Humanities desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 9

Time gap in chess grandmasters' list

Chess_prodigy#List_of_youngest_grandmasters shows that from Bobby Fischer in 1958 there has been a 33-year gap until Polgar surpassed him as the youngest grandmaster, and that before that in the 1950s young grandmasters appeared regularly. Then the 1990s saw a second wave of young GMs. Why there has been such a gap between 1958 and 1991, especially considering chess popularity in the second half of the 20th century? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were very few grandmasters when Bobby joined, some blame rating inflation. The title was only a few years old back then. Fischer was very, very strong even without reaching his full potential due to becoming paranoid over time and refusing to play by 1975. Polgár's dad trained his 3 daughters almost since birth, to be the most prodigy-ic and strong chess players he could. Eventually computers would encourage even younger grandmasters but I don't know exactly when that started. Magnus didn't actually get into chess until the middle of elementary school, if he had been training since like 23 months old I bet he would've gotten the youngest grandmaster record and and caused another long pause in the record. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. suggest me a word

I was recently confronted with one opinion piece (It is different than my own point of view as a feminist) at one discussion page.:

It's a much large paragraph so shortened as much possible: "...Verifiability is not sufficient for inclusion. The question is what objective criterion in term of sources and beyond verifiability should we use to establish relevance. Logical relevance would be way too inclusive. One out of six women is victim of rape in the United States is certainly logically relevant to the subject of the United States and verifiable in official statistics.... The problem is that, based on logical relevance, the entire subject of rape should be covered in details in the United States article. Where do we stop, assuming that we should start at all?... It is a very simple question that we ask here. .." ( Since discussion at other forum is not closed Ref not given to avoid charges of 'forum shopping')

As a proponent of women's right actually I am for audit of each of country articles vis a vis women's rights and have due representation of women's issues in each of the articles. But after reading above I was almost at loss of words. Nearest word I could think of was 'condescending' but that too is not apt enough for my feminist expression. Can some one suggest me alternative words to express myself better.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's Category:Pejorative terms for people, but how will this help you achieve consensus? Card Zero (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:)) I am not necessarily looking for Pejorative term but a better expression to express myself. :)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best angle is to try to get a link to Violence against women in the United States included in the "Law enforcement and crime" section, near the murder rate statistic. (Your one-out-of-six statistic is in that article.) Reasoning: a lot of people are women - about half, I've heard - and thus it is of higher relevance than the 20 or so topics in Category:American society which are similarly neglected, although some of those could also find a place in the article at a later date.

In terms of expressing yourself, "I'm willing to compromise" is often a way to get everything you wanted done.

You could say that the (presumed) guy is "blustering" and that everything he's said is "bombast" (which literally means cotton wadding), but since he seems to believe himself to be raising reasonable and important objections to change (and everyone is vigilant about change, since homeostasis is intuitively good), this kind of attack is unlikely to work as persuasion. Card Zero (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context, her wording could be anything from irrelevant through to the expression of concerns about undue weight, perhaps stopping off at "mansplaining" along the way. I think we'd need more details to provide realistic suggestions. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:5FAA:6884:1ED5:DFFF (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on finding what articles this critic is 'known for'?

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this, but it seemed the closest on WP. In part on my work improving the articles of classical music critics I recently created Jeremy Eichler. Having been an active journalist for 15 years+ I suspect he has written hundreds of articles by now. I want to include some (just as representative) in the "Selected publications" section, but I'm not sure how to decide which ones to include! Since he is a music critic writing in newspapers, I'm not sure—any ideas on if there is a way to see which articles he wrote were "viewed more"/"cited more" or something? I'd rather not be too random in with the inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would link to the selected writings page of his personal webpage. You don't need to list them all, but that seems like a relevant link for the external links section of the article. --Jayron 32 23:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the right idea, perfect, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]