Talk:Lisa Lane

Elo

How can Lane have had an Elo rating of 2002 in the early 1960s when those ratings were only introduced in the ´70s?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamora1934 (talk • contribs)Zamora1934 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 9:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, got it. It was introduced in the US earlier than elsewhere. I didn´t know that. As professor Elo was Hungarian I was unaware of that fact. Zamora1934 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. The USCF started using the ELO in June 1961. The article says that was her USCF rating at the end of 1961, so that is consistent. Before that the USCF used the Harkness system, but Elo designed his system so that it would match the old system at the crossover. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SI Image of Lisa Lane

The SI image used in the article meets the requirements for Fair Use, the same as the other SI images being used under the Fair Use guidelines in Wikipedia: Category:Fair_use_Sports_Illustrated_magazine_covers. IQ125 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Add'l Fischer quote

SpuriousQ, thx for editsum msg. Did find this add'l Fischer quote re Lane from 1961 Sports Illustrated article, don't know if it's worth consideration or not for inclusion re balancing the "fish" quote:

"I think Lisa can go to Yugoslavia and win the candidates' tournament," said Bobby Fischer, after analyzing Lisa's games, "and then go on to Moscow and win the women's championship of the world."

Ok, --IHTS (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ihardlythinkso for the message and the research. I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the 1961 quote you found. My main motivation was just that the "fish" quote and article text of "not impressed with any woman's ability" seemed inconsistent with the interview I saw, so I'm basically satisfied with the current state which doesn't have any Fischer quote, and just mentions the friendship (though it would be better if that had some citation) but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if you think it's worth incorporating all these quotes somehow. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Arithmetic mistake?

in the line "and took her first U.S. Women's Chess Championship in 1959 at the age of 21", how can she be 21 in 1959 and born in 1933?

One of them is wrong. 128.243.2.19 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Arithmetic mistake solution?

It seems that her date of birth is incorrect.

1938 not 1933

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm9082440/bio/

Also, contemporaneous report in Sports Illustrated puts her age at 22 when she won US women's championship https://vault.si.com/vault/1961/08/07/queen-of-knights-and-pawns 128.243.2.19 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and correcting this mistake. My guess is that an editor copied it from chessgames.com and chessgames.com either had a typographic mistake or copied it from a third source that also had the incorrect date. Quale (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been said that she was pretending to be younger than she really was during her competitive years...the voter rolls for the election district she and I both lived in,which I used for canvassing politically,have shown her birthdate as 04/25/1933 for years.(She and Neil signed for me many times over the years,Neil most recently on March 10th just 11 days before he died of a heart attack before finishing plans for her memorial service).71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

SHE DIED IN KENT NOT CARMEL!!

Some people at the NY Times who don't understand Putnam County geography treat Lisa's home having a Carmel mailing address (like the great bulk of the Town of Kent and a smaller proportion of the Town of Carmel) as meaning her home was located in Carmel even as they admit that it is Kent's Town Clerk who registered it (a death is registered by the clerk of the municipality in which it occurs...my father died at home in Kent and my mother in a hospital in Carmel,I have copies of both their certificates).

Her home on Miller Hill Road was about a mile from the Dutchess County line even if Google Maps calls it "Carmel Hamlet" (the built-up area around Lake Gleneida where the Carmel post office and Lisa's old store are/were located)...you'd have to drive about 8 miles from her place to get to Carmel. 71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Are you able to provide a source (see WP:RS)? I appreciate that you have local knowledge, however, it's likely that your edits will be reverted without adequate sourcing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: The Slate article, already cited in the death section, says Kent. I can't access the New York Times, I assume it says something different? How do we handle conflicting sources? RudolfRed (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT obit reads: Lisa Lane [...] died on Feb. 28 at her home in Carmel, N.Y., in Putnam County. She was 90. Her death was confirmed by the town clerk’s office in nearby Kent, N.Y., which registered her death. As for conflicting sources and RS hierarchy, do we simply say The Times trumps Slate and leave it at that? (Perhaps our ip editor will resolve this matter with some hyper-local but solidly reliable source.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The physical location of her home is indubitably in Kent,I don't know if the voter registration records I have been issued as a local committeeman for the election district of Kent in which we live/lived (she last signed for me a few years ago before her eyesight was gone,her husband last signed for me on the 10th of this month and died 11 days later) would be accepted here,the NYT corrections editor I wrote to doesn't seem to grasp the distinctions but the state law is such that only her dying in Kent would have Kent's town clerk be the one who registered the death.71.105.190.227 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You have run into the problem of "too much information". If you have one reliable source for a particular fact, then you include the information from that source. But if you have conflicting facts (two reliable sources that are actually discrepant, i.e. they cannot both be correct), then you're supposed to provide both. Now you have an ethical dilemma of sorts.

If I didn't think this second fact was actually material, I would pick one and cite the source. This fact cannot be challenged, since you have a WP:RS. If somebody wants to include the alternative fact, then they can edit the article to present both claims, including a WP:RS source for each claim.

The premise behind this is that you're not hiding the second claim, you're just unaware of it. However, you could be faced with the touchier situation where you're actually skeptical of the second claim, but you've decided to make a judgment call as to which one to present. In this case, you would likely be violating WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we know if voter registration records are WP:RS? I do believe that certain types of US Gov't records are common domain by default (though solving the CC licensing puzzle has never been something for which I have much aptitude – caveat emptor). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong direction to go. I wasn't sure whether it was claimed that she died in her home. In principle, you could do your own research, get an address for where her home was, then check property records to determine which town that property is actually in. But I think this is the wrong thing to do.

Pick one, provide the citation to support it. When somebody else decides that it's wrong and changes it, don't revert it or otherwise fight it. It's not worth losing sleep over. Fabrickator (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)