text:
Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

Untitled
Anti-consumerist??? Where did this come from?

Edited to be 'Sociology'.

Using anti-consumerist is like calling a chemist an anti-alchemist.

Completely ridiculous

All you people arguing about the image when the content is completely broken and incomplete need to get your priorities sorted, and get off this ridiculous power-trip your having over making meaningless decisions over his image. Read some Bourdieu's later work and you'll read him attacking this exact kind of behaviour. IRONY

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sk2266.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox
The discussion at hand concerns whether this image of Bourdieu should be in the infobox: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Pierre_Bourdieu.jpg

Or this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bourdieu_Strasbourg_crop.jpg

Why do I believe the former image is better than the latter? As I noted in my latest revision summary: it is aesthetically and functionally better, for it is not a grainy, cropped image taken from a random meeting with other people. It is professional and shows him speaking. It is moreover also the image used on all the other major language versions of the article (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.). Finally it shows him as he was best known to the public appearance-wise; the other image is of him when he was already quite old and shows him in a way that does not fit the public impression of him as established throughout his career (just do a google image search for him).

There are also downsides for that picture, however. It is somewhat blurry, and I hope someone with the requisite Photoshop skills can produce a better version of it as that is one of the main arguments I've seen from those who prefer the other image.

If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears and am open to changing my mind, as I hope others are as well, in particular when a better version of the first image is presented. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the picture of him speaking is slightly better. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well; the bottom one has a lot more detail (that close-up of his nostril for instance...) Muffled Pocketed  12:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The new one is out of focus. Grainy beats unfocused any day of the week. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're both not exactly sharp, but I concede I'm not using the optimal equipment to view them. Perhaps someone could have a go at photoshopping, either the original or this other one -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The picture of Bourdieu speaking is shown on Commons and Flickr as created in 2011 by Alicia Gaudi. Bourdieu died in 2002. There's a cropped but better-quality version on Le Monde's website at http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/01/23/pierre-bourdieu-une-pensee-en-mouvement_1632597_3232.html with an alt-text date of October 1998 and attribution to "AFP/Pierre Vardy". Can we be reasonably confident we do have cc-by-2.0 rights to use it? 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Also a much better version of it here: http://images.zeit.de/kultur/literatur/2010-11/bourdieu/bourdieu-540x304.jpg

But not sure about the copyright. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. There's another of the same event here with the same date and attribution. A flickr account with 6 photos and no followers, I don't think a correct licence could be ruled out, but given the evidence I'm inclined to be skeptical. Back with the grainy photo then? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks - Google's search-by-image strikes again! There's also a less cropped version at Le Monde and other pictures of Bourdieu speaking at a 1998 conference, identically dressed, in Liberation and der Freitag, all attributed to Pierre Verdy/AFP. 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So anyone else have a preference for one or the other image, or is able to produce a sharper version of the first? I looked at the other major language wiki pages of Bourdieu (French, Spanish, Italian) and they all have the first image in the infobox as well. I have added a request for comment to get more opinions.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a sharper version of the first one I was able to make with an online editor (must be possible to produce a better one with Photoshop, though): Pierre Bourdieu (sharper 1).jpgmir Koznyshev (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Vladimir Koznyshev is confused about what the purpose of an infobox picture is in a biographical article. The purpose is to show what somebody looks like, not to show what they look like when they are speaking or writing a book or thinking or anything of that kind. Actually, the picture is better if Bourdieu is not speaking or doing anything in particular. The image of Bourdieu gesticulating is not in any way aesthetically better, rather, it is weird and distracting. The other picture gives a better impression of his appearance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what a picture of someone 'not thinking' could possible look like, but certainly the one FreeKnowledgeCreator is promoting does not fall under that category. I am also not sure what a 'weird' picture is in relation to someone talking, nor how that may be 'distracting' in such a way that one is unable to see what they look like. It seems weird to be distracted by that. Both pictures give an impression of his appearance, the question is which one gives a better impression, and that has to do with the quality of the picture. One is grainy and aesthetically 'weird' in that it is a close up of his face; the other is unfocused but I am in the process of putting it through photoshop to make it focused. Once that is done, people here can choose which one they prefer, until a consensus is reached. Without a consensus being reached, or a convincing argument being presented, I will continue changing the picture as I see fit, for FreeKnowledgeCreator's beliefs about what picture is 'weird' or 'distracting' or 'doesn't show someone thinking' aren't the standard for Wikipedia infobox pictures. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the purpose of a picture in an infobox is to show what someone looks like. Nothing else. Hence it is better if it is a neutral image that shows someone doing nothing in particular. Of course one can see what Bourdieu looks like in the picture where he is gesticulating, but why include something irrelevant such as him waving or raising his hands when the only reason to have a picture at all is simply to show his appearance? You can repeat endlessly that the other picture is somehow more aesthetic. That won't change the fact that it isn't. Your comment that you will continue changing the picture as you see fit is regrettable. The accepted approached is that someone who wants to change an article needs consensus for their change; otherwise it remains as it was before. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe that an image is neutral when it displays someone 'doing nothing' (whatever that means), and therefore somehow better shows what someone looks like, does not make it so. There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well? Both images clearly show what he looks like, and so fulfill the criteria of the infobox image. The question is which of the two is better. You believe the grainy, 'weird' close-up picture is better, I and some others do not. Other users have said that the other image has its faults, too, though unrelated to the 'doing nothing' criterion you made up. It is unfocused, which someone will hopefully fix. Another issue that was mentioned was copyright. If it can be shown that the image I suggested is indeed subject to copyright, the matter is resolved as it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether (I found it there, and it is the only other available option as far as I know; at least I have not yet been able to find another image of him that is free of copyright per the Wikipedia guidelines, but perhaps someone else can). And no, I am not now going to keep changing the image. I will await the end of the discussion with the aim of reaching consensus, per Wiki guidelines. But consensus does not mean that your opinion is the automatically accepted one just because it reflects the status quo. At least, I have not find anything in the Wiki guidelines that says that. I would love to hear more opinions on this from other users; which image do you prefer, and do you not agree that the current one is simply not good on various grounds (e.g., extreme close-up, grainy, unprofessional)? Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Doing nothing in particular" means that someone is shown standing or looking at the camera, and that's all. What did you think it meant? Per common sense, of course that's what a picture in an infobox of a biographical article should show. Regarding your comment, "There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well?", see WP:OTHERCRAP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per common sense that's not them 'doing nothing', it's them standing or looking at the camera. What you meant to say was 'I want images of them not gesticulating or speaking', which is fine for your personal standard for what a 'neutral image' is, but it's irrelevant for the content of an infobox, which is to show what a person looks like. Both images fulfill that criterion, and in my opinion and that of some others one does so better than the other for a variety of reasons (e.g., it is not grainy, not a weird extreme close-up). So like your image criterion of somehow showing someone 'not thinking', 'doing nothing' is equally meaningless, per common sense. And yes, the fact that there are countless infobox images on biographical entries that do not fit your personal criteria means that it is not official Wiki policy, it's just your personal preference. And no, your personal preference does not trump that of others', no matter how much you try to present it as some kind of universally valid rule or policy.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What drivel. If you want to show what someone looks like, of course you show them standing calmly and looking at the camera, not making weird hand gestures. The only reason to show someone making hand gestures would be if their hand gestures somehow helped or informed the reader. They don't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). Yes, we already know your personal set of criteria for what an infobox image ought to look like. It's irrelevant. I'm interested in other peoples' opinions, preferably those whose ideal image doesn't include showing someone 'not thinking' or 'doing nothing [except what I want them to be doing]'.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Vladimir Koznyshev, my views are not irrelevant, because I'm an editor with the same right to edit this article as anyone else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're irrelevant to me, just as my views are 'drivel' to you. Not sure which characterization is worse. Actually, I am, and it's not mine. In any case, in the context of Wikipedia your views are as relevant as mine or anyone else's, and since our opinions are already known, I'd like to hear more from others. I read that's actually one of the ways to reach consensus.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Holy smokes, you two, what a massive amount of animosity for such a minor difference in content. Seriously, both of you have gone way beyond reasonable and civil commentary for what is, in essence, a style determination; neither of you was going to win this on an appeal to any firm policy or similar empirical argument, so going to the mat in the fashion (and especially at the length) that you two have is borderline disruptive. Vladmir, I presume you read the RfC guidelines before filing this, so you should have caught the part that the RfC proposal is supposed to be neutrally worded, presenting the arguments for each option, not favouring one and dismissing the other. Much more importantly than that, there was no need to mention FreeKnowledgeCreator or your gripes with him in the proposal--doing so just sets you up for more entrenched, personalized discussion; keep your commentary on the issues, not the "opposition", please. Most importantly, you should be aware that when you say "If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears. But until then, I will keep revising it for the reasons mentioned.", you give the impression that you are saying you are willing to WP:Edit war to keep your preferred version of the article in place, which is a disruptive activity that will quickly get you blocked on this project; I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you follow through on that commitment. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you have much more experience than Vladmir and ought to know better than to engage in ceaseless back-and-forth, especially with emotionally-charged language like "drivel" and so-forth, especially when we're talking about a style issue on which reasonable people could reasonably disagree. Coming at another editor with language like that is uncivil and nonconstructive. I urge the both of you take a moment and consider if your comments are at all proportionate to the circumstances or in any way appropriate to reasonable discussion on a collaborative project.

All of that said, I prefer the status quo/Strasbourg image. It's not ideal, but it is the higher quality image, with far better focus, as well as framing around the face--which is generally embraced as the most useful kind of biographical photo for infobox image, in my experience. Of course, consistency with other BLPs is not the only important factor, and certainly there are plenty of infobox images out there showing their subject from from different perspectives and in different levels of animation--so that's no determinative argument in itself. But ultimately, the other image is just far to blurry/low res/low quality to seriously contemplate, imo.  S n o w  let's rap 05:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your input! I am indeed not at all an experienced user on here so forgive me for any mistakes I've made during the process. I have done my best to avoid them by reading through the guidelines and policies. My RfC comment was not the one that is at the beginning of the section, that was already there when the discussion began. I added my RfC note and worded it as neutrally as I could in the final contribution on the talk page, and by then I had also clarified that I would not continue revising it unless consensus was reached, though I understand why that could be easily missed in the rather lengthy exchange with FreeKnowledgeCreator (I have just now edited the original comment to reflect this!). Having said that, your preference for the current image is perfectly reasonable; the other image being blurry is certainly a negative for it, though I believe the graininess and other negatives of the other one make it worse. However, if someone puts the other image through Photoshop and gets a better version (I tried myself but I'm crap at it; might give it another go soon), would you be open to preferring the other one instead? If so the matter can be easily resolved by someone who's skilled at Photoshop. As noted I'll give it a go myself again soon. Thanks again for your helpful contribution.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your preferred image is unacceptable because it does not clearly focus on Bourdieu's face and therefore does not identify him so clearly. Much of the image is taken up with Bourdieu's gesticulations, which unlike his face do not help to identify him in any fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See Snow Rise, it's not about the quality of the image for FreeKnowledgeCreator (it being blurry), they just find it unacceptable per some subjective criteria they made up which as you and others have pointed out is merely their personal preference. Looking forward to more comments, including yours on the less blurry image. Also, hopefully someone with Photoshop skills sees this and can make an even better version of it.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm using common sense about what is best for an encyclopedia. An image is appropriate when everything in it is suitable for the purpose for which it is being used, in this case identifying the subject of the article. Bourdieu's gesticulations are not relevant to identifying him, so it is better not to use a picture where he is gesticulating. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can keep justifying your purely subjective preference for an image by appealing to "common sense", but it's evident that it's just your personal preference, as 5 editors have now shown.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment - I prefer the third image, which appears to be a clearer version of the first. At first glance, I liked the second image but after someone pointed out the focus on the nostril, I couldn't stop looking at it. It's a bit of a distraction. None of the images are great but the third is preferable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the second image is best because it gives the reader the clearest impression of Bourdieu's face. The nostril is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment. Summoned by bot. I prefer the first or third image, and see no difference between them. I agree that they it is a better photograph. The extreme closeup (photo number two) is just not as good a photo. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox 2
As you can see below, the previous discussion concerning the infobox image ended because the other alternative was deleted due to copyright issues. I found another image that does not have this problem and am now proposing that one as an alternative to the current image. The alternative image I am proposing is this:

Whereas the current one is this:

I believe the first image is better than the second one because it is not blurry; it is not aesthetically odd in that it zooms in on his nostrils; it displays him as he is generally known to be public.

Please provide your input as to which one you prefer, and see below for the previous discussion on the matter.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that we prefer photos to artwork, but I can't find the guideline, so I've posted at VPM. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reply by Masem, where he notes that there is no strict guideline for preferring photos to artwork and it depends on the particular images, indicates one of the reasons why I believe the first image is better than the second, namely "there are clear cases where other images can be acceptable. If we have an aging actress where we have her photo in the 90s, but she was known as a starlet in her 20s, and we have a free reasonable accurate drawing of her then, that might be preferable". The first image portrays Bourdieu as he is generally known to the public, and its quality is certainly well beyond reasonable in depicting his likeness. I believe it is superior because of that and the other reasons I mentioned. Would love to hear others' thought on it as well.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Came upon this talk page by accident, read the discussion here, and obviously the first image here is the better representation of Bourdieu in every respect. It shows him as most people know him, not as an older man, grainy/blurry and in a surprised state as is the case with the second picture. I find it somewhat odd that there is an editor who appears to be obsessed with keeping the second picture when it is obviously inferior in every way, so much so that they're willing to edit-war over it. Since the person in question is unrelenting and the other editor seems to have given up on this I'm adding a dispute resolution request. Hopefully something productive can come out of that. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, 109.246.75.242. First, if you are user Vladimir Koznyshev, please do not edit while logged out. Second, do not move talk page discussions around the talk page without justification. New threads go at the end of the page, so you should not have moved this discussion. Third, if you want to change the article's picture it is entirely up to you to get consensus for that. I'm sorry, but I simply do not share your assessment of the merits of the two images. In principle, it is far preferable to have an actual image of Bourdieu, not some artist's impression of him. Your claim about how most people know Bourdieu is unsupported. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not that user. And as others have made clear in the discussion that principle is yours and yours alone. For some odd reason you believe your opinion on this matter is Wiki policy, when it is clearly not. And you keep repeating this unsupported claim. I have asked for arbitration as you are unrelenting and prone to edit-war. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Redrose64 indicated that photographs are preferred to artworks in cases such as this, so he appears to agree with me. I never said that my views were official policy. Your request for dispute resolution is futile. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Redrose64 wasn't sure and brought it up on the Village Pump section where t is clarified by MASEM and Jason Quinn that there are no guidelines or rules stating that "in principle, it is far preferable to have an actual image of X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_54#Do_we_have_a_written_guideline_on_whether_a_photo_is_preferred_to_non-photographic_art

 * That is just your opinion, nothing more. I would ask you to kindly refrain from presenting your own opinions as stated Wiki policy, and instead argue on the merits of the images in question, which clearly show that the first is preferable to the second for all the reasons I and others have mentioned: it is not grainy/blurry; it shows him how he was best known as a public figure (not when he was much older), and it is not cropped from a surprise snapshot. Incidentally, the original image from which that was cropped is no longer available on Wiki, so it is questionable what the copyright status of the cropped version is. You have no leg to stand on, and it is quite frankly very strange that you are so obsessed with this that you will edit-war over it.109.246.75.242 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 * If you wanted to replace the photograph with another photograph then "it is not grainy/blurry" would be a relevant argument. It is not a relevant argument when you are trying to replace a photograph with an artistic drawing, because "grainy/blurry" does not apply to artistic drawings. The drawing has its own defects as an image. It is black and white, which is obviously not the best for depicting someone's likeness, and it looks burned or crinkled around the edges. I don't care about your views on how Bourdieu was best-known, as you have no evidence for them. If you actually care about how Bourdieu was best known, then you ought to support an actual image of him, as opposed to something an artist made up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I presented three arguments, you reduce it to only one, then proceed to dismiss it because of your personal opinion (presented as objective fact) while decrying that I am merely relying on my personal opinion. That is not very charitable. The arguments are that it is grainy/blurry, it is taken from when he was older and not as he was commonly known (this is not merely my personal opinion, a simple Google search attests to how he was most commonly pictured, and it was when he was younger), and it was taken in a moment of surprise, which means that it is an awkward pose. Others have noted the strange positioning as well (mentions of the nostril and such). The other image is a crisp, clear portrait of him as he was most commonly known, an artist-rendering of a photograph. The fact that it is black and white does not at all detract from its superior representation of Bourdieu to the other image given its various flaws. The point about the edges is meaningless as that can simply be cropped out. Finally, the copyright status of the second image is in question. The original image from which it was cropped is no longer available on Wiki. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the point about the edges is not "meaningless". They are certainly a reason for keeping out that image in its current form. They could not be cropped out without making the image much smaller, which would drastically reduce its already questionable value as a likeness of Bourdieu. Please stop flogging the dead horse, and find something more productive to do with your time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't concede the edges are a problem at all. They don't affect the quality of the image, especially when automatically reduced to fit the picture box size. But good to know that is now your only objection, which, it turns out, is indeed meaningless. The original image is actually large enough for it to be cropped without it affecting its superior value as a likeness of Bourdieu compared to the other (cropped) image. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/9Plbm

 * That took me about 10 seconds in mspaint. But I am sure you will find some other fault with it now. You appear to have been beating this dead horse for over a year and still haven't let it go. Taking your own advice and doing something more productive with your time seems like a healthy thing to do.109.246.75.242 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have reversed your position. First you said that the edges could "simply be cropped out", implying that they are a problem, now you suddenly suggest that they are not a problem. They obviously affect the quality of the image, as they are ugly and distract attention away from the main part of the image showing Bourdieu's face. They are clearly visible when the image is shown in the article's infobox, so you are quite wrong to suggest that they are not a problem. As for the cropped version you linked to above, it is predictably worse than the uncropped version. It still shows edges that look burned or crinkled, and it is in no way appropriate for the infobox. Where did you get the idea that an infobox image of someone should show a close-up of (only part of) their face? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never had the position that the edges are a problem, simply made the case that your objection that they were wasn't valid as they could easily be cropped out, which is the case. Both in the original version as in a cropped version it is superior to the other image in the various ways I have already outlined. It is not grainy/blurry, it is not unrepresentative in terms of age and positioning, and it is not cropped from an image that is no longer available on Wiki. Predictably you invented another reason to not like the cropped version, which makes no sense at all as it shows all of his face and does not have all the obvious flaws of the other image. The shift from "it is a drawing", to "it is black and white", to "it has edges", to "when you crop out the edges it looks bad in my opinion" has been an interesting one to observe, especially given that they were all presented as objective fact and in some cases even as Wiki policy, when it is nothing but your personal opinion. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The cropped version does not show all of Bourdieu's face. You have cut out the tip of Bourdieu's chin. That is an example of how cropping images can produce a worse result than the original. I have made no shift in my position, despite what you imply. The image is inappropriate for all the reasons I have indicated. An additional one is that an infobox image of a person should not depict only their face or some portion thereof. A proper image would show as much of a person as it reasonably can, as that gives a better impression of them. For that reason alone the current photograph is better than the weird picture you tried to edit war into the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the cropped and uncropped versions show all of Bourdieu's face. Your preferred image however doesn't, instead zooming in awkwardly on his nostril from an angle. That is an example of how cropping images can produces a worse result than the original, incidentally. That by itself is sufficient reason to not have that as the standard image, but fortunately there are the others I have mentioned which eliminate it beyond any reasonable doubt. The very fact that the original image of the cropped version you prefer is no longer on Wiki should exclude it from consideration. Should Wiki have an image of a person that hardly anyone recognizes (when they were much older from the time they gained public attention, taken unexpectedly from a weird angle, grainy/blurry and cropped), or a crisp, clear artist rendering of a commonly used profile shot of which everyone recognizes them as? For someone not interested in wasting time and flogging dead horses this should be easy to answer. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Your cropped version removes part of Bourdieu's chin - as anyone who compares it to the uncropped version can see for him or herself. The current version, in contrast, does indeed show all of Bourdieu's face, as anyone who looks at it can see. Why would you claim that it doesn't? Bourdieu's nostril is of no importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the cropped and uncropped versions show the chin, and his face, just fine, whereas in your preferred image the awkward angle hides one side of it while zooming in on his nostrils, as other editors have also observed. Why would you claim that it doesn't? In any case, the copyright status of that image is in question now that the original version of it has been deleted. I have requested its deletion for that reason, and expect appropriate action to be taken shortly. Irrespective of the outcome of that, I welcome any comments from third parties on this matter. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears the deletion has gone through already. It is strange that you, who appears to know all the rules, failed to pick up on this one. I will now make the appropriate changes to the infobox image as the matter seems resolved, though no thanks to your obstinacy. Kindly refrain from edit-warring in the future. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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:
 * Added tag to http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/wacquant_pdf/HABITUS-INTERNCYECOSOC.pdf%26pli%3D1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010230113/http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm to http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre Bourdieu. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032241/https://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8443/ws/files/47350542/Religiousfields_author_non_format.pdf to https://pure.abdn.ac.uk:8443/ws/files/47350542/Religiousfields_author_non_format.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pierre Bourdieu, painted portrait DDC 8931 (cropped).jpg

Draft:Bourdieu's theory of practice in International Relations theory
Hello,

I just postponed the CSD G13 speedy deletion of this draft and was wondering if any of the content could be used in this article. I realize that part of the draft is essay-like but there might be some usable content or sourcing that those who know Bourdieu well could make use of. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

=. 103.159.214.186 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pierre Bourdieu


text:
542 BC

The year 542 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 212  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 542 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events
Jambuswami; the head of the Jain order for 44 years after the Nirvan of Mahaveer Swami, attained Nirvan at the age of 80 years old.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 542 BC


text:
541 BC

The year 541 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 213  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 541 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Cyrus the Great, king of the Persian Empire, conquers the Lydian kingdom of Croesus.

Deaths

 * Jia'ao, Chinese king of Chu

title: 541 BC


text:
540 BC

The year 540 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 214  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 540 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Cyrus attacks Babylonia.
 * Greek city of Elea of southern Italy is founded (approximate date).
 * Persians conquer Lycian city of Xanthos (approximate date).
 * Amasis Painter makes Dionysos with maenads, black-figure decoration on an amphora.
 * Exekias makes The Suicide of Ajax, black-figure decoration on an amphora.
 * Amyntas I becomes king of Macedonia (approximate date).
 * Comet Hale–Bopp appears in the evening sky, making its closest approach to Earth. Its next appearance occurs in 1997.

Births

 * Epicharmus of Kos, Greek dramatist (approximate date; d. c. 450 BC)
 * Heraclitus, Greek philosopher, born in Ephesus (approximate year)
 * Leonidas I, leader of the 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae (approximate date; d. 480 BC)
 * Vardhamana Mahavira, the twenty-fourth and last Tirthankara of the Jains 450 BC

title: 540 BC


text:
Not in Our Name

Not in Our Name (NION) was a United States organization founded on March 23, 2002 to protest the U.S. government's course in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks; it disbanded on March 31, 2008.

Two key documents
Early in their existence, NION produced two documents—the "Pledge of Resistance" and the "Statement of Conscience" —that NION members believe provide focus and expression to the U.S. anti-war movement.

"Pledge of Resistance"
The Pledge is written by Starhawk and Saul Williams, in the style of free verse, beginning: We believe that as people living

in the United States it is our

responsibility to resist the injustices

done by our government,

in our names

Not in our name

will you wage endless war

and concluding Another world is possible

and we pledge to make it real.

The pledge opposes what it characterizes as "endless war", "transfusions of blood for oil", invasions of foreign countries, bombing civilians, and killing children. It goes on, "Not in our name / will you erode the very freedoms / you have claimed to fight for." It implicitly accuses the Bush administration of deeming "whole peoples or countries" as "evil" and pledges, among other things, "...alliance with those/ who have come under attack / for voicing opposition to the war / or for their religion or ethnicity."

The Not in My Name EP was released in May 2003 by Saul Williams with assistance from DJ Spooky, DJ Goo and Coldcut.

"Statement of Conscience"
NION's "Statement of Conscience", drafted in spring 2002, first lists a series of criticisms of the Bush Administration and (secondarily) the U.S. Congress and calls on the people of the U.S. "...to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world."

Among the specific principles advocated in the statement are the right of self-determination for peoples and nations and the importance of due process and dissent. The statement expresses "shock" at "the horrific events of September 11, 2001" but, evoking "similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam", describes Iraq as "a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11", and deplores the administration's "spirit of revenge" and the "simplistic script of 'good vs. evil': "In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime."

Referring to the U.S. government's treatment of immigrants in the wake of September 11, the statement accuses the U.S. government of creating "two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the U.S. legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all", and evokes "the infamous concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II".

Protesting "a pall of repression" and referring specifically to the USA PATRIOT Act as emblematic of that repression, it accuses the executive branch of usurping "the roles and functions of the other branches of government," and continues, "We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights."

NION urges a movement of resistance: "President Bush has declared: 'you're either with us or against us.' Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people ... We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare ..." It indicates as inspiration "...Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare 'there IS a limit' and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza", the abolitionists, and "those who defied the Vietnam war" and concludes, "we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it."

Signatories
NION's web site lists a broad array of signatories to the pledge, listing only those who signed before July 17, 2002. Among those are:

2005 Statement of Conscience
NION issued an updated Statement of Conscience in January 2005, expressing dissent on the occasion of the re-inauguration of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

Slogans
The group uses the following phrases in its rhetoric:
 * Not by our will
 * Not in our name
 * Not by our hearts
 * I Say NO to the Bush Agenda
 * No War On the World
 * No Police State Restrictions
 * No Round-ups and Detentions

Role in the anti-war movement
A partial parallel for the founding of Not in Our Name (NION) is the founding of the anti-war coalition ANSWER. ANSWER was founded on 14 September 2001, on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, largely by members of the Workers World Party (WWP). NION was founded on 23 March 2002, largely by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which continues to be prominent among its leadership. (In 2005, four years after its founding, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an offshoot of WWP, became a more prominent influence than the WWP in the leadership of ANSWER.)

Nonetheless, in contrast to ANSWER, NION has a broad set of endorsers and is generally regarded as a cooperative participant in the broader anti-war movement. An October 2002 article by Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom in Z magazine is typical among expressions by anti-war critics of the RCP that, despite its origins, NION is a cooperative participant in the movement. After excoriating the RCP for holding various positions that Albert and Shalom find abhorrent, they then write, "Despite these views, however, RCP does not push its specific positions on NION to the degree that IAC does on ANSWER. For example, while the ANSWER website offers such things as ... [an] IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan ..., the NION website and its public positions have no connection to the sometimes bizarre views of the RCP." This is reflected in the wide range of signatories to their "Statement of Conscience".

Also, NION is itself now a member of a broader coalition United for Peace and Justice, founded in October 2002 (a year after ANSWER) by individuals and groups seeking to curb ANSWER's influence in the anti-war movement.

An example of NION's willingness to cooperate came when they postponed their national moratorium against the war to coincide with the March 5, 2003 "Books Not Bombs" student strike called by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition.

Donation from Larry Flynt
In 2004, Robert Corsini, an organizer for Not in Our Name publicized Hardcore pornographer Larry Flynt's support for one of their campaigns. Aura Bogado, a feminist radio producer and news anchor for KPFK, objected privately in e-mail and asked to be removed from the organization's mailing list. Corsini forwarded his response to Bogado (including a copy of the original private e-mail) to NION national organizers, her employers at KPFK, and to Bruce David at Larry Flynt Publishing. Bogado replied to Corisini in detail on NION's public e-mail list, and participated in a sharp debate over the e-mail list that followed. After Hustler published a series of articles and sexual caricatures attacking Bogado, she made her criticism public in "Hustling the Left", published on ZNet in June 2005. Bogado charged that Leftist leaders were tacitly supporting racism and misogyny by aligning themselves with Flynt, and specifically criticized Greg Palast, Amy Goodman, Susie Bright, and Amy Alkon. The discussion of her article inspired similar criticism of Leftist leaders cooperating with Flynt by feminists such as Nikki Craft and pro-feminist Leftists such as Stan Goff. Shortly after the publication of her article, the Not in Our Name Steering Committee issued a public apology to Bogado and objected to the treatment of Bogado in Hustler.

Antecedents of the name
Prior to the founding of Not in Our Name, other anti-war groups had used the name, including a group of families who were victims of the 9-11 World Trade Center attack, and Jewish youth protesting Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories. "Not in Our Name" is also a slogan used by the UK Stop the War Coalition. "Not in Our Name" has also been a petition drive to be signed by Muslims by CAIR, in which they say it is "not in the name of Muslims" that terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Ladin and Hambali are making these claims.

"Hustling the Left" controversy

 * Aura Bogado, "Hustling the Left" ZNet June 5, 2005
 * Susie Bright, "A Response to Aura Bogado" ZNet June 9, 2005
 * Aura Bogado, "Reply to Susie Bright" ZNet June 14, 2005
 * "To Aura, An Overdue Apology" Not In Our Name National Steering Committee, ZNet June 17, 2005
 * Robert Corsini and Bruce David, "Caught in the Crossfire" LarryFlynt.com Reporter's Notebook August 2005
 * Bruce David, "Femi-Nazi Wars Episode Vi: Attack of the Z Ray" LarryFlynt.com Reporter's Notebook
 * Nikki Craft, Hustling the Left website (the website was established by Nikki Craft to highlight the issues raised by Bogado's article; it was not created by Aura Bogado herself).

title: Not in Our Name


text:
535 BC

The year 535 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 219  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 535 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Europe

 * Phocaean Greek colonists clash with Carthaginian and Etruscan ships in the Battle of Alalia (near Corsica).

Asia

 * The Sungai Batu Civilization in Malaysia begins.

Births

 * Heraclitus, Greek philosopher (approximate date) (d. c. 475 BC)

title: 535 BC


text:
534 BC

The year 534 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 220  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 534 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Europe

 * Lucius Tarquinius Superbus becomes the seventh king of Rome, after murdering his predecessor Servius Tullius.
 * Competitions for tragedy are instituted at the City Dionysia festival in Athens.
 * The Etruscan founded the city of Felsina, that later will become the modern city of Bologna

Deaths

 * Servius Tullius, sixth king of Rome

title: 534 BC


text:
532 BC

The year 532 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 222  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 532 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Europe

 * Pythagoras arrives in the Greek colony of Croton (modern-day Crotone) in Magna Graecia and founds the philosophical school of Pythagoreanism (approximate date).

Deaths

 * Ping, ruler (duke) of the State of Jin (from 557 to 532 BC)

title: 532 BC


text:
Talk:Vladimir Kramnik

FIDE rating

 * However, the FIDE rating list is not an official determinant of status but rather a provisional or estimated ranking.

I don't think I understand this. The FIDE list is about as official as it gets, isn't it? If it isn't an indicator of who is world number two, then who is? --Camembert

The FIDE list is as official as those ESPN ratings of football teams. They may put Kramnik at number 2 but the fact is, the man is the world champion and is #1 until somebody beats him in a 35 game series.

 * Well, first of all, I think FIDE, which is after all the governing body for chess, is rather more oficial than ESPN. Granted, FIDE has its faults, but the Elo system is not one of them. Secondly, who says he has to be beaten in a 35 game series to not be world no. 1 any more? Kramnik - Kasparov was only a 16 game match, wasn't it, one of, if not the, shortest world championship matches ever. Thirdly, as it is the article says: "In the FIDE rating list for October 2002, Kramnik was ranked number two in the world, behind Kasparov." Why does this need qualification? OK, maybe there are other ways of ranking skill at playing chess, but this statement makes it clear that we're just dealing with the FIDE rating list. Why, after all, is a world championship match a better indication of who is world number one than an Elo list? Consequently, I've changed your statement somewhat. I hope it's OK for you.

 * By the way, related to this: does anybody know if Kramnik has finished above Kasparov in a tournament since his match win (I've been taking a bit of a break from chess for a while, so I'm not up to date on these things). --Camembert

 * I don't think it makes much sense to say that FIDE rankings need qualification. They're mathematically generated based on tournament performance. Isn't there an article on the Elo rating system somewhere? I think someone here is confused about what is meant by FIDE rankings. Kramnik is recognized as the world chess champion but he is not the highest rated player in the world. --Malathion 06:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's particularly informative to start out the article with a list of Kramnik's match losses. Clearly there are some chess fans out there who hate Kramnik because of his style and propensity for quick draws, but this is hardly suitable. It should at least be balanced by a listing of his many tournament successes. BTW, Kramnik won Linares 2004, in which I believe Kasparov participated.24.199.100.27 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This is untrue. The rating list is used for many tournament organizers to determine who is or is not invited, as well as one of the requirements for earning titles such as International Master and Grand Master.  FIDE's recent rules about who would be invited to play for the world championship qualifiers also includes clauses about anyone rated above a certain bar.  Unlike other sports, FIDE rating truly mean something to the players and organizers. Qed (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I restructured this listing, organizing the information into wiki categories. Much of the negative crap about Kramnik's losses, etc, has been either removed or organized into its proper context. Hopefully people can respect Wiki as a resource instead of a soapbox for their vitriolic opinions. Certainly my improvements can be further improved. A discussion about the Prague agreement and a sample game would be welcome additions. Danny Pi 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All right. I moved the thing about Kramnik finishing last to a more appropriate place. I don't think it's sufficiently important to deserve a full paragraph much less conclude his biography, nor do I consider the phrasing particularly "neutral". Danny Pi 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rejig
I started trying to iron out a few POV-looking kinks and add more information to the "controversy" section, but it was making the article so unbalanced structure-wise that I ended up basically retooling the whole article so that it has a bit more of a chronological narrative flow. It's still a *bit* of a mess, but I think it hangs together better and hopefully it's tidy enough to get rid of the cleanup tag... thoughts/comments? 81.104.164.2 11:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the amount of space dedicated to controversy is out of proportion. Kramnik is not a cult leader, paranormal fraud, or a leader of a Neo Nazi group. Anyway thanks for your efforts. Andries 11:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody is suggesting anything like that... I just think it's important for an encyclopedia article about someone who claims to be a World Champion to explain why half the chess world doesn't see them as World Champion. The section before I got here was called "Controversy", so that was the only reason I kept that in; I tried to keep the actual text as NPOV as possible on such a contentious issue, perhaps you'd prefer to change it to "Confusion" or "Competing claims to title" or something similar? 81.104.164.2 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider this NPOV at all. I don't know who deleted the large part of the biography (which WAS NPOV), but that needs to come back. Furthermore, having added the original controversy section myself, I think it's not quite fair that any mention of controversy keeps getting deleted from the Topalov article by Topalov fanatics, while at this point the majority of Kramnik's article is about controversy. Additionally, several online polls indicate that a clear majority of chess fans considered Kramnik champion during the Leko match, and while less do now, it is still a clear majority. Then you lay most of the blame for the continued schism on Kramnik for not playing in San Luis and incorrectly state that both parties did not agree to a subsequent reunification match. Kramnik (in several interviews) indicated that he was very much willing to play under the auspices of FIDE. It was Topalov and solely Topalov that rejected the offer (ostensibly for financial reasons). I don't want to get into a revert war (like on the Topalov page). But I think the previous article was both more perspicuous and NPOV. Let's form consensus before revert. I'll wait a week for responses to talk this out.Danny Pi 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Accentuation
Please add the Russian accents to Kramnik's names.Chvsanchez 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Conscious 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kasparov defended title against Anand after the Short match
The article says that Kasparov's next title defense, after the Short match in 1993, was vs. Kramnik in 2000. In fact, he successfully defended his title against Anand in 1996. (Please correct.) -unsigned comment by 208.164.49.125

It was 1995, not 1996. New York, 1995 (the games were played in one of the upper floors of the World Trade Center). Total World Championship matches played by Kasparov:

vs. Karpov (sitting Champ) 1984. Cancelled while Karpov leading vs. Karpov (sitting champ) 1985. Win by Kasparov (took title) vs. Karpov (rematch) 1986. Win by Kasparov (defended title) vs. Karpov 1987 (Karpov won candidates` cycle). Drawn match (Kasparov retained title) vs. Karpov 1990 (Karpov won candidates` cycle). Win by Kasparov (defended title) vs. Short 1993 (Short won candidates` cycle). Win by Kasparov (defended title) vs. Anand 1995. Win by Kasparov (defended title) vs. Kramnik 2000. Win by Kramnik (took title)

Kramnik has played two World Championship matches thus far, both below the traditional durations considered by many traditionalists to be a "good" number of games:

vs. Kasparov in 2000. Win by Kramnik (took title) vs. Léko in 2004. Drawn (Kramnik retained title)

The future of the world title and its holder, Kramnik, is in doubt. Supposedly, he will play Topalov in September. Topalov won a supertournament in 2005 (something traditionalists do not accept as a valid way to determine World Champion, when a sitting champion is alive and willing to play a match).

Kramnik's playing strength
Kramnik is the only person other than J.R.Capablanca (in 1921) to beat a World Champion in a match while not losing a single same. That's only two players in over 100 years of world championship matches. Kramnik has dominated the supertournament Dortmund and was rarely below 2nd-3rd (i.e. just behind Kasparov or Anand) in any tournament for a decade. Kramnik went nearly 2 years without losing a single game, while playing in all the supertournaments and against the top players in the world (Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, etc.) He was only the second person to break 2800 elo barrier (Kasparov was the first) and was the only other 2800+ player for years.

Whether or not people like his style of play, the man is an undefeated World Champion who has played some of the best chess in the world for many years. His chess activity decreased because it became physically painful for him to sit for hours at a time, several days in a row, for tournament play. I know arthritis might sound like its 'no big deal' but Kramnik has stated that his back begans feel like its "on fire" after a few hours of sitting and you'll find many games where Kramnik has a large advantage but then blunders in the late-middlegame or endgame (something that never used to happen). The game is then lost and Kramnik's rating goes down. Its clear that the pain was too distracting in the later stages of the game and obviously world class chess takes full concentration the entire game. His colleague (and world #4) Svidler said that Kramnik was still the best technical chess player in the world and if it weren't for Kramnik's physical problems he would be sitting atop the chess world.

Many players (including Kasparov) have acknowledged that Kramnik is the best player of his generation, yet this article seems mostly about controversy which the man doesn't initiate and his failings rather than his incredible talent, his good nature, and his many successes. It is fairly rare that a kind, soft-spoken gentleman (whom no one attacks on a personal level or accuses of cheating, etc.) represents the highest level of play. Perhaps if he had the personality of a Korchnoi, Fischer, or Kasparov then people would pay more attention. With Kramnik, its just about chess.

It should be remarked that Kramnik just finished the 2006 Chess Olympiad in Turin, where he had the best score of any player on first board with a 2847 (!) performance rating. Please spend a little more time discussing his abilites and less time discussing chess politics. Politics is interesting but I feel it belongs under "FIDE" or "Chess World Championship matches" and not Kramnik's personal bio. Certainly not to the lop-sided degree to which it is represented now.

By the way, tournament results, world championship matches, and FIDE ratings are not simply my POV, so lets not claim its impossible to discuss his many successes with a NPOV.

 * Agreed. I have included Olympiad info and deleted the politics stuff. I was reluctant to delete it because I wanted to be fair to the opposing viewpoint. So I created a controversy section to at least keep it contained. Unfortunately, that ballooned to a ridiculous length, and someone even created a "Further controversy" section to elaborate further. I have simply deleted all that garbage, since it is simply unfair to have it strewn about here without including any of that information on Topalov's page as well. Danny Pi 21:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * While I agree with the sentiments behind the edits, I think it's now gone too far the other way. Kramnik's title has been controversial because he has never been rated world #1 while champion, and around 2001 he was completely overshadowed by Kasparov scoring a string of tournament victories; and then in 2005 overshadowed by Topalov being both FIDE champion and #1 in rating, so even Kasparov regarded Topalov as the true champion. So I think a succinct paragraph on the controversy is required. Rocksong 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong makes an interesting point about being rated #1, but I would argue that there have been several World Champions who would not have had the #1 rating (if there was elo then) for the majority of their tenure. Most Champions would, but there are some who were much stronger in match play than in tournaments (Tigran Petrosian is a perfect example; Smyslov is another and clearly Max Euwe would certainly not have been #1 in 1935). Yet no one considers their titles "controversial" because of this fact. Why? Because FIDE itself was stronger.

The highest ranking player and the world champion are two seperate titles. In almost any sport a team might barely qualify for the postseason and yet win the Championship. It happens every year in many, many sports. But no one would say "Well, sure the Marlins won the World Series but the Yankees had the best record during the regular season and are therefore the real Champions." If a tennis player was seeded #6 but wins Wimbleton, does it mean they're not really the champion because other people are ranked higher? Does the winner of the FIFA World Cup need to prove anything else after they win? There must be countless examples of Champions who "rise to the occasion" when it matters most, but don't perform at the highest level at every event. Are they not still Champions?

Also, there have been several players who would have been #1 for quite some time, but never had claims to World Champion (Maroczy, Keres, Pillsbury, etc.) Being the highest rated player that year (or for several years) doesn't make you the champion. The title is not just about playing strength. Seriously, why isn't Euwe's title "controversial" but Kramnik's is? The legitamacy must come from the institution and not the person. When the title itself is called into question than no one will be free from controversy. When no one doubts that the winner of the NCAA basketball championship is the real champion,regardless of their season's record, then no team needs to worry about legitimacy.

In conclusion, if the FIDE Championship itself was less controversial then Kramnik's title would, obviously, be less controversial. All of these claims appear to ultimately stem from FIDE's problem to ensure a clear champion. Other World Champions have not always been #1 in the world (perhaps not even top 5) and yet all they needed to do was win the Championship match to rightfully claim the crown.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Kasparov would have been FIDE Champion in 2000 if he hadn't have walked away. We can obviously all agree that Kramnik beat Kasparov in a title match and no one has beaten Kramnik in such a match since. Frankly, I don't see the need to discuss Kramnik's legitimacy to the title so much. Again, tournament results and World Championship matches are two seperate events. However, 'a succinct paragraph' on the controversy might be an agreeable middleground (though certainly not a requirement). I personally think its odd that all the politics, the schism, and the controversy simply must live on Kramnik's bio and not Kasparov's (didn't he start it all?), or FIDE's, or in seperate articles. Come to think of it, why isn't the World_Chess_Championship article enough? Do we need to discuss all this again in anyone's bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.0.106 (talk)

 * Well put, but who wrote this? Sign please.Danny Pi 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kramnik-Kasparov 2000
The article seems to suggest that Kramnik's Berlin Defense was the major reason he won the match, and as Kramnik "although pressed hard..repeated managed to avoid defeat." It seems strange to call winning two games simply avoiding defeat. Surely winning a game is more than simply not-losing?

The Berlin defense was solid and Kramnik managed to hold the draw in all his games. However, Kramnik freely admits that Kasparov had the better positions in the Berlin games. The strategy was to hold "inferior positions that I knew I could hold". This style of defense is extremely difficult and rather courageous when one is playing against one of the best (if not THE best) attacking players of all time. Several commenters compared it to Ali's "rope-a-dope" against George Foreman in 1974. Kramnik himself said this was a perfect analogy in a post-match interview. Kramnik's score as White was (+2 -0 =5) and he was rarely much worse. As Black, he was (+0 -0 =8) and was rarely better. Certainly the Berlin played a key role in 'not losing' the match, but Kramnik's excellent opening preperation (particularly of the White side of Grunfeld and the Nimzo-Indian) was the key reason he actually won the match (i.e. a challenger cannot just tie a match and share the title, they must win more games and Kramnik only won as white).

I think the article makes it sound like Kramnik barely stayed alive and simply "managed to avoid defeat". Certainly he did more than just not lose. In particular, the Berlin was successful but it was pure defense. It could not be the sole reason Kramnik won the match.

Kramnik's better preparation throughout the match in several opening systems was the main reason Kasparov himself gave for losing the match. He said it was the first time he had been "out-prepared" in his career.
 * Perhaps it should be noted that since the Kramnik-Kasparov match, the chess world refers to the  Berlin Defense lovingly as the Berlin Wall. Abenr (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be noted that since the Kramnik-Kasparov match, the chess world refers to the  Berlin Defense lovingly as the Berlin Wall. Abenr (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"their past games clearly relevant in this context"
I disagree with that statement. If their past games were relevant, then why is it that they've finally decided to go through with the reunification match when Kramnik finally agreed to do it under the auspices of FIDE? Dionyseus 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Two issues. (A) Topalov rejected Kramnik's offer due to insufficient funds [Link Here]. The problem came from Topalov's $1 million demand, not Kramnik's refusal to play under FIDE auspices. In fact, Kramnik was eager to play under FIDE auspices [Link Here]. (B) Relevance of past match-ups. There is wiki precedent for mentioning match-up stats: Federer and Nadal's articles both mention their relative scores [Nadal][Federer]. Furthermore, this information informs the reader on past performance. When gauging how a match will go, one has very little relevant information *other than* past matchups anyhow. I assume that Dionyseus does not question the factuality or objectivity of this statement. I think it is very difficult to establish that the information is irrelevant. Danny Pi 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The first proposal was rejected because both camps were unable to overcome substantial differences of opinion.  Their historical match-up score would make more sense in the paragraph in which the reunification match was agreed on, rather than on the paragraph in which their first reunification proposal failed because it makes it seem as if the text is implying that their historical score is the reason why the proposal failed, which is simply not the case. Dionyseus 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I saw your link before. I have shown two links now establishing that Kramnik did not object to playing under FIDE auspices. The only sticking point for the first match failure was money. If you can show evidence to the contrary, please do so. It would be hard, however, to find something more solid than Kramnik's press statement, "The Kramnik side has never rejected a world championship match against Mr Topalov under FIDE auspices." As for the (B) issue, I think it's just fine to move it to the later paragraph about reunification. Danny Pi 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I go one step further and say put them in a new paragraph. (Along with more recent results, which favour Topalov). Past results are to do with predictions, and were irrelevant to negotiations. BTW I think the earlier rejected negotiations should be deleted altogether, or only mentioned in passing (e.g. "After earlier unsuccessful negotiations...") because they're irrelevant now. Rocksong 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rocksong. Dionyseus 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Partially agree. In their past four decisive games, Kramnik won 2 and Topalov won 2. This is the case whether you count rapid games or not. Does not favor Topalov, but am amenable to including this info. Rejected negotiations are relevant- and Fischer's article has a paragraph on negotiations prior to his match with Spassky. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a news source. It should include history as well as news. Danny Pi 00:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, rejected negotiations can stay in. It's already quite short, so I'm not fussed. As for recent results (from chessgames.com, Kramnik's POV): 2004 Corus: =1; 2004 Linares: +1=1; 2005 Corus: -1; 2005 Sofia/MTel: =1-1; 2005 Dortmund: +1; so yeah, that's even. Rocksong 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW I've just noticed the +19-9=33 (now +19-9=34) is from, or at least agrees with, chessgames.com. That includes rapid and even blindfold games. IMHO that's ridiculous (and/or lazy research). Someone needs to go through the list and include only classical time control games. Maybe I'll do that later if I find some time.Rocksong 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I've done a quick count and it looks like +14 -6 =? for Kramnik, which is actually a more impressive ratio (for Krammy). Hard to determine time controls for some of those games, though. There may be a few more in there. Since the tiebreaks will be rapid games, I'm not sure we should necessarily bother trying to figure out which were classical time controls, although perhaps the blindfold games really are misleading. Also, pending evidence to the contrary, I'm going to RV the paragraph about "substantial differences" to Topalov's monetary demands, unless I hear objections.Danny Pi 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A better idea (IMHO). Since there already are pages for World Chess Championship 1972, FIDE World Chess Championship 2004, FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 and I've recently added Classical World Chess Championship 2000, why not create FIDE World Chess Championship, 2006 and put the details there? This would save the need to duplicate details on Kramnik's and Topalov's pages. Then we can have whole separate sections on "Negotiations" and "Predictions" if we want. Rocksong 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting idea. Chessgames.com did a similar thing to cut down on the heavy (and repetitive) traffic on the Kramnik and Topalov forums. I don't know if your proposal is quite consistent with Wiki protocol, however. I'm not saying it's not- I'm just not sure that it is, since the event hasn't happened yet. In any case, I think these things should still at least be *mentioned* (perhaps with link to FIDE World Chess Championship 2006 in place of details) on the players' respective pages.Danny Pi 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I think there's plenty of Wikipedia precedent for pages existing before events begin, e.g. FIFA Women's World Cup 2007. The only problem I see is, given FIDE's recent record, it's possible that the match won't happen. But I think it's pretty unlikely that the match will fall through, so I say do it now. I agree it is appropriate to mention these things then point to the match page for more details. Rocksong 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems fair. I do think this could lead to further disputes about how much to include on player pages and how much should be left to the link. But in theory we both agree that the highlights should be mentioned on player pages, details mentioned on "FIDE World Chess Championship 2006" page, so I say we could tentatively make the change. Let's just work slowly and stepwise so this is all done with consensus. I don't like seeing sudden massive unilateral edits, which clearly won't gain consensus popping up, which has been the case lately- not referring to you, Rocksong.Danny Pi 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brains in Bahrain
Quote: Kramnik started well, taking a 3 - 1 lead after four games. However, in game five, Kramnik made what has been described as the worst blunder of his career, losing a knight in a position which was probably drawn. He quickly resigned. - My note: Kramnik has described this as a sacrifice.

 * No, it was a blunder alright. Play through the game here: http://www.chessbase.com/images2/2002/bahrain/games/bahrain5.htm . The deliberate sacrifice was in game 6 http://www.chessbase.com/images2/2002/bahrain/games/bahrain6.htm . Rocksong 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Page for Reunification match
As flagged a while ago, I've created the page FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, so match details can go there as they unfold. Rocksong 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity?
Can someone please establish if Kramnik is Jewish, half-Jewish, ethnic Russian, half Russian or whatever?... I'm not sure I wouldn't support a rule expunging references to ethnicity/religion of chess players, celebs, athletes, etc.,. But until that happens it's inconsistent to leave the question unanswered in Kramnik's case. JDG 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure, but I think he is of east-slavic ethnicity. I remember reading somwhere that one of is grand parents was ukrainian.

 * I don't know or care his ethnicity. If someone knows it, then sure, put it in. But I'm not going to go researching it. And I don't have a problem with this being inconsist with other articles which do mention ethnicity. Rocksong 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * He is Jewish. Jews are BY FAR the most clever people on the planet. And since he is one of the best players ever, he has to be Jewish!

World championship matches
There are several matches listed in this section which are obviously NOT World Championship matches. They were qualifying matches similar to the candidates matches of old and clearly belong in a seperate section. Perhaps the section should simply be titled "Match History". Anyway, players like Geller and Larsen took part in many qualifying matches but no one thinks either of them has ever been in a World Championship match. Let's not start putting qualifying matches on the same scale as the Championship matches. As far as I'm concerned, and I think most people would agree, Kramnik has only played three Championship matches: in 2000, 2004, and 2006. In fact, his three-time Championship record puts him in very exclusive company. Please don't include qualifying blitz matches in the same category as title matches.

 * I've renamed the section to "World championship matches and qualifiers", which I think is accurate. Rocksong 07:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

King of Dortmund
I think it might be worth mentioning that Kramnik was often referred to as the 'King of Dortmund' thanks to his tremendous results in the annual super-tournament. From 1995-2001 he took the title six times in seven years (and won it again in 2006). He has been quoted (several times) as saying this tournament was special to him and he often gave it more attention and effort than his other tournaments (i.e. he tries just a little bit harder to get first place in Dortmund).

 * He was first still again in 2011. Abenr (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Computer world championships
I don't know how to talk about reaction to Kramnik's recent defeat to a computer without using weasel words or engaging in original research. There was some of both in this article, which I have just removed. A lot of chess players feel humans still have an edge over computers, especially in correspondence games. I personally feel the writing is on the wall, and that computers can now play chess better than humans. But, as a Wikipedia editor, I try to not let my opinion affect the articles I edit. Samboy 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Was his peak rating 2809 or 2811?
The FIDE site contradicts itself: 2809, 2811... Which one is correct? Skarioffszky 13:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is in dispute is Jan and Apr 2002: one link gives 2809 for that time, the other gives 2811. Looking to The Week in Chess reports at the time as a tie-breaker, Kramnik was 2809 in Jan 2002 according to TWIC 374, and also 2809 in April 2002 according to TWIC 388. So it looks like the 2809 figure is correct, unless FIDE retrospectively changed the ratings. Rocksong 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Skarioffszky 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment stricken -- you're right, the FIDE site is inconsistent. Hmmm. Quale 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Every now and then an editor "corrects" it to 2811. I've added a long footnote summarising the results here. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some more gory details. He was 2809 in October 2001. He then played 0 games in the next two periods, and stayed on 2809, according to the FIDE reports January and April 2002; and this is confirmed by TWIC 374 and TWIC 388. However TWIC 374 notes that Kramnik played a 4 game match against Kasparov (all draws) in December 2001 (reported in TWIC 370) which "could have been rated". I wonder if that's the source for the contradiction? Would 4 draws against Kasparov (then rated 29 points higher at 2838) have given Kramnik those two extra ratings points? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Now, 13 years later, the question is no longer what Kramnik's peak rating was, since he achieved his peak rating of 2817 in October 2016. But whether he was rated 2809 or 2811 in January and April 2002 is still relevant for the list of the highest ratings by decade. I delved into this a bit, and I think the following analysis suggests that the correct rating is 2811:

 * As noted above, Kramnik and Kasparov played four games in the rating period preceding the January 2002 list. These were part of the Botvinnik Memorial Match, and all four ended in a draw (see e.g. here and here). In the previous list from October 2001, Kramnik was rated 2809 and Kasparov was rated 2838, so the rating difference was 29. According to the FIDE rating regulations Section 8.5 ("Determining the rating change for a rated player"), this is to be looked up in Table 8.1(b) to find Kramnik's score probability PD = 0.46. This is subtracted from the actual score of 0.5 to obtain ΔR = 0.5 - 0.46 = 0.04. The four rating changes are then summed to obtain 0.16 and multiplied by Kramnik's K value, which according to paragraph 8.56 is K = 10, to obtain the rating change 10 * 0.16 = 1.6, which is then rounded up to the nearest integer (paragraph 8.57) to yield the 2 missing points.
 * Here's the data on the FIDE website from Kramnik's rating chart and calculations, Kasparov's rating chart and calculations, and the top 100 rating lists for October 2001, January 2002, April 2002, July 2002 and October 2002. (The top 100 lists seem to be slightly more reliable than the complete rating lists available here, which contain errors in 2003 and 2004 for various players in addition to the problem we're analyzing here.)

 * The discrepancies in the two players' ratings are perfect mirror images of each other:
 * The chart ratings match the calculations except for an unexplained +2/-2 for Kramnik/Kasparov in January 2002.
 * The top 100 ratings match the calculations expect for an unexplained +2/-2 for Kramnik/Kasparov in October 2002.
 * The game counts match, except that the charts list 4 games for both players in January 2002 for which there's no calculation and which don't appear in the top 100 list.

 * If we take the 2809/2838 ratings for January 2002 to be correct, then we can't account for the -2/+2 change in the top 100 list for October 2002. All three sources agree that neither player played any rated standard games in that rating period, and chessgames.com confirms this (for Kramnik and for Kasparov).

 * But if we take the 2811/2836 ratings to be correct, there's a coherent explanation for all the data: The four games at the Botvinnik Memorial Match were eventually rated (as they should be; they were standard games in an official match), but for some reason the rating change wasn't immediately reflected in the top 100 lists. The individual rating charts reflect the correct ratings, with hindsight, whereas the published top 100 lists weren't corrected retrospectively; the 2-point change from the four games appears there with some delay in October 2002.

 * Thus, I believe the rating 2811 should be used for Kramnik for January and April 2002. (Note that this is not about doing original research instead of relying on authoritative sources – it's an attempt to find the best-fitting interpretation of an inconsistency in the authoritative sources.)

 * By the way, the Guardian said in 2009 that Kramnik's peak rating was 2811 – but who knows what they based that on.

 * Joriki (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Shirov 1998 match
Why is there nothing written about the World Championship match between Kramnik and Shirov in 1998? Kramnik lost the match but still he was allowed to play against Kasparov...is should at least be mentioned somewhere in his biograpy, it's very significant for his chess career. By User:193.213.209.233 at 14:14, 6 June 2007

 * Good point, it should be included. Peter Ballard 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a World Championship match, but it was certainly significant. BTW, Kramnik was 'allowed to play against Kasparov' because the Shirov-Kasparov match fall through. Shirov was never able to beat Kasparov in series play was something like -14 lifetime against him. So, it was difficult to get financial backing for the match (remember it was non-FIDE). When sponsors couldn't put up enough, Kasparov offered a match to Kramnik thanks to his rating and their basically even lifetime score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.68.80 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ERROR!
Poemisaglock 15:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) the article states: "Kramnik played a six game match against the computer program Deep Fritz in Bonn, Germany from November 25 to December 5, 2006, losing 2-4 to the machine, with 2 losses and 4 draws." However 2-4 indicates 2 wins and 4 losses. It should be 0-2-4 (wins-losses-draws). Please change this.

 * When two numbers are given, it's the cumulative totals, with 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss, and 0.5 for a draw. So to say that he lost 2-4 is not incorrect. 0-2-4 is ambiuguous because it doesn't say which order the results are in, so +0-2=4 would be preferred. So we could either say +0-2=4, or 2-4, and it's really just a matter of taste. Peter Ballard 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the human world champion
I added the single word 'human' to the introduction as Kramnik was easily beaten by the latest silicone beast. Kasparov was the last human world chess champion. Since then computers are the best. This is not disputed.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In other news, Usain Bolt has been asked to return all his 100m and 200m sprint awards, as it turns out that most motorcycles can easily best him.  The notation "savantism" has also been removed from the dictionary as it turns out that computers can multiply much larger numbers, remember far more digits of pi, and recall and text from any book faster and more reliably and to a much more impressive degree than these merely slightly exceptional homo sapiens.  The notation "World Champion" has always been understood to mean amongst people. Qed (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Who cares about machines, they are not eligible for the world title. Check any sensible reference. Kramnik is called "World Chess Champion", not "Human World Chess Champion". Peter Ballard 12:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Chess players care who is the best player in the world and this is not Kramnik but Deep Fritz. As has been demonstrated.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Check any reference. The world champion is Kramnik. For you (or me) to argue otherwise is WP:Original Research. Peter Ballard 11:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * We both know that Kramnik was beaten by Deep Fritz. The article says so. So how is it OR to repeat what is already in the article?  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Kramnik wasn't beaten by Deep Fritz in a World Championship match. Do you really not understand WP:V and WP:RS, or are you being intentionally obtuse? Quale 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's obtuse? Deep Fritz is simply a better chess player than Kramnik as has been proven.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  09:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * But who, apart from you, calls Deep Fritz the World champion? FIDE, The Week in Chess, Chessbase, The BBC, The International Herald Tribune and USA Today all call Kramnik the World Champion. Are you saying that they are not WP:Reliable Sources, or are you saying that Wikipedia should ignore WP:Reliable Sources? Peter Ballard 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Peter is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just would like to point out that Deep Fritz is not as good as Deep Blue. (simply due to the extra processing power that Deep Blue has) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Succession of titles
Please, somebody, write in the upper succession box, that the "Classical" title was united under FIDE, so Kramnik does not hold 2 titles anymore, but 1 united. I don't know how to do it technically. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabaznov (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Already learnt and did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabaznov (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How tall?
I've heard 6'6", can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.74.130 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading
The paragraph below is misleading.

In 2007, Kramnik lost the title to Viswanathan Anand, who won the World Chess Championship tournament ahead of Kramnik. He challenged Anand at the World Chess Championship 2008 to regain his title, but lost.

As Kramnik and Anand never played a match for the title in 2007, it is simply wrong to say "he lost the title to Viswanathan Anand."

.............. Equally misleading is:

2008 match

Kramnik was granted a rematch to challenge Anand for the world title the in 2008 in Bonn.

As Kramnik never played a match with Anand for the title, he could not have been granted a "rematch."

Abenr (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Undefeated Streak
Mention should be made in the body of the article of Kramnik's 82-game undefeated streak, a record surpassed only by Mikhail Tal. Tal had streaks of 93 and of 86.

Here is Kramnik's streak:

1999 Euro. Club Cup (Belgrade)  +0  =2 -1 (first rd.)        2 games 1999 Wijk aan Zee +3 =10 -0                                          13 games 1999 Linares +2 =12 -0                                                   14 games 1999 Dos Hermanes    +2  =7 -0                                       9 games 1999 Dortmund                   +2  =5 -0                                7 games 1999 Las Vegas                  +2  =6 -0                                8 games 1999 Euro Club Qualifier (Belgium)+1 =2 -0                     3 games 1999 Euro Club Cup (Bogojno)    +1  =2 =0                     3 games 2000 Wijk aan Zee (Corus)          +3 =10 -0                   13 games 2000 Linares                    +2  =8 -0                                  10 games

His eventual loss came at the hands of Michael Adams.

--68.228.237.18 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

two strongest tournaments?
The article said that he won the two strongest tournament in history. (I changed it to read "two of the strongest".) How do we know that they were the two strongest? Due to rating inflation and other factors, you can't go by rating or category alone. How about e.g. AVRO 1938 chess tournament and World Chess Championship 1948, which both had a higher concentration of the world's top players. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 * My response on my talk page: ": I don't think there is any objective way to compare tournaments widely-spaced in time. For one thing, there is constant, but artificial, Elo rating inflation.  Secondly, FIDE didn't use ELO ratings before 1970." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm My Own Grandpa?
Vladimir Kramnik was born in the town of Tuapse, on the shores of the Black Sea. His father's birth name was Boris Sokolov, but he took his stepfather's surname when his mother (Vladimir's grandmother) remarried.

The sentence above should be rewritten. As it stands, Kramnik's mother was his grandmother.--Abenr (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree. I gather the correct version (which appears elsewhere on the net) is that it was Vlad's father who took a stepfather's name (Kramnik) and so had Vlad's grandmother not re-married, then the family name which would have come down to Vladimir would have been Sokolov. Probably not even worth a mention here. I would prefer to give the details of his parents' professions instead, as these are widely reported and can be referenced to his autobiography (with Damsky). The family's artistic foundation is thought to have been influential on his style of chess, so it would seem more relevant. I will do this if no-one objects below. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to update Kramnik's FIDE rating
I expect I'm missing something, but I can't find anywhere in the info template to update Kramnik's FIDE rating to the FIDE October 2016 rating list. Right now, the page is claiming that his current rating as of October is 2808 - that's actually his September FIDE rating. His current rating is 2817. If someone could update the rating and / or tell me how to go about it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.32.246 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

¿Lose, win?
"(this was only the second time in history that a World Champion had lost a match without winning a single game)"

I suppose it must read:

"(this was only the second time in history that a World Champion had WON a match without LOSING a single game)"

(Nestorfull (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC))

 * Kramnik was the challenger, not the champion. --SubSeven (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Kramnik. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.worldchesschampionship.com/com/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020215450/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/sparkassen-chess-meeting-dortmund-2010 to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/sparkassen-chess-meeting-dortmund-2010

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vladimir Kramnik


text:
531 BC

The year 531 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 223  Ab urbe condita. The denomination 531 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Deaths

 * Laozi, Chinese founder of Taoism (approximate date)

title: 531 BC