This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phiona Mutesi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New source on Fox News here.--v/r - T P 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Her rating is less than 1700...how does this make her a chess prodigy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.53.184 ( talk) 21:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've wondered the same thing. I keep editing the article to include additional information, such as the Elo ratings for Phiona Mutesi (1622) and for Ivy Amoko (1851), and observing that neither woman has really earned the World Chess Federation's title of Woman Candidate Master. And within a few hours or days, someone comes along and deletes this added information. Apparently, what I added is inconsistent with the purpose for which this article was written, which isn't so much to inform as it is to popularize. Something sneaky is afoot. Disney is making a movie about a black girl with modest chess skills, whereas it has made no such movie about similarly youthful white children with much greater chess skills, e.g. Judit Polgar of Hungary at age 12 (Elo rating 2555) or, currently, 12-year-old Nicholas Checa of New York (Elo rating 2405). Jenab2 ( talk) 11:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jenab2, this edit of yours would need a source. Just about everything in Wikipedia needs reliable sources, and anything contentious about a living person needs a high-quality source. For our sourcing policy, see WP:V, and for our living persons policy, see WP:BLP. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This is in reply to Sophia91, placed here because someone has removed the edit link to a previous section on this TALK page.
Sophia91, your problem with my added text in the article seems to revolve around my (appropriate) use of the word "deserve." Would you withdraw your objection if I altered my diction from "does not deserve" to "has not met the requirements for"? It is factually correct, and it is validly germane information. You simply don't approve of someone mentioning it.
And would you please use some common sense? If FIDE were to allow single performances to replace the world Elo rating and the primary measure of title worthiness, there would be rigged chess games and tournaments everywhere, with cheaters paying their opponents to lose, with opponents selected so that a cheating player would be more likely to look good, and so on. The Elo rating is a safeguard that FIDE wouldn't dispense with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab2 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
the fact that Ms. Mutesi is the target of a media hype should be mentioned. Not doing so is unfair against her and unfair against every woman holding a real chess title. Praising someone with elo 1622 as a prodigy soon-to-be grand master is equivalent to comparing somebody who can play a tennis ball over the net to Serena Williams. The unjustified hype is not the fault of Ms. Mutesi, but she will likely have to pay the price for it in the end. Wikipedia should not support the marketing machinery of a commercial movie producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.81.115 ( talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia asks that articles provide bona fide sourced information. If you can point editors in a direction that gives real credence to you points, perhaps they could be included in the article.
1. The people asking for something to give "real credence" to the obvious-to-anyone-in-chess claim that a rating of 1620 is low: It's what most people would attain within a year or 2 of starting to play. Maybe her real rating should be higher. But it's ridiculous asking for a source. That's like not being able to say water is wet without someone deleting it and asking for a source. (And don't see for yourself if it's wet - that would be original research) Although she did seem better than that in the one game of hers I looked at. Most chess writers aren't mean, inconsiderate etc so they don't say "1620 is super-lame" in print. I get it, you need a phrase to quote from a writer with some authority. The 'tennis ball over the net' analogy is pretty much accurate though. 2. I don't know who Jenab2 is, but they are scary on this issue, with a voice I would call insanely racist. I came here from their blog post on Mutesi, http://jenab6.livejournal.com/53480.html , which, they say "provides insight into the blatant racial-intellectual fraud that is often perpetrated by blacks, or, as in this case, on their behalf by the Jews and leftists who both control the mass media and promulgate endless hoaxes about racial equality" They seem to think that skin colour is the deciding factor alone, in this and other cases they get worked up about. I notice on this page they display the human-all-too-human quality where the opponent's errors are insidious proofs of racist conspiracy, but their own are insignificant and instantly forgotten. Sorry if I've offended WP principles here. 110.20.157.59 ( talk) 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"Chess champion" is not wikilinked in the lead, and rightly so, because Chess champion is obviously wrong. She is a chessplayer who have won championships (according to the article), so in that sense "chess champion" is correct. Would it be better to just say "chess player" in the lead? That is the case in the german, french and spanish WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A recent edit [2] was justified by the edit summary, " 'Better balance' is achieved by not overhyping her like the Disney movie did. She is not any kind of chess prodigy or genius, her achievements are admirable only in the context of her background."
Prior to the above edit, there didn't seem to be any mention in the article of her being "any kind of chess prodigy or genius". In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the above-mentioned edit said that, "Phiona's present playing standard is that of a modest but competent club player". So it looks like the point regarding her playing ability has already been made and there is no need to repeat it. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It's nice, but would improve with cropping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC) @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Please leave it for a few days. I have two ten year olds who are participating in an editathon on Friday and they want to add to her biography. This photo was added to appeal to them. @ Another Beliver: Could you help? I added a picture of Mutesi to WikiCommons and I'd like to have it on this page. Thank you. -- Bridges2Information ( talk) 01:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
this statement needs some amplification. Not the first? Second? Third? What title? Surely every competition for women or girls before her had a winner. What title exactly is this about? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
After reading this article from last year, it seems that Mutesi is mostly retired from chess, since she doesn't train or play competitively anymore and is mainly focused on academics. Perhaps we should reconsider describing her solely as a chess player in the lede and throughout the article? Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phiona Mutesi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New source on Fox News here.--v/r - T P 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Her rating is less than 1700...how does this make her a chess prodigy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.53.184 ( talk) 21:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've wondered the same thing. I keep editing the article to include additional information, such as the Elo ratings for Phiona Mutesi (1622) and for Ivy Amoko (1851), and observing that neither woman has really earned the World Chess Federation's title of Woman Candidate Master. And within a few hours or days, someone comes along and deletes this added information. Apparently, what I added is inconsistent with the purpose for which this article was written, which isn't so much to inform as it is to popularize. Something sneaky is afoot. Disney is making a movie about a black girl with modest chess skills, whereas it has made no such movie about similarly youthful white children with much greater chess skills, e.g. Judit Polgar of Hungary at age 12 (Elo rating 2555) or, currently, 12-year-old Nicholas Checa of New York (Elo rating 2405). Jenab2 ( talk) 11:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jenab2, this edit of yours would need a source. Just about everything in Wikipedia needs reliable sources, and anything contentious about a living person needs a high-quality source. For our sourcing policy, see WP:V, and for our living persons policy, see WP:BLP. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This is in reply to Sophia91, placed here because someone has removed the edit link to a previous section on this TALK page.
Sophia91, your problem with my added text in the article seems to revolve around my (appropriate) use of the word "deserve." Would you withdraw your objection if I altered my diction from "does not deserve" to "has not met the requirements for"? It is factually correct, and it is validly germane information. You simply don't approve of someone mentioning it.
And would you please use some common sense? If FIDE were to allow single performances to replace the world Elo rating and the primary measure of title worthiness, there would be rigged chess games and tournaments everywhere, with cheaters paying their opponents to lose, with opponents selected so that a cheating player would be more likely to look good, and so on. The Elo rating is a safeguard that FIDE wouldn't dispense with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab2 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
the fact that Ms. Mutesi is the target of a media hype should be mentioned. Not doing so is unfair against her and unfair against every woman holding a real chess title. Praising someone with elo 1622 as a prodigy soon-to-be grand master is equivalent to comparing somebody who can play a tennis ball over the net to Serena Williams. The unjustified hype is not the fault of Ms. Mutesi, but she will likely have to pay the price for it in the end. Wikipedia should not support the marketing machinery of a commercial movie producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.81.115 ( talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia asks that articles provide bona fide sourced information. If you can point editors in a direction that gives real credence to you points, perhaps they could be included in the article.
1. The people asking for something to give "real credence" to the obvious-to-anyone-in-chess claim that a rating of 1620 is low: It's what most people would attain within a year or 2 of starting to play. Maybe her real rating should be higher. But it's ridiculous asking for a source. That's like not being able to say water is wet without someone deleting it and asking for a source. (And don't see for yourself if it's wet - that would be original research) Although she did seem better than that in the one game of hers I looked at. Most chess writers aren't mean, inconsiderate etc so they don't say "1620 is super-lame" in print. I get it, you need a phrase to quote from a writer with some authority. The 'tennis ball over the net' analogy is pretty much accurate though. 2. I don't know who Jenab2 is, but they are scary on this issue, with a voice I would call insanely racist. I came here from their blog post on Mutesi, http://jenab6.livejournal.com/53480.html , which, they say "provides insight into the blatant racial-intellectual fraud that is often perpetrated by blacks, or, as in this case, on their behalf by the Jews and leftists who both control the mass media and promulgate endless hoaxes about racial equality" They seem to think that skin colour is the deciding factor alone, in this and other cases they get worked up about. I notice on this page they display the human-all-too-human quality where the opponent's errors are insidious proofs of racist conspiracy, but their own are insignificant and instantly forgotten. Sorry if I've offended WP principles here. 110.20.157.59 ( talk) 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"Chess champion" is not wikilinked in the lead, and rightly so, because Chess champion is obviously wrong. She is a chessplayer who have won championships (according to the article), so in that sense "chess champion" is correct. Would it be better to just say "chess player" in the lead? That is the case in the german, french and spanish WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A recent edit [2] was justified by the edit summary, " 'Better balance' is achieved by not overhyping her like the Disney movie did. She is not any kind of chess prodigy or genius, her achievements are admirable only in the context of her background."
Prior to the above edit, there didn't seem to be any mention in the article of her being "any kind of chess prodigy or genius". In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the above-mentioned edit said that, "Phiona's present playing standard is that of a modest but competent club player". So it looks like the point regarding her playing ability has already been made and there is no need to repeat it. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It's nice, but would improve with cropping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC) @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Please leave it for a few days. I have two ten year olds who are participating in an editathon on Friday and they want to add to her biography. This photo was added to appeal to them. @ Another Beliver: Could you help? I added a picture of Mutesi to WikiCommons and I'd like to have it on this page. Thank you. -- Bridges2Information ( talk) 01:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
this statement needs some amplification. Not the first? Second? Third? What title? Surely every competition for women or girls before her had a winner. What title exactly is this about? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
After reading this article from last year, it seems that Mutesi is mostly retired from chess, since she doesn't train or play competitively anymore and is mainly focused on academics. Perhaps we should reconsider describing her solely as a chess player in the lede and throughout the article? Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)