Talk:Alexandra Botez/Archive 1

Archive 1

BoxBox Match Inclusion

I’m creating this conversation because there seems to be a clear edit war occurring here. Anonymous editors have added the section and then rolled back edits removing it about seven times so far. I have taken the article back to the last stable version and would remind all users of the three revert rule and BLP policies.. I would suggest that we discuss the issue and try to reach a consensus. I personally do not believe this single casual match merits inclusion particularly since the only sources are reddit posts containing a link to the video rather than any reliable sources, but I look forward to reading any discussion about why it should be included. Bstbll (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, honestly, the whole page is barely relevant. And especially the "streaming"-section.

• CrowdAmp barely existed. Doesn't even have a website or a wiki page itself. It's the kind of thing you write in a CV. Imo it doesn't belong here.
• And mentioning that someone listed as a chess player *actually* played tournament chess is kinda weird as well...
• If anything the match against Boxbox is the most relevant of the three items in the streaming section. It is her 7th most watched clip of all time (and it is not like it was caused by Boxbox because his clips of the same event barely even got watched).

If people actually cared about relevance of items they would have tackled those things first. Or the fact that most of the points in the streaming section have *nothing* to do with streaming. I felt like there was some "fan" editing going on, so I reverted the removal twice. 2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:E47A:FF5:9B72:637B (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that if an article has questionable material you don't make it better by adding more and similar questionable material. I support the removal. If you have improvements in mind, feel free to suggest them or just make them in the article. I guess you thought restoring the removed content made the article better, but I think it made it worse. Or else you reverted as some kind of protest or statement, which I don't think is productive. Quale (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Would agree with Quale. 2A02, my personal view would be that if you think the article as a whole is not notable then you should start that conversation and if it reaches that point you can raise it as an AFD. If you think the entire streaming section should be removed then that’s a separate conversation. If you think the entire section is questionable then raise that topic or take the lead on a rewrite! But it doesn’t merit adding that specific match to her article, and the fact that a clip has lots of views doesn’t mean it meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedic BLP article. Are there any third party reliable sources or articles that cover the event that might indicate otherwise? Was this a particularly noteworthy match in her career? I’m entirely neutral toward both of these individuals and I’m open to having my mind changed, I just created this discussion to head off the 15-round edit war that was ongoing. But as it stands right now right now I fall on the side of leaving out the match unless there’s some information about why it is significant (apart it being a popular clip on her stream).Bstbll (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, my point was that the people who removed that sentence were *specifically* removing the least problematic part of this article (and without a good reason given). Imo that is a clear sign of fan editing. And that is the only reason I undid the removal twice (you will have to ask the other people for the reason for the other 13? undos).

If I actually wanted to edit this article I would probably have removed the whole section "streaming" for the reasons mentioned (as I said... if I would have left anything *in* it would have been this match because it actually has to do with her streaming and has reached high visibility). The article is probably noteable. But not as a chess player, but as a chess commentator (she usually covers big chess events). But honestly, I don't care enough either way. It is probably unavoidable with the streamer kind of celebrity that the articles will be written by fans and not from a neutral point of view. 2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:F8FB:37AC:888D:56DA (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to semi-protect the page? We've had some vandalism today from Twitch chat trying to roast her FAISSALOO_(talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Revisions

Within the next week, I will be making a few edits and additions to this article. I plan to improve the article's overall writing style, as it currently reads very choppy, especially in the "Chess" section. I will also add new sections titled "Sexism", "Other Professional Work", and possibly a third titled "Playing Style". I believe a section detailing Botez's confrontations with sexism in the world of chess is necessary due to it being a serious, relevant issue that she often emphasizes in the media. The article, as of now, lacks any mention of such topics. I will also move details about Botez's work with the Susan Polgar Foundation, CrowdAmp, and Envy Gaming from the "Chess" and "Streaming" sections to a separate, more relevant section titled "Other Professional Work". I plan to provide further context for these activities. A third additional section, "Playing Style", would detail Botez's chess strategy and help Botez's article be as comprehensive as those of her chess colleagues. Lastly, I will update the lead section to provide a more complete overview of the article to bring the article closer to Wikipedia's criteria. My annotated bibliography can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoya38/Alexandra_Botez/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography. Hoya38 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Hoya38

5'9"

are you sure? source? Thewriter006 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, why does anyone care? Are we going to give her vital statistics too? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Low-quality annotation

To the Solomons game. Someone says "launches a series of checks... forcing Black to sacrifice her Queen". It's a two-move forced continuation once Black takes the Bishop; there is no "sacrifice", just a discovered attack on the Queen. Black doesn't "sacrifice" anything, just flat-out loses it. Might as well claim that Botez "sacrificed" her Queen in this turkey: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/master/15790929 Captain Pedant (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 15 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hoya38.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

popularity

i think she is now the mostly known woman chess player.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.148.228 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? I only barely randomly bumped into her on YT and tbh I was shocked that her page exists on wikipedia. Aren't there like hundreds better female chess players that just don't shout at microphone online? Nimdil2 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How is what you (or any other editor) think of any relevance to Wikipedia? -- Jibal (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sexism

Something wrong with reference "female grandmaster Susan Polgar was rejected from competing in the World Chess Championship on the basis of her gender." I can't find mention of this in reference 21, am I blind? Maybe it has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaydonBerrow (talk • contribs) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't find any reference to it cause the claim isn't true. PenguinsDeserveBetter (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Views on sexism in chess section

I am following up here on a conversation that began at User talk:PenguinsDeserveBetter, since it is relevant to the sourcing of this page. Regarding [this diff] and the subsequent back and forth, which came right up to WP:3RR and now needs to be discussed, PenguinsDeserveBetter wrote I'm making a factual edit. The claim that Susan Polgar wasn't allowed to compete in the World Championship in 1986 because of her gender just isn't true. Can you find a reputable source online that says that it is true? It says it on chess.com forums and a few other people believe it cause Botez said it, but it's just not true. So if anyone's spreading misinformation, it's you, who's editing the page to make it seem like it is true. However, this was one mistake on Botez's part, and perhaps it doesn't merit a negative remark on her Wikipedia page. So I'm willing to compromise. How about we just remove those few sentences altogether where she says that women weren't allowed to play in elite chess events back in the day. Then the page will be accurate and it won't have negativity on it. On this point, however, I do not see any disagreement among reliable sources. It's trivial to find this assertion in plenty of reliable sources, certainly not just people on internet fora repeating something Alexandra Botez said. Here's a series of the first few things that come up when I google the topic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 etc. Where is the room for disagreement? I do think that section probably needs to be rewritten, and this particular incident is probably WP:UNDUE, but including the claim and then contradicting it in Wikipedia's voice, or removing it based on WP:FRINGE theories, will not make it better. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The 1986 World Championship match was played between Kasparov and Karpov. And it was a guaranteed rematch based on conditions from the 1985 World Championship between those two. So the rematch was already set a year prior. Everything you posted online about Susan Polgar not being allowed to play in the World Championship in 1986 because of her gender is from her words. This is especially true of reference 4, which links to her website. However, the way she phrased it on her website and the way it's phrased in other sources is inaccurate. Saying that she qualified for the 1986 World Championship meant that the match should've been Kasparov-Susan Polgar. But as I said before, the conditions were already set for the 1986 World Championship Match. Now, was she banned from a World Championship cycle event at any point because of her gender? I don't know. But she definitely shouldn't be wording it like that. Cause the way that Botez phrased it or Polgar herself phrased it makes it sound like the match should've been Kasparov-Susan Polgar.

Furthermore, on Susan Polgar's own Wiki page (which you can see I didn't edit), it says this: "In 1986, aged 17, she narrowly missed qualifying for the Zonal, the first step in the "Men's" world championship cycle." Maybe this is what Polgar is referring to on her page or what Botez referenced. Now, did she actually qualify for Zonal but was banned for her gender? I don't know. But again, the phrasing that she has on her website and the way Botez phrased it is inaccurate, so it shouldn't be on the Wiki page. PenguinsDeserveBetter (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Content decisions come down to the balance of coverage across reliable sources. It's very easy to find reliable sources backing up the content as it is currently stated on this page; I found 6 sources (of varying quality, sure) and linked them in about a minute of clicking through the first page of Google hits. Speculation about the interdependence between the sourcing for an article published by (say) Webster University and St. Louis Public Radio is not a concern from a verifiability perspective; independence matters in assessing the notability of a page subject, but that's a separate issue, and if a number of different authors/editors/fact checkers run stories based on similar sources at different institutions that reach the same conclusion, the similarity of their sources doesn't mean that they all collapse into one reliable source. Imagine for example if every source that ultimately relies on a claim by Herodotus counted as the same source. Original research into the semantics and technical veracity of claims doesn't outweight the bulk of reliable sources, and you have not presented one reliable source. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The relevant standard for Polgar's claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. In this case I think this applies: "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". All sources above seem to be relying solely on Polgar's claim. I don't see any evidence that the claim is true, and I don't understand how it makes sense or is possible given the history of the world chess championship. The 1986 World Chess Championship match was an automatic rematch between Kasparov and Karpov, the participants were set as the winner and runner up of the 1985 World Chess Championship. The next championship match was 1987 World Chess Championship, but qualification for that cycle were Interzonal and Candidates tournaments held in 1985. Polgar did not qualify for the 1985 Interzonals and was not part of this championship cycle.

The thing that actually happened in 1986 is described at Susan Polgar#Chess career – in 1986 FIDE made a one-time adjustment to women's ratings, adding 100 points to the rating of all active women players except Susan Polgar. The reason given to exclude Polgar seems dubious and the motivation may have been sexist, but this did not deny Polgar an opportunity to compete for the world championship. Quale (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how to change the text of this article? Including it just to disparage it based on original objections is clearly not appropriate content for a BLP. But if the article subject has actually identified it as an example of sexism in the chess world that motivates her to be outspoken on the issue, then including it seems due. So how should the text be changed? - Astrophobe (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Polgar gives a fuller description of what happened to her at the 1986 Hungarian championship here. How about the following rewording of the sentence:

Botez cited the case of female grandmaster Susan Polgar, who claimed that in 1986, she was prevented from competing in a Zonal tournament, a qualifying event for the World Chess Championship, based on her gender.

That way, we don't disparage Botez or Polgar, while also not presenting Polgar's claim as fact.

For what it's worth (not much, if you know something about this guy), Sam Sloan apparently also gave his take on what happened. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making a suggestion. That wording looks verifiable and neutral to me. I'd support the change. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Done! You're welcome. Cobblet (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks also. Reading a more complete explanation of Polgar's complaint was very helpful. I don't know anything about the politics of Hungarian chess in the mid-1980s (or any other time for that matter), but Polgar's account seems possible to me. Quale (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does this page even exists?

Can someone point me to justification why this page even exists? Nimdil2 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nimdil2 see WP:NCHESS. Botez qualifies immediately via criteria 3 (five-time Canadian National Girls Champion, which counts as a "national or continental championship or women's championship") and possibly also by her other activities, including her work as a streamer / journalist. The General Notability Guidelines define notability for wiki purposes as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article does appear to have that. RexSueciae (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait. Did you actually create a wiki account for the sole purpose of questioning whether or not a prominent chess player is wiki-notable? That's kinda funny. RexSueciae (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No. I lost access to my original account some time ago and have no idea how to recover it. I was thinking about creating new one (notice 2 in username) for a while now. As for the topic at hand - if it was championship for girls does it count? I read that point as adult women or man championship. Nimdil2 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, of course she qualifies. In the notability guidelines it clearly says "Has won a national or continental championship". Check. Done. There is no qualifier as to the age of the person. Regards, 2001:56A:F868:D500:70BD:4FFE:F42D:87AB (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I won a national chess chess championship too I guess I should have my own Wikipedia page 😂 Michuk (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a higher chess rating than Botez, and won two tournaments in South Korea. Does that mean there should be an article about me?Newzild (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those questions are relevant. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sex symbol label vs. Botez quote about 60% of her audience

It's clear that the platform (YouTube, twitch etc) popularity of Alexandra Botez is a big part of what is “justifying” the existence or at least the length of this article, the prominent inclusion of some of her opinions, life history etc. There’s plenty of national girl champions in chess around the world who don’t have even a wiki stub. This, btw, is even more noticeable with the wiki article devoted to her sister Andrea, who has no similar chess accomplishments. Personally, I have no issue with mere platform popularity/notoriety justifying Wikipedia inclusion, as long as the article does not mislead about the reasons for this popularity/notoriety. Clearly this article emphasizes chess-related reasons and completely omits looks/sex appeal-related reasons for said popularity. I understand it's impossible to break down exactly what percentage of this popularity/notoriety (or combination thereof) is attributable to chess accomplishments, looks/sex appeal, personality, production quality and collaboration etc. Nevertheless, the plausibility of chess being a more important factor than looks/sex appeal is not very strong and yet the latter is not even mentioned. I understand the label sex symbol may be considered subjective by some (even while the assumption that chess is the source of popularity is equally subjective), so I have instead simply quoted Botez herself saying that until she brought in stream moderators, she was disturbed by the fact that “60% of it was just people trying to flirt with me and chat, or people just commenting on my appearance the entire time…They didn’t care about the game play at all.”

Content is based on the balance of what is verifiable on the basis of reliable sources. That is the only basis for conversations about page contents. It's also worth bringing your attention to WP:3RR and MOS:INTRO. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Clarify please. The quote by Botez is indeed verifiable——footnoted to an MSNBC article in fact. 2601:646:203:B3B0:8552:E7EC:A128:BF91 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Importance

Cbigorgne, in this edit you reduced the page importance from "Mid" to "Low" and in your edit summary you said "Raised importance to Low for chess". Did you mean "Lowered importance to Low for chess"? Or did you mean to raise it to High? - Astrophobe (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Astrophobe : I was meaning : I lowered the importance to "low". I think that her importance is the same of Maurice Ashley (GM and commentator), Daniel Rensch, Tania Sachdev (other commentators), Agadmator (youTuber), Eric Rosen (chess player) (also youTuber).--Cbigorgne (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"BotezLive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BotezLive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § BotezLive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anarchyte (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over date of birth

There's currently an edit war over her date of birth. The actual day is uncited, and should probably be removed until there's a cite, but the source does state her age in December 2020. Greenman (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah she's be telling her fans to edit her page with a fake date of birth. You guys may want to lock the page for a few days, if that's possible. 2601:196:4680:4FF0:297C:1E07:5AD1:57E3 (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the DOB and just left the year in place, with a FIDE source. Botez is not a major celebrity with a widely-known date of birth, and per WP:BLPPRIVACY, unless the DOB is widely publicised we shouldn't be including it. Let's see what happens re fans changing it, it doesn't seem too bad so far. Where did she tell them to do that?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support not including the specific date of birth. Policies are quite clear about that. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

She asks on her Twitch channel. Greenman (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I found this tweet made by Alexandra herself on September 24, 2020 in which she says she just turned 25 https://twitter.com/alexandrabotez/status/1309235256281772033. This solves the mystery: her date of birth is September 24, 1995. Hergo38 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a mystery, we just don't publicise her date of birth per WP:BLPPRIVACY. The fact that she tweeted it was her birthday three years ago does not constitute wide publication.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually never mind - I guess the clause in WP:BLPPRIVACY saying "it may reasonably be assumed that the subject does not object to the details being made public" applies here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru (and others): I disagree, though this may call for a discussion or RfC on the talk page of BLPPRIVACY rather than just this one article. I think it is really a leap to observe that someone Tweeted (once, years ago) to tell their Twitter followers that they're currently celebrating their birthday, and conclude that they are OK with their date of birth being permanently affixed to the top of an encyclopedia entry about them. I don't think that once mentioning your birthday to one group of people is grounds to assume that you would be happy with it being the first piece of information that anyone sees when they Google you. BLPPRIVACY is a cornerstone of respect for the living subjects of biographical articles, and it encourages us to err on the side of not plastering peoples' personal details all over the internet. Unless it's really clear that someone is making personal details totally public, we should not include them. And in the case of this article, the idea that the article subject is comfortable with her date of birth being publicly known is also dramatically contradicted by the fact that she is actively encouraging people to vandalize it out of the article and replace it with misinformation. I don't think we have the grounds at all to assume that she does not object to her date of birth being on this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: fair enough, that is reasonable, and we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues. So I've reverted back to the no date version. I haven't seen the clip where she advised people to change the DOB so I don't know the context here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)