- PietervHuis (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's non-notable. I assume he was speaking at a political event, and do we really want every politician's page to include every prabk ever played on them? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This SHOULD be mentioned in this article, I even find a more reliable link: [4] --Dark paladin x (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay as well. There are tons of examples of "pranks" such as this being included in peoples biographies, such as eggs being thrown at Steve Balmer during a speech. Sbw01f (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For me this is obvious WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS case, unless of course refs of non-trivial academic study on this subject are provided. M0RD00R (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Something like that really doesn't have place here as funny as it is. The United Russia youth or whatever they are called pulls out pranks all the time. Per WP:NOTNEWS it has no place here, maybe on a seperate page about the youth movement where people can place all their pranks and stuff. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, you have no business removing the Presidents opinion on the protests per WP:NPOV. It's not "some guys" opinion, it's the former president of the country, who the protests were directed against and who Kasparov is a rabid critic of. Sbw01f (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a different discussion, but the quote is completely cherry picked. There were many opinions on the arrests, many of them critical of the arrest. What do I find here? Only Putin's critical comment on Kasparov. I find the way you revert people unfair, you often don't adress the arguments and just revert it. But we're both breaching 3rr now. If you want it in, it should be eleborated upon, like how the camera crew to which Kasparov spoke in English was from CBC news[5], and as such it's not very weird that he speaks to them in English especially since he's fluent. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't delete paragraphs because other peoples opinions aren't included. Include those opinions instead. That's how NPOV works. That source you provided doesn't prove much. All it says is that there was one English crew there, which just means every other crew was Russian and yet he was still reaching out to the English viewers instead of the Russians. Putin's point is completely valid. He's trying to win other countries support, not his own. Sbw01f (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with Pieter and corrected this. Please do not place defamatory personal opinions in BLPs.Biophys (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No he spoke to that specific camera which was the only one to capture that specific moment. The rest of the time he spoke in Russian. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that Biohys continued this edit war by removing reliably sourced information. He says (on his talk page) Time Magazine is a "poor source", in other words, more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, there's no policy that justifies removing a well sourced, high profile opinion of someone on their biography. If that were the case we'd have to delete half the George W. Bush and Vladamir Putin pages. What a joke. Sbw01f (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What you cite is a defamatory opinion of a person (Putin) who was publicly criticized by Kasparov. Such opinions do not belong to BLP articles per WP:BLP.Biophys (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP says POORLY SOURCED defamatory comments about PRIVATE PEOPLE should be avoided. This is both well sourced, and about a politician aka a public figure. WP:BLP states On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show an excessive bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.
But on the other hand, I really don't care that much. Other editors can deal with this tag-team edit warring intended to ruin the neutrality of the article if they want, but I don't have time for childish games. Sbw01f (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sbw01f I don't want to engage in edit warring either. I don't really mind the comment but feel that it's a bit misplaced on the biography page of a person, and that it omits important details. Imagine you're reading the page of Vladimir Putin and you suddenly see a random opinion on Putin from Kasparov, or McCain, you probably wouldn't like that either. Something like that goes in the criticism section or the section dedicated to the specific subject. In this case that's the Dissenters March which also includes the arrest of Kasparov and others. I'll add it there later (if someone else hasn't). - PietervHuis (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what i have cited DOES NOT have a POV, so I should bring it back then? Unless if you can find a better source.--Dark paladin x (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the phallus attack fragment. Firstly, it referenced to blog that is a vilolation of WP:BLP. Secondly, the idiotic prank is completely not-notable. It can be seen even from the fact that no reputable reliable source of info decided to put the info there. We are encyclopedia not a tabloid Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring?

Guys, I could protect the article for a while, so you would find a solution on talk rather than edit war? On the other hand the article seems to be developing in other places: bad sources are removed, good sources are added.

Regarding the Putin quote I would keep it but balanced by some pro-March quote. There should be some. Still it up to you guys. No policy is violated by keeping it, no policy prohibits us from removing Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet if you ask me but keep an eye on it. I think the quotes can best be used on the appropriate page, since there's an article dedicated to the march itself already. Surely others can agree on that. But right now an unknown user reverted everything again. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already said I'm done, I'm not going to continue an edit war over something so insignificant when it's already clear that Biophys is in the wrong in claiming the quote is against policy. If I recall a few months back editing in the presidential elections article, Biophys is extremely biased against Putin (and presumably in favour of anyone who's against Putin), and he/she seems to edit war for sport, so I really have no interest in editing along-side editors like that. Pieter seems to be bringing up some valid points now, but it's unfortunate that it wasn't before the reverts so we could have discussed it and come to a consensus more easily. My opinion on the quote is if the event and arrest is going to be mentioned in this article, so should the quote, and perhaps other notable quotes as well.
Pieter, regarding your earlier comment on the Putin article, I believe Kasparov is quoted on that page comparing the youth movement Nashi to the Hitler youth. There is plenty of negative opinion on that page, but I've lately been making it a point not to pay too much attention to political wiki pages (for this very reason, they're just not fun to edit). Sbw01f (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Started political involvement under Aliyev???

I have removed the following passage:

Kasparov's political involvement started in the 1980s under the patronage of then KGB general, Politburo member and future Azerbaijani ruler Heydar Aliyev.[4]

The only relevant sentence in the source is:

Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan's President, on several occasions back in the 1980s, used his position in the Soviet Politburo, to assist Garry in getting a fair chance to play international competitions when Muscovites tried to block his participation.

So the source stated that Aliyev helped him in getting a fair chance to play chess not directed him into politics. As formulated now the phrase is an unsourced libel and a blatant WP:BLP violation Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have made several edits to comply with WP:BLP rules. Please do not revert all of them without discussion.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)