Talk:Susan Polgar/Archive 1

message: The political gaga from Mr. Sam Sloan doesn't belong on this page. Please keep Sloan off this page. (C.I. 8-2006)
:I agree. However I think the fact that she is opposing him deserves to be mentioned. While there has been slander here on the talk page, I have seen nothing inappropriate in  the paragraph + cites on the main page. I say restore that paragraph to the main page, though perhaps with fewer cites (they were all links to her blog, one or two will suffice). Rocksong 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disliking a racist sexist child-exploiting antisemitic felon is, umm, nonnotable WRT the entirety of subject's life.  Agree that it could develop into something notable, but encyclopedias are not newspapers.  Billbrock 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She doesn't just dislike him, she's campaigning to get him off the USCF board. I have no  idea if she's leading the campaign, or if she's one of thousands. If the former, then IMHO it's notable. p.s. nevertheless, we should request semiprotection the page. Rocksong 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some discussion of this at Talk:Sam Sloan.  There's something to it, but Andrew Morrow needs to butt out of this discussion. Phr (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sam Sloan incident

message: Susan Polgar has done many admirable things in her life and her actions speak for themselves.  The article is filled with positively judgmetal adjectives that simply do no belong in a factual article.  They make the article sound like a press release. They actually detract from the positive impression that the facts alone lend to Susan Polgar, because the adjectives suggest there is some need for them.  There is no need for them, and they have no place in an encyclopedia article.  Just the facts.Daqu 15:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many adjectives

message: I'm fairly sure, though far from certain, that Susan Polgar has only played in women's olympiads. Both Hungary and USA are so strong that I think she'd struggle to make their men's teams actually. Rocksong 05:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympiad 

message: It says she speaks six other languages, then lists seven. EamonnPKeane 22:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: Seeking opinions on whether a little more should be said on this. A public slate is unusual for USCF (I've been a member since the 1970s and don't recall a similar instance). That her husband is part of the slate has been cause for some controversy. Some long time, reputable, figures in the US chess scene, initially supportive of her, have come out against her based on the nature of the campaign (e.g. Bill Goichberg, Jerry Hanken). --Pallen 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Campaign

message: User:Rocksanddirt has restored the reference to Sam Sloan's latest lawsuit. I'm not going to start an edit war by reverting it again, but I'd like to point out a few things. 1) The allegations made are potentially libelous until the matter is adjudicated. 2) It's unlikely the matter will ever be adjudicated, since the lawsuit is a rambling farrago that will most likely be dismissed either under Rule 8 or for failure to state a cause for which relief may be granted. 3) Sam Sloan is a vexatious litigant, who has filed dozens (maybe hundreds) of frivolous lawsuits. (One of them has been dragging on for more than 25 years.) Is it proper to let him use Wikipedia to get publicity for this sort of thing? If I were to file a pro se lawsuit against Madonna for obstruction of weasels, would that merit inclusion in the article about her? In my opinion, the earliest point at which this matter should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a news report) would be after Sloan has served all the named defendants. (Which, based on his track record, probably won't happen.)
The previous comment was posted at 00:49, 10 October 2007 by Eddore.
:The lawsuit was sufficiently newsworthy that it was written up in The New York Times. The coverage of it here should be limited to the neutral, verifiable facts. The lawsuit is part of the public record, and it is not libelous to state factually what it is about. Obviously, with such a sensitive matter, the article should confine itself to what has been reported in major news sources. Opinions about the merits of the suit or the probability of success should be included only if a reputable source has reported them. Sam Sloan's website is not such a source, but The New York Times would be. Marc Shepherd 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also note that showing up in a newspaper does not mean it should show up in Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuisance suit 

message: I have removed a lengthy post by User:Sam Sloan. This page is for discussing the article, not personal differences. Peter Ballard 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is for discussing the article, not personal differences

message: I'm a neutral party in the whole Polgar/Truong/Sloan controversy.
If Susan Polgar paid the fees in her husband's bankruptcy proceeding, and this is documented in reliable sources, that strikes me as notable and relevant. I realize it's his bankruptcy, but if she involved herself in the case, then it's part of her biography too.
Any conclusions drawn from that episode need to be verifiable, and not just the opinion of the editors adding them. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. To eliminate the WP:OR, I've deleted my connection of this fee with the earlier campaign statements she made on behalf of Paul Truong. What's left though clearly involves Susan Polgar as she paid the fees. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Just because someone does something and it's verifiable by third-party documentation does not make it automatically notable. If that were the case, then articles about people like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and John McCain would be virtually endless. How is it notable that a wife (Polgar) paid a court fee for her husband (Truong)? It sounds rather routine to me. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's hardly unusual for a husband or wife to pay a fee or bill incurred by his or her spouse. Krakatoa (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if it's usual, but it is part of a general discussion of alleged mismanagement and alleged misconduct in which they are both involved, and the editor who wishes to add it has now appropriately revised it to eliminate the editorial opinion. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it part of the "general discussion of alleged mismanagement and alleged misconduct in which they are both involved"? If it is, fine. Tie it in using relevant sources. Otherwise, it is speculation that the two events are related and therefore WP:OR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy controversy 

message: There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place, the citation does not support what the article says. Polgar did not say that she had evidence of "the crime of bribery." What she wrote was, "I now have in my possession unsolicited emails from some of the people the other side ASKED / PERSUADED to come to the delegates meeting to vote against Paul." "I consider it bribery. Perhaps there is another term for it." I was under the impression that "I have here a list of names" went out of fashion with Joe McCarthy.
In the second place, does every statement or claim made by Polgar get a new entry in the article? If we applied that rule to everyone, we'd have some pretty long articles. This seems relevant only to those pushing agendas for one or the other USCF faction. I deleted this stuff once, but I'd like a consensus before doing so again. Eddore (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, she says, "In fact, the email clearly states that they were BRIBED to come to vote against Paul." (her capitalization) In a later post, she says, "I agree that this is a serious problem. Therefore, we will proceed with the process of obtaining affidavits from these individuals along with other physical evidence." Read into this what you will, but bribery is bribery. I've edited out of the article "crime of". I'll note though she never said she had evidence either, which is why it says "confirmation of" in the article too as she said it in her posting. Evidence is what she is saying she will collect now with her affidavits and "physical evidence". With regard to the relevance of the sentence to the section, it should be apparent it is very relevant to her relationship with the organization on whose board she sits. It is extremely rare that a standing board member of an organization has such a relationship to the other board members. I cannot think of one example actually when we are talking about non-profit organizations (such a relationship is more common, but still not very common, in for-profit companies). Not every brain f*rt of hers should be captured on this page, but this is one that is highly relevant to this particular section of the article. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring the possibility (near certainty, in my opinion,) that she will _not_ come up with any evidence to support her charge. In that case, you are allowing someone to use Wikipedia to advance a personal quarrel. If this is permissible, then Sam Sloan's equally risible claims should be regularly added to the article bearing his name. Is that really what Wikipedia is for? Eddore (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a month, and no evidence has been offered for the "bribery" claim. I'm deleting the paragraph. Anyone want to argue about it?  Eddore (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's fine. It's obviously not news and SP may not have done what she said. In any case, if something ever comes of it, I'm sure someone will post it back to the page later. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bribery claim 

message: Hasn`t she just won her court case ? needs updating?andycjp (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. All three cases are still pending. There have been some procedural rulings (limits on discovery, and her motion to remove the Illinois case to Federal court was rejected), but nothing substantive has been decided. I think it's very unlikely you can find anyone neutral to write about it in the immediate future. Eddore (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Court win

message: Under the direction of Susan Polgar, the Texas Tech Men's Chess Team won the 2011 College Chess Final Four in April 2011.  The Knight Raiders entered the tournament as the 4th seed with an average rating of 50 points lower than the other three teams, and pulled off the upset after a series of team round-robin games in the President’s Cup.
 http://today.ttu.edu/2011/04/knight-raiders-win-final-four-best-college-chess-team-in-nation/ 
Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to have an article, the group would need to meet the general notability guidelines.  While you can read the full details there, the general idea is that they need to have been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  If you think they have, probably starting in the sandbox is the best way to go.  I'd be happy to take a look at it after you think it's good enough, and give feedback.  Just leave me a note on my talk page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polgar takes Texas Tech to Victory in 2011 College Chess Final Four 

message: New image is free content provided by Susan Polgar - an image she has allowed free use of for other people's blogs, etc.  Specific free use permission is granted here, and general free use permission is granted elsewhere.  And it's a better photo.  Hope this time I did this correctly!  Ellie Dahl (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the OTRS accepts the permission, it looks fine.  Though if the permission was specifically for use only on Wikipedia, it won't be accepted--our license requires that the image be usable for free on Wikipedia and any derivative works, including those created for a profit.  So if someone created a book version of Wikipedia (and many have), and sold it, the picture would have to be released for that as well.  But, I'll let OTRS work it out.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Photo - the other was overexposed - 2nd newbie attempt 

message: I have just removed the first two paragraphs of from Susan Polgar#Executive board member.  The first paragraph definitely does not meet WP:DUE.  Since a deposition is simply a requirement to testify, it really is a trivial event.  It basically says that the USCF decided that she was a relevant witness to a case they had ongoing, and so they needed her and Truong to testify.  But that has nothing to do with Polgar herself, since, as far as I can find, no criminal charges were ever filed against Polgar. 
The second paragraph is more borderline, but I'm not quite sure that it's relevant that she filed a lawsuit against a bunch of other people.  If the lawsuit succeeded, failed, or were settled, I could see including it here, but I can't even figure out what happened.  Without more clarification, this doesn't seem relevant enough for inclusion. This one, though, could be debatable, so please let me know if you disagree. The first, though, seems entirely inappropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to take a shot at it; make sure you have the right source(s) attached to the sentence; I'll take a look at it after you're done.  I'm happy to see you trying the editing directly; as a side note, I think the change you made to the insurer payout was a good clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: And I re-added the info to the lead.  Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."  To me, as someone who knows nothing of Polgar other than what I've read here and doing research for this article, her relationship with the USCF and the board are an important part of what makes her notable.  As such, I believe the lead should include a one or two sentence summary of that relationship, since it is covered in detail later on.  If you think that it should be trimmed somehow, that may be possible, but I think something has to be there regarding this issue.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 2 paragraphs from Executive board member section 

message: I noticed on Amazon that Paul Truong actually co wrote several of Susan Polgar's books, so I added his credit to the titles on this article (previously only one had him as co-author).  See amazon http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=paul+truong+chess&x=0&y=0  Ellie Dahl (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books authored 

message: Rather than arguing about whether the solution should be collapsed, could we possibly verify this sentence? "Susan Polgar composed her first chess problem (see diagram) at the age of four. She is considered the youngest composer of a published chess problem. Formerly, the record was held by Elliot Franklin Eichholtz." I found the Eichholtz claim in a reliable source here (though the page is incomplete, Edward Winter is a reliable source for this kind of thing). What I have been unable to find is a reliable source for the Polgar claim. I would expect, as a starting point, for there to be details of where Polgar's problem was published. If it was not published, but this is only a claim that she composed it in 1973, that would be problematic (no pun intended!). It might be best to see if Edward Winter can verify this claim. Though looking over the rest of the article, I see that other sections of this article need more of an eye kept on them than this one. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...that's a good point. Claiming to be the youngest to do something is definitely a claim that can be challenged. I just added a cite needed tag.  Given that the image explicitly says that the source is unknown, even the publication is questionable.  Hmmm...maybe we should ask her?  I mean, obviously, her word doesn't meet WP:RS, but if she can tell us where the problem was published, at least we can verify that aspect of the claim. Let me see if there's a way to contact her through her blog. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the reliable source given here actually contradicts the article's claim (it has been updated long after Polgar was four years old), I have removed the section from the article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying chess problem section 

message: Added content to the lead that is typically of interest to people who research Susan Polgar; child prodigy achievements, first woman chess grandmaster, oldest of the Polgar Sisters, Olympic medals, SPICE Institute and National Championship wins for collegiate coaching, etc.  Pretty much, the things that make her famous.  Ellie Dahl (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead seems a bit long to me, but I'm not actually sure what I'd cut.  Maybe some day I'll take a closer look. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The various titled sections look all wonky and different.  Can someone help get them into a uniform format?  I cannot get it right. Thanks for any responders! Ellie Dahl (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it. Let me know if the new order and levels is alright.  I felt that while her coaching is part of her "chess career", her charity work, even though related to chess, is fundamentally different, and thus should be grouped separately. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles