Talk:Emanuel Lasker

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bruce leverett (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 4 December 2020 (Birth place in Infobox: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 3 years ago by Bruce leverett in topic Birth place in Infobox
Good articleEmanuel Lasker has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 11, 2020.

Template:Vital article

Evidence

Reference N° 62. There is no mention of David Hilbert on that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.47.224 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Recent analysis, however, indicates that he was ahead of his time and used a more flexible approach than his contemporaries, which mystified many of them." What recent analysis? By whom? When? This should have a source. Tpkatsa (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's difficult to briefly summarize the fairly extensive discussion in the Emanuel Lasker#Assessment section, but this part of the lead could probably be improved. I'm not sure that that sentence is the best bit from the assessment section to put in the lead. Quale (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Historians debate or not?

This is for Quale to explain their repeated reversion, after I explained and asked not to. Quale, you just reverted without explanation, and instead asked me not to! Amazing. I see on your talk page people have objected to you doing this before - repeatedly reverting without explanation. I have explained (briefly) why I thought those links were better deleted - you have referred to such things as what appeared in a Ray Keene book as 'historians debating'. Which strikes me as ludicrous. If there is the actual debate of historians that you claim, then including reference to a Keene book is superfluous. If not, it's doing nothing but misleading. I ask you again not to just revert without explanation as you have already done once. I see you have contributed to a lot of chess pages, so maybe you feel like you can do whatever you like on here without being civil, or justifying your actions at all. I feel you have acted entirely inappropriately. I deleted what I did because I felt it improved the page, and I've explained why. Now it's your turn. 110.20.168.169 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You removed four cites from the page, not just one cite by Keene. Justify removal of all four, please. Your edit comment "Sorry, but to portray such things as an error in a Keene book as historians disagreeing about something, is just silly" does not justify removing four cites. In fact there has been disagreement by chess writers whether the 1909 Janowski match was for the WC, although I think it's generally agreed today that it was not. Probably the text describing that issue can be improved substantially both here and at World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski), but in my opinion removing it completely is not an improvement. Quale (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. J. Hannak, first published in 1959, also says that the 1909 match was for the title, but Winter's research looks convincing to me. I like the statement at World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski): "The longer 1909 match has sometimes been called a world championship match, but research by Edward Winter indicates that the title was not at stake." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emanuel Lasker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Birth place in Infobox

@Oliszydlowski and GiantSnowman: I was following this earlier edit. But it is true, I do not know of an explicit rule that would require this; it only seems natural, given the abbreviated nature of everything in the infobox. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply