Talk:Susan Polgar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Early discussion

The article says:

First woman to achieve the men's GrandMaster title (in 1991.)

Isn't this wrong? The first seems to have been Nona Gaprindashvili in 1978. And Maia Chiburdanidze apparently gained her GM title in 1984. I think Zsuzsa Polgar was probably third, however. Can anyone confirm this? --Zundark, Wednesday, May 8, 2002

Zsuzsa's site at http://www.polgarchess.com/fhighlights.html claims that she was the first, for what it's worth. AxelBoldt

I looked around quite a bit, but I couldn't find anything authoritative. It should be pointed out that there are lots of FIDE titles with various rules that have changed over time, including specific women's titles. For example, winning the women's world championship now automatically awards one the title of Grandmaster; that didn't used to be the case. So it's quite possible that someone other than Polgar was awarded the "official" title first, but that she was the first one who actually earned it under the same rules as the men.

On a totally unrelated note, I can remember actually playing Zsuzsa once in a simultaneous match in--of all places--Allentown, PA. Show trounced me soundly, of course, along with 40 or so others. I think she was about 15 at the time. --LDC

I know I'm a year late on this one, but LDC is right: Gaprindashvilli and Chiburdanidze were made GMs on account of them being women's world champion. Zsuzsa was the first woman to earn the title in the normal way by picking up three GM norms. (Polgar herself says this here, incidentally - that link will become dead in a couple of weeks, the article will probably remain the sites archives.) --Camembert

Anglicised her name

Do you have an authority that Zsófia Polgár has officially anglicised her name? PatGallacher 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the list of her ISBN-bearig books. She changed the name she publishes under.

I used to be a friend of the Polgars before any of the girls married. I was the family's guest in 1983 during the Budapest World Congress of Esperanto. I remember that when they took part together in chess tournaments, it was as Polgar Zs. (Zsuzsanna i.e. Susan), Polgar S. (Sofia i.e. Zsófia) and Polgar J. (Judit). Now I am conscious that this state of affairs may have changed now that Zsuzsanna lives in the USA and calls herself Susan, and that all three sisters live in different countries, indeed in different continents; but anyway, if you want to give Zsófia her Hungarian name, don't forget the acute accent. - Tonymec 12:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. That could have been just a device for differentiating them at that stage. I don't think there is such a name as Zsuzsanna, she is either Zsuzsa or Susan. PatGallacher 12:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, she's called Zsuzsanna on her act of birth and on her Hungarian passport; Zsuzsa (or Zsuzsi) is a diminutive. - Tonymec 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. hu:Zsuzsa says "A Zsuzsa női név a Zsuzsanna rövidülése" which an online dictionary helps decipher as "Zsuzsa is a feminine name that's a short form of Zsuzsanna" (maybe a Hungarian speaker can confirm). Also, hu:Zsuzsanna lists Zsuzsa as a nickname (Becenév). Phr 07:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tonymec is right. Her actual legal name is Zsuzsanna, not Zsuzsa or Susan. Sam Sloan 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Page 29 of Polgar's latest legal filing (http://www.anusha.com/susan-polgars-lawsuit.pdf) makes it clear her legal name is still "Zsuzsanna" (notary public verification) and she signs her name "Polgar Z". Specifically, she swears before the notary public as Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar. Susan is just her nickname. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, now some Wikipedia administrator is going to ask me what book that is published in. It is not in a book. I have seen her actual passport. Sam Sloan 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

When it says she speaks seven languages, is that really fluently...? I mean, esperanto?

And why is it important in a wikipedia context? It makes it sound more like a publicity announcement.

What do you mean, Esperanto? Do you mean Esperanto isn't a language? If you do, just check its Wikipedia, you'll be surprised.

About speaking several languages, it doesn't surprise me from that kind of person; so it sounds "people", so what? She's human, she's more than just a chess-playing flesh-and-bones robot. IMO, mentioning that she speaks several languages adds "human interest" to the article. - Tonymec 20:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I know what Esperanto is, thank you, I'm just wondering how one exercises one's "fluency" in a language that's mainly spoken at conventions. As for human interest, I think this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a page from People magazine. Factuary 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto is spoken, among others, at conventions. It is also spoken whenever two or more people of different native languages, but having Esperanto in common, come together. Furthermore, Esperanto is used as a written language between those same people, e.g. in mail, and in places such as the Wikipedia. From what I have seen, Susan Polgar's (and ther parents' and sisters') fluency in Esperanto was of great help to them in traveling outside Hungary and, among others, in taking part in international chess competitions.

Just as in any other language, fluency in Esperanto is exercised by talking, reading and writing. Finding people with which to use it is made easier by such "institutions" as, for instance, the "Jarlibro de UEA" (Yearbook of the Universal Esperanto Association), the "Pasporta Servo" (a yearbook of Esperantists who will host passing fellow Esperantists for free for a few days) and the "Koresponda Servo Mondskala" (World Correspondence Service, an Esperanto homologue to Pen Pal). - Tonymec 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

From left field: If this is an encyclopedic entry on a person then it ought surely list something like how many and which languages of fluency if it's known. This isn't a trivial facet of anyone's person and not merely human inteest, but of some (if not ground-breaking) pertinence to the entire article. However I would question the ordering of the languages listed. Currently Esperanto is listed first and that does indeed look oddly hyped in favour of that language. Surely such a list would adopt some impartial order, ideally an estimate (ideally by Susan herslef) of the order of fluency, or the order in which they were aqcuired or failing that plain old alphabetic order. Bur surely for an Hungarian the list ought to start "Hungarian, ....". - Bernd 7:40, 24 January 2006 (AEST)

I would like to see WIKI update the POlgar pages to reflect the true beginnings of their chess careers, being the "Polgar Experiment" and their fathers involvement. I was disappointed not see any mention or significant mention of it. Its results are far more interestind and has greater implications than someone doing well at chess.

The Sam Sloan incident

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is not a place for you to vandalize and promote a convicted felon. This is also not a place for you to promote political propaganda. DO NOT vandalize this page. Enough already (C.I. 8-2006).

A poster name Andrew Morrow has been vandalizing Polgar's blog. He also made multiple threat to her children and family. Keep him from vandalizing this page. (C.I. 8-2006)

Too many adjectives

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)

Olympiad

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)

Only on women's teams. You can check out the site http://www.olimpbase.org, which has complete records. On this page, http://olimpbase.org/statistics/all_id01.html we can see that Judit is the only Polgar to have played on the Hungarian Men's team. On this page, http://olimpbase.org/statisticsw/all_id01.html we see that Susan played on the Hungarian Women's Team in 1988, 1990, and 1994, and on the US Women's Team in 2004. BurkeDevlin 08:27, 14 June 2007

First Female Grandmaster

The article states that Polgar was the first woman to earn the Grandmaster title in regular competition. This is not exactly true. She was the first woman to earn the Grandmaster title with no discretion being exercised, which is harder to explain.

The Wikipedia article on Nona Gaprindashvili (the first female Grandmaster), states that she was awarded the title automatically for having been Women's World Champion. This is not true. She earned it in regular competition. The story can be read in Pal Benko's column in the January 1979 issue of Chess Life & Review. Put simply, the regular process required a player to score certain results called "norms", in events totalling at least 24 games. Gaprindashvili had the norm results, but was a game or two short of the 24 game total. FIDE exercised some discretion and gave her the title anyway.

I've heard (but am not completely certain) that the same sort of discretion was used for Edmar Mednis (who also got his GM title that year). There had been incidents in the past in which players had been denied GM titles in ways which seemed unfair to many people. The most notable example being Frank Ross Anderson, who in the 1958 Munich Olympiad, merely had to show up for his final game to become a GM. Even if he lost, he'd have had the title. But illness prevented him from playing, he ended up one game short in his norm requirements, and never got the title. Things seemed to have loosened up a bit after that, to the point where some discretion could be used in borderline cases, such as Gaprindashvili's.

Nowadays, there's also a requirement to achieve a 2500 rating, but no such requirement existed in 1978. The ratings have inflated by about 100 points since then anyway.

When Susan Polgar earned the GM title, she had the norms, pure and simple; both the results, and the required number of total games, without the need for any discretionary judgments to be applied to her case. Nona was the first woman to earn the title through "regular competition", but Polgar was the first to do it without discretion. -- BurkeDevlin 08:52, 14 June 2007 (CST)

Isn't it true, though, that from 1978 onwards the Women's World Chess Champion automatically became a GM? Perhaps Gaprindashvili forced them to make the change, but that is the rule. So as it stands it's not incorrect. What we need to avoid is the implication that Gaprindashvili and Maia Chiburdanidze weren't "real" GMs, and I've done that already by toning down the language here and in a couple of other places. In fact Chiburdanidze has a higher peak rating and higher peak world ranking than Susan Polgar, according to Chessmetrics, so it seems to me there's little doubt she was GM strength. Perhaps she had the results to get the norms anyway (but no one was counting because she already had the title). Peter Ballard 23:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just seen that you've quoted Benko more fully at Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili. Let's discuss it there, where it is more on-topic. Peter Ballard 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been many cases of players being awarded the GM title without meeting the qualifications. At one point I believe that MOST of the GM titles were awarded when the recipient had not quite made the norms. Most cases were harmless because the player is question was clearly GM strength. For example, Mikhail Tal was awarded the GM title without ever making a norm, but he had won the Soviet Championship twice, which did not count because it was not an international tournament.

Gaprindashvili had one one norm, not the required three. She won the tournament at Lone Pine in 1977. They gave her the GM title for that and because she was a woman.

Chiburdanidze never msde a GM norm. Never came close. They gave her the title because she was Woman's World Champion. Susan Polgar was the first woman to make the three required norms the same way that a man would have made it and thus her claim is valid.

Nowadays, Mikko Markkula, Chairman of the FIDE Qualification Commission, checks every FIDE Title application carefully and has been able to stop many questionable title applications from being approved. Sam Sloan 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaprindashvili made her second norm in Dortmund 1978. In those days two norms were sufficient.

Chiburdanides never came close??

She won (with GM norm) in Dehli 1984, won in Banja Luka 1985 (GM norm), came third in Bilbao 1987 (GM norm, behind Karpov and Andersson),

I'm not sure if her 3rd and 4th places in Polanic 1984 and Dortmund 1983 were also norms.

According to this article by Susan Polgar, http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar11.pdf, Chibudanidze made one GM norm, Gaprindashvili two. --Pallen 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Chiburdanidze's "one norm" mean before she was awarded the title in 1984? She had some very strong results in the mid 1980s. According to Chessmetrics, for what that's worth, her peak rating is higher than Susan Polgar's, while her peak performance is the same. Peter Ballard 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume before being awarded the title. No one talks about norms after having the title. I remember the common view at the time was that it was 'unfortunate' Maia was given the title a special way because everyone assumed she would get it soon the normal way, and that would be a better precedent. As for her strength in her twenties vs. Polgar in her twenties, we'll obviously never know. I guess the chessmetrics data suggests her relative position among active international players her peak was higher than Polgar's at her peak. On the other hand, chessmetrics ratings suggest that Maia would beat Bent Larsen and Roman Dzindzichashvili in the mid 80s. I suspect most grandmasters would seriously doubt this. --Pallen 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article still states, incorrectly, that Gaprindashvili got the GM title automatically for being Women's World Champion. I quoted this in the Nona article discussion, but it bears repeating here. Here's how Pal Benko described Nona's acquisition of the title:

Here's the way Pal Benko tells it on page 15 of the January 1979 issue of Chess Life & Review:

...Of course [Nona] had earned the "woman grandmaster" title awarded by the International Chess Federation (FIDE), as have some two dozen other women. But she also earned the (men's) international master title, becoming the first woman ever to have done so (Vera Menchik was probably strong enough to have earned this title, but she died in 1943 [sic], long before the modern title system was adopted), and in Buenos Aires in November 1978 FIDE bestowed upon Nona Gaprindashvili the (men's) international grandmaster title. Not only is she the only woman ever to have received this title, she is the only woman ever to have deserved it.

It is regrettable, therefore, that she did not actually earn the title in the regular way: FIDE requires that to earn the grandmaster title a player must achieve certain minimum scores in tournaments consisting of at least twenty-four games in aggregate (the description is highly oversimplified, but you get the idea), and Nona was two or three games short. Yet the FIDE Qualifications Commission voted to give her the title. In my opinion, this historic occasion should not have been allowed to carry even this slight tarnish.

Source: Chess Life & Review, January 1979

Nona actually had two GM norms, not one. Chiburdanidze had one. But the important thing is not the number of norms, but the number of *games*. You needed to have 24, and Nona was a couple short. They gave her the title anyway. It was not just because she was a woman, I believe that Edmar Mednis got his title the exact same way. This all dates back to an incident in 1958, when Frank Ross Anderson had a GM norm sewn up. All he had to do was show up for his final game in the olympiad, and even if he lost, he'd be a GM. But he fell ill and was unable to play (something to do with receiving the incorrect prescription medicine), was unable to play, fell one game short in the overall requirement, and never did become a GM.

Chiburdanidze quite probably became a GM automatically by being Women's World Champion. But that was in 1984, after she'd held that title for 6 years. This rule didn't exist when Nona was Women's Champion, nor did FIDE go back and retroactively give the GM title to previous Women's Champions (Polgar had a plea on her blog last month *asking* them to do this, which means that they haven't already).

(On another note, someone mentioned that Tal got the title for winning the Soviet Championship twice. He actually got it after winning it only once, in 1957. The FIDE President at the time (Folke Rogard) granted the title, but, in the interest of East/West balance, also gave the GM title to the US Champion at the time, Arthur Bisguier.)

Is Polgar's claim "correct"? Well, that depends how it's being worded on a given day. I've seen her say that she was the first woman to "earn" the GM title, which seems awfully dubious. (Anybody want to say that Tal didn't earn his?) On the other hand, after the recent election, I saw her write that she was the first woman to earn it using the same criteria used for men, which is basically correct. (Some men benefitted from the same kind of discretionary judgment that Nona received, but it was possible to deny her this judgment, while it wasn't possible (without breaking the rules entirely) to deny Polgar her title. She certainly did something that Nona didn't.

But the question here isn't really whether Polgar's claim is correct, it's whether Nona got her title automatically for being Women's World Champion, as the article claims. According to Benko at the time, no, she didn't get it that way. -- BurkeDevlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.42 (talk) 14:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Languages

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

Election Campaign

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)

I'm thinking this section should be deleted. I've no doubt she was elected to the USCF board, but the sources don't work any more - they point to the front page of the USCF site. The section doesn't explain what "first ever chairman" means. The second and third paragraphs, while perhaps interesting gossip for USCF members, doesn't seem to be of general interest for most readers of this article; many of the sources are personal blogs and such that are not very valid for this site, and the allegations in the lawsuit are more focused on Susan's husband than Susan herself. Warren Dew (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree this section should be deleted. The civil litigation was settled/dismissed. After finding this bio page I went and read all the documents in the entire case (!!) and the whole thing is like an AOL message board flame war. It went nowhere and is only of interest to the people who were in it. The he said/she said and blog wars are annoying. Let's clean this page up. Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding revert wars. The person who has challenged my edits and complained I am a page vandal and a "sock puppet" is the user kayokimura who has a conflict of interest. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

False claims

False Claims by Polgar

Polgar propaganda constantly claims that Polgar is a "Four Times Woman's World Champion". This is not true. She only won the Woman's World Championship one time. That was in 1996.

Now that she has been elected, this allegation appears on the USCF website. It will be interesting to see if this appears in Chess Life, where everybody will know that it is false.

Several more false claims about Polgar appear. Here is part of a USCF Press Release at:

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/press_33_97.php

"Former Women’s World Champion Susan Polgar has just been elected as the first ever Chairman of the USCF. Grandmaster Susan Polgar is the winner of four Women’s World Championships and ten Olympiad medals (5 Gold, 4 Silver and 1 Bronze). She was the first woman to break the gender barrier to earn the Grandmaster title with the same qualifications as her male counterpart. She was also the first woman to qualify for the Men’s World Championship cycle. Susan became the #1 woman player in the world at the age of 15 and has remained in the top 3 for 23 straight years."

Much of this is not true.

She was not the first woman to qualify for the Men's World Championship cycle. Pia Cramling was. Pia Cramling qualified from the Championship of Sweden and played in the zonal tournament in about 1981.

It is true that Susan should have been allowed to qualify after finishing tied for second in the 1986 Hungarian Championship, but Hungary would not allow her to play, sending Istvan Csom instead. I was personally involved in this incident, so I know all about it. I agree that Polgar was cheated and she should have been allowed to play in the zonal. However, in any case she would not have been the first woman to qualify as Cramling had qualified five years before her.

Also, she has not been in the top three women in the world for 23 straight years because she is not in the top three now. She has been largely inactive since 1992. Currently, the top three women in the world are Judit Polgar, Humpy Koneru and Pia Cramling. Susan Polgar is not listed since she has not played since 2004. Before 2004, she had not played in 8 years since 1996. Naturally, during these long periods when she is not playing, she cannot claim to be one of the "Top Three Players" in the world.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml?list=women

Now that she has been elected, one wonders whether these false claims will appear in Chess Life magazine, where they will be the subject of ridicule. Sam Sloan 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So? How is any of that relevant to her Wikipedia article? Peter Ballard 10:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Polgar should have qualified for the zonal in Warsaw in 1986. She tied for second in the 1986 Hungarian Championship with Istvan Csom. It had been announced that the top three were in. The newspapers in Budapest announced in great headlines that Polgar had qualified for the zonal by finishing in the top 3.

However, at that time, Sandor Serenyi, President of the Hungarian Chess Federation, was out of town. When he got back, he decreed that there had been a mistake in calculating the number of players that Hungary could send to the zonal. Hungary was only entitled to two players, not three. As Susan had a half point less in Berger tie-breaking points, Csom would go but not Susan, declared Serenyi.

As I was in Budapest when this happened, I asked Csom to agree to play a match with Susan for the spot. Csom immediately agreed, saying that he was not especially interested in playing in the zonal anyway. However, later, in Dubai, during the chess Olympiad, Csom, with Adorjan as his translator, told me that he had changed his mind and was not willing to play a match with Polgar for the Zonal slot. Thus, Polgar never played in the zonal.

Cramling had played in the European Zonal back in 1980 or 1981 in a previous cycle. Thus, Cramling was the first woman ever to qualify for the World Championship Cycle.

Actually, Susan never got to play in the world championship cycle, so the issue is whether to count the incident in 1986 when, in my opinion, she should have been allowed to play but never got to play.Sam Sloan 20:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The normal rule is that one cannot prove a negative. Nevertheless, it is possible to prove a positive and she has not done so.

Why is it that none of her claims are supported by the leading authorities on the game of chess? Why is it that none of these great accomplishments have been reported by ChessBase, The Week in Chess, New In Chess, Inside Chess, Europe Eschech or even by Chess Life magazine?

Let us make a list and see where is the proof:

"Grandmaster Susan Polgar is the winner of four Women's World Championships"

When and where were those four Women's World Championships played? Why does The Week in Chess only mention one? Why is there no mention of these other three woman's world chess championships in any reputable chess publication?

"She was also the first woman to qualify for the Men's World Championship cycle."

When and where did this happen? What are the dates of this event? Why is there no mention of this in The Week in Chess, in Chess Base or in any other reputable chess publication.

"Susan .... has remained in the top 3 for 23 straight years."

Where is there evidence of this? Why is there no mention of this on the FIDE website? Why is she not even currently listed in the top ten in the world by any reputable source?

Note that I have left out one of her other claims. That is the claim where she says, "She was the first woman to break the gender barrier to earn the Grandmaster title with the same qualifications as her male counterpart."

I happen to agree with that one. However, others are disputing that point. I also understand that others are disputing her claim to hold the world record for simultaneous exhibitions.

We have long ago given up asking Paul Truong about his claim to have won 11 National Championships. He has refused to tell us when and where he won those national championships or even in which country he won them. We have a letter from the Vietnam Chess Association stating that he never won the national championship of that country. I have also recently acquired every issue of Chess Life magazine since 1976 and there is no mention in any of those magazines of Paul Truong ever winning a national championship in this country, the USA.

Why are not Susan Polgar and Paul Truong being asked about these matters, especially since they are now on the board? Sam Sloan 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Susan and Sam Sloan belong to each other. They can sue each other forever and be happy and leave other people alone. I noticed many of her claims of accomplishment are false. She acts like a chess version of a spoiled Paris Hilton except that she doesn't have the beauty, money or fame.

Again, what has that to do with the article? The article should just present the information correctly. Peter Ballard 03:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I swear to God if I see another Wikipedian say such an ignorant thing as "what is the relevancy" when a person is talking about the person IN the article, you need hot lead poured down your throat. Also, in case any of you need to go to school, because you have reached such a high level of ignorance that you (unlike me since I've been here before 2003) you need to understand the point of a definitional arguement. Don't share the enthymeme? Oh, I'm sorry you're an idiot. I'm trying to say that you are proving the historical accuracy and variables that constitute Susan Polgar as an entity via evidence. Please, please, please don't act like a dumby. p.s. Remind me to kill these bots. --Cyberman (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And, if any of you sophists want to stand up, how about talking about the "doctorate's" she earned? --Cyberman (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps if you stay here another five years you might even learn to spell. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to pursue quarrels or push opinions. (Sloan doesn't grasp NPOV, but you should.) If you can find a reputable published source in which Polgar "claims to have earned doctorates," you can include it. If you can find a reputable published source claiming the first source is wrong, you can include that two. This is nursery level. Eddore (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

More sophistry with if-then clauses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.125.21 (talk • contribs) April 15, 2008

Polgar has visited Lubbock in the past to meet with Texas Tech officials and the Ramirez Charter School Rooks chess team, an outreach program of the Knight Raiders. She spoke at Texas Tech's undergraduate commencement ceremonies Saturday, where the institute was announced. During the first commencement ceremony, she received an honorary doctoral degree of human letters.

"Ms. Polgar is a good friend of Texas Tech and our Knights Raiders chess team," said President Jon Whitmore during the commencement ceremony. "She is also one of the very best chess players in the world." - http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/news/stories/07-05-Polgar-institute.php

By the way, this is not a nursery. There is no such thing as NPOV. Everything has bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.125.21 (talk • contribs) April 15, 2008

If you really believe that, then almost by definition you are unfit to write here. The statement is nonsense anyway. What's your bias on the Axiom of Choice or the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Eddore (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuisance suit

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)

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)

I removed the lawsuit stuff. All civil cases involving Susan Polgar were settled/dimissed with no public order. There are no criminal charges or cases involving Susan Polgar. The rest of the USCF stuff in internal gossip typical of many organizations, and none of it amounted to anything notable in a historical or biographical sense. In the overarching context of Susan Polgar's chess career and achievements, it is painfully irrelevant internal business bickering. Ellie Dahl (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not personal differences

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)

Bankruptcy controversy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bribery claim

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Court win

Hasn`t she just won her court case ? needs updating?andycjp (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

The civil cases all were settled and/or dismissed. The USCF ended up paying Polgar around 40K in the settlement, but I don't think that even needs a mention in the article. There is no public award or order stating anything to either side, there is no criminal indictment of Polgar (or Paul Truong) and all this Sam Sloan litigation posting damage needs to be edited out of here IMHO. Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Felony Indictment case mentioning Secret Service, etc. has been dismissed

The last word on the crazed legal infighting between the USCF/Sam Sloan and Susuan Polgar in this article is a mention that a federal indictment came down from the Secret Service linking Polgar to computer/identity theft. That case evolved. Rather poorly for the government. A federal judge threw out the portion of the case suggesting any alleged criminal activity by Gregor Alexander rose to felony level, and the rest of the charges were dropped to misdemeanors. The judge's order is pretty scathing: Her ruling stated, “The indictment filed by the government in this case is as factually and legally deficient as any the court has seen in its experience.” Susan Polgar has never been charged with anything.

Left as it is, the bio page on Polgar suggests this felony case links her to felonious activity. This needs to be updated to reflect the serious downgrade of the case and the lack of charges against Polgar. Otherwise, her wiki bio page is smearing her.

Here is an article on the change in the case.

A copy of the federal order is available on pacer or at scribd here:

Can you tell I am a complete newbie? This is my attempt to sign and date this post: Ellie Dahl (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Hi Ellie, and thanks for the info. However, the problem is that neither of those sources mention Polgar--they only describe the courts finding of significant problems in the indictment of Alexander. However, I am concerned about the way this section is written, as we don't have a reliable secondary source asserting that Polgar was indicted. We have the amended complaint (currently ref 29) stating that Polgar was added to the civil case, but the problem is that, as a court filing, it falls under WP:PRIMARY and thus isn't a good source to use. The July 8, 2010 blog from NYT (currently source 38) connects her in a government filing, but doesn't seem to indicate that criminal charges were filed against her. So I'm at a bit of a loss about what to do--I am worried that we are "saying too much" about this issue and wrongly implying more than our sources say.

Because of the potential harmful effects of leaving up badly sourced, negative information, and not having currently accurate information, I'm going to temporarily comment out this section of the article. Then we can continue to discuss the issue here and come up with careful and accurate phrasing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - I wholly agree too much is said on this topic in this bio. I actually came here to update the bio with unrelated information about Susan Polgar and the Texas Tech chess team winning the 2011 College Final Four last month. All this stuff about the USCF litigation in this bio is extreme. The USCF/Polgar litigation was started by that Sam Sloan guy, and after years of craziness, all the civil cases settled and the court told Sam Sloan to quit filing stuff. I can get that doc for you for verification, but it doesn't need to go in here. The criminal claims also amount to nothing related here. Susan Polgar has not been indicted for anything. All these excessive postings about the USCF stuff is really crazy. None of it is all that relevant to Susan Polgar as a public figure. The lawsuits were internal bickering within the USCF and went no where. The prominence of this topic in this bio, and the commentary on this talk page, show a bunch of people involved in the litigation apparently trying to litigate it here. I am concerned this bio page reads like a USCF indictment of Polgar and is of little to no interest to people looking for her bio. In my newbie opinion, and as a fresh pair of eyes, I recommend any reference to Susan Polgar and the USCF be reduced to "Polgar served on the board of the USCF from ___ to ____ but was voted out after internal disputes." That's about all this stuff really merits. I also recommend it not be in the lead paragraph. Will post the Final Four stuff for review here after I have some more coffee and hope to become a contributor to more articles than just this one =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, the trouble with sourcing the criminal case is that the accusation of linking Polgar to the case was printed and ref'd here [currently ref 38), but there is no article about Susan Polgar NOT facing criminal charges, even though that is the true factual state of things per the court docket/documents. The accusation continues to be printed as fact on blogs, etc with reference to this wikipedia page as the source, and the inability to remove the accusation without kicking off a revert war is troublesome. How to prove a negative?

I have concerns about the libel aspect here, especially considering the main source for the accusation material against Polgar is Samuel H. Sloan. Mr. Sloan has already recently been hit with an (unrelated libel) judgment in California. I am citing that legal document here, not for publishing on Wiki, but for credibility concerns about Mr. Sloan. See [1]. Ellie Dahl (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Sloan is credible is irrelevant, as he's not the source from a WP perspective--it's the newspapers, etc. that are sources. In any event I'll have to look into this in more detail later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up that section to match the sources we have available as best as I can. If anyone else has other reliable sources, please let me know; or, if anyone has other concerns about this BLP, please let me know. Additionally, I remind everyone of two facts: 1) WP:BLP requires that we be extra cautious with negative information about living people, and 2) BLP also applies on talk pages, so we need to be careful not to disparage people here, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Polgar takes Texas Tech to Victory in 2011 College Chess Final Four

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.

Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

References

btw - I want to create a small Texas Tech Knight Raiders page for their chess team to link to this post. Is that a worthy article considering they just won this title? I'm too new to start a new article on my own without some guidance and can sandbox it. Oh, and no litigation there =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Updated Photo - the other was overexposed - 2nd newbie attempt

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)

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)

Going to change the picture on this page to a better quality image. The image is from pictures released by Polgar to the public domain, and express permission is given here: http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/05/public-domain-pictures-available-for.html Ellie Dahl (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 2 paragraphs from Executive board member section

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)

Edited the sentence structure regarding the USCF's obligation for attorneys fees in the lawsuits. Before, it sounded like the USCF was awarded $131,000. In reality, the USCF paid (through insurance) it's own court costs and had to pay Polgar's court costs. Substance and citation are the same. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In paragraph 2 why are the unproven Sam Sloan allegations described in detail? His case was thrown out of court. This section should say "alleging misconduct" in a generic sense, or it has the effect of giving the unproven allegations the same effect as proof of them would - it tarnishes Polgar's reputation. Just because the allegations were printed in a newspaper does not make them factually true. In the interest of fairness and the Wiki policy on allegations in LPBs, I plan to edit this section to less inflammatory language unless someone objects. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: While not proper for citation for the article, this is the actual federal court docket text regarding the case: " Filed & Entered: 02/11/2010 Judgment Docket Text: JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the Court's order of even date,IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all of Plaintiff Susan Polgar'sclaims against Sam Sloan and all of Sam Sloan's claims against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are hereby DISMISSED. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 2/11/2010) (ebc) "

Sloan's attempts to continue the case via appeal were subsequently denied. For these reasons, I believe including the details of Sloan's dimsissed allegations against Polgar on her page violates Wiki policy WP:HARM#TEST and NPOV Ellie Dahl (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation problem: The Sam Sloan case in paragraph 2 was dismissed in 2008 as described in the article, and the citation discusses that. However, Sloan continued to try to pursue the same claim again and again in several courts. All were dismissed. The final dismissal of all of Sam Sloan's claims against Susan Polgar came in Texas. While we cannot cite court documents, the document is here: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/175173/1413253265/name/appeal-to-fifth-circuit.pdf

So the description of the suit in paragraph 2 and the dismissal and citation happened in 2008, but were superseded by subsequent identical claims, filings and dismissals throughout 2009 and 2010, culminating in all of Sloan's claims being dismissed. The final dismissal in 2010 states clearly the reason for dismissing Sam Sloan's allegations are because he could not, after the court gave him numerous opportunities, present the court with a definitive allegation of legal wrongdoing by Susan Polgar. The court actually refers to Sloan's allegations as "ramblings".

For this reason,I intend to correct the information in the article to mention that Sloan filed a lawsuit alleging misconduct, but the claims were dismissed by the court(s). Will edit the article w/in 24-48 hours of this post. Please feel free to comment or advise. Ellie Dahl (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Made language changes for compliance with Wiki policy WP:HARM#TEST and NPOV as proposed above. Substance is the same, language is now generic to avoid harm of unproven allegations. If someone feels a need to challenge the changes, please provide court ruling proving allegations against Polgar as fact, because so far judges in courts in at least five states have thrown those out of court. And you lovely people who have come behind me and tidied up my grammar or technical errors are a gift from the gods. Many Thanks! Ellie Dahl (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed language regarding USCF legal disputes from intro paragraph. It is redundant and given undue weight by insertion in first paragraph. The same information is contained in the last section under Executive Board of the USCF. Ellie Dahl (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

I think mentioning she was an exec board member from 2007 - 2008 for the lead covers it. The explanation about her term, the lawsuit, etc, has a section devoted to it. In the grand scheme of themes, it isn't really a defining moment of her career/life. It probably is for Sam Sloan, but Polgar was a huge international chess celebrity for decades before the USCF thing. It's like Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping the cop. Sure, you've heard of it - but that's not why she is famous. Do I get extra credit for using another Hungarian celebrity as an exmample? lol Ellie Dahl (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is clear from the citations and documents that what happened with the USCF is Sam Sloan lost the election to Polgar, then filed suit, everyone got dragged in, and when Susan filed her counter suit for defamation - the four board members named in the suit voted her off the board. Which wasn't proper. She challenged it and then, after the suits had dragged on, the USCF ratified the move to remove her the following year. At the end of it all, the settlement severed ties, mutually. They washed their hands of each other and Polgar went on to be the Chairperson of the Women's Commission at FIDE (World Chess Federation). Her membership with USCF was rescinded in retaliation - so using the word "stripped' is really inflammatory. It evokes an athlete being "Stripped of her medal" for wrongdoing. That's not fair, nor is it neutral, nor is it factual here. I am going to rewrite that part in the lead section to a more neutral statement. Please feel free to check. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Did some minor cleanups - no substantive changes. Added a citation, moved a sentence around, deleted one sentence that said the same thing the sentence before it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie Dahl (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone really care when the Exec board took office and where? In first paragraph. Seems very trivial? Will delete unless someone else finds that exciting. Ellie Dahl (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Books authored

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)

Hiding the answer

WP:Spoiler says, "Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." The very fact that there is a chess problem implies a solution is included; we may not hide the solution with the Hidden Text template. This was a site-wide decision (I think a few years back) that said that, as an encyclopedia, our job is to provide complete information, not to hide some of it because some readers don't want the "surprise" spoiled. Thus, the solution to the problem cannot be hidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You quoted WP:SPOILER when reverting my change, which used the {{HiddenMultiLine}} template to "hide" the solution the single Polgar chess problem in the article. I think that is so inappropriate! For several reasons.

1. SPOILER talks about deleting info from an article. I deleted nothing.
2. SPOILER says "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work [...] that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may 'spoil' the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself." For a chess problem, the problem IS the "work itself"! So what would the phrase "rather than" in the just-quoted sentence refer to or apply to? (Answer: Nothing.) So what SPOILER is describing, does not fit here. (It is not the same. It does not apply.)
3. Logically, if you were *right* about your revert, then you should have a problem on the larger scale, about the template {{HiddenMultiLine}}. Logically to you, that template should not exist, for it it is always in violation of SPOILER. But the chess community disagrees with that, or the template wouldn't exist! If you want to back up your revert, then let's see you support an RfD for the template!
4. For an article to get to FA status, it has to be at least somewhat enjoyable to read. The Polgar problem is a chess problem for Christ's sake! (In fact, I was reading the Polgar article myself for my own enlightenment and enjoyment. When I came across the 2-mover, I was excited to try and solve it, since Polgar was only FOUR YEARS OLD when she composed that problem. So I thought I could find the answer quite easily, but, it was taking more seconds to do so than I first predicted it would! And the point is, I got the idea to "hide" the solution, because having it staring at me bug-eyed in the face, while trying to avoid looking at it, was a big nuisance. [In fact, what I did was, fire-up my Microsoft calculator, because I knew it "floats" over anything else, and I floated it over the printed solution, so it would no longer distract me as I continued working the problem. That is how and why I had idea to use the template to cover the answer - so other readers, like myself, wouldn't be distracted should they decide out of curiosity or fun, to work the problem while reading the article.])

Don't you think your arbitrary enforcement of SPOILER was a rather shallow, "fire-from-the-hip" reaction? (Because I certainly do.) The fact that you misinterpret policy to make a destructive revert with impunity as you did, makes me wonder if you have a "value rules above all else"-type personality. (If so then join the army!)

Your decision to revert in this case was, for me, clearly shallowly thought out, and dead wrong. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My response, copied from my talk page: :I quoted the relevant portion of WP:Spoiler on the talk page; in short, not only does that guideline say that we can't delete info to avoid spoiling info, we also don't use disclaimers or other methods to hide the info. This is a long established, site wide guideline. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS a local group (say, those interested in Chess articles, or a wikiproject if there is one) cannot override site-wide policies and guidelines. I happen to agree with the guideline, as well--I don't believe any information on Wikipedia should be hidden, because it's an inevitable slippery slope ("This movie isn't interesting at all if you know the end"..."Giving this info makes it too easy to beat this video game"..."This info is offensive to my religion"...). We're not a site for entertainment of individuals: we provide information. Finally, your point about the template is misplaced--it could well be that the template is basically designed only for use only outside of article-space. As a similar example, WP:MOS explicitly forbids the use of decorative quotations in articles, but we have a template, Template:cquote that exists specifically to do just that (it's the one that puts big blue quotes around block quotes). Why do we have it? Because it's useful in many articles in Wikipedia-space, like policies and guidelines. Now, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll stop reverting, and we can find a way to handle the dispute via dispute resolution. Maybe we can start with a Third opinion, if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing: so if you think my additional explanation is still wrong (that somehow WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't apply here), please explain, and then I can ask for a third opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First, like I said, I deleted nothing. Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. You are ignoring what I've said already ... the chess problem *is* the "work". (Your comparisons to a movie, or video game, don't work. Those are outside works. A chess problem has nothing "outside" itself, therefore nothing outside itself to spoil.) For example, regarding a movie, including info on a plot twist in the WP article does not jeopardize the enjoyment of reading the WP article, it jeopardizes the enjoyment of the outside work SHOULD THE READER DECIDE TO GO THERE. But there is no "deciding to go there" with chess problems. They are not identical situations. Only superficially. You are "force-fitting" chess problems into the policy based on your shallow read. (It is over-compulsion to enforce policy, and you are trying to do it where it doesn't apply, where there is a distinct but ignored difference.)

Let me illustrate the fallacy-trap your compulsion for rule enforcement has lead you into ... According to WP:SPOILER, if you read it, the "spoiler" info must will not be hidden or removed from the article. Fine. But the spoiler info we are talking about, is already, by definition, notable (or, it wouldn't be in the article to begin with). Okay, now speed-forward to the chess problem solution. By FORCING the solution to show, you are in effect saying the solution info is notable. But ... is it? (Who says? For sure, a chess problem and its solution, are paired together like a joke and its punch-line. But the info in the article is that Polgar composed a problem. The editor who added the problem thought he would show the problem position. Was that necessary and notable? Perhaps. The editor also added the problem solution, because they go together like peas in a pod. But, is it absolutely notable? Says who? Why are you demanding that the solution is notable? Back to the movie comparison, a plot twist was decided notable, over many other scenes from the movie. For some reason of judgement. But for chess problems, you automatically assume the solution was included on a similar judgement basis, i.e. notability, when in fact there is no judgement process alive in the inclusion at all ... it is second nature to include a solution with a problem, just like tipping your hat requires both hat (problem) and hand (solution). There is no determinative/judgement process that exists. WP:SPOILER is all about what has been judged to be notable. You are FORCING notability on a chess problem solution, just by virtue the editor included it, but the editor included it because it is a natural thing to do, like send the punch-line along with the joke. [The secret to a magic trick, however, is generally *not* automatically paired with the trick. So in a WP article about a Houdini trick where he might levitate a human body, it would not be natural or automatic, for the editor including mention of the trick in a WP article, to also include the secret behind it.])

The point I've already made: you are comparing apples to oranges. You are force-fitting the chess problems into a "movie mold", which is not the same thing. The spoiler infos appear for different reasons, different purposes, and the notability criteria you are assuming to be the same, is only by virture that you are forcing it to be so, by ignoring a subtle but important difference.

The same difference spills over to the enjoyment issue. WP is not here to provide entertainment. That is why a WP article summarizing a movie, can't possibly be as entertaining as the outside work itself, and also doesn't try to be, though it has potential for spoilers. But you can't possibly "summarize" a chess problem! You have the entire "movie" right there in the diagram (if the diagram for the problem has been decided to be included in the article). WP, in spite of itself, cannot "try" or "not try" to present an entire "movie" or "novel" (i.e. chess problem), if a problem diagram is included in the article. The entire work is presented in defacto entirety (if the problem diagram is included). (So, since it is "all there" without choice, with no opportunity to summarize, then a policy like WP:SPOILER would never have even developed, if WP was only about chess problems! [Which proves again, you are attempting to force-fit chess problems, into a policy environment not designed for it.])

Your argument that the template I used for the chess problem: "it could well be that the template is basically designed only for use only outside of article-space", shows that you don't know, and that you are guessing. I've seen the template used in other WP chess articles. I would guess the opposite of your guess. (But let's not contest our "guesses" here, okay? If someone from WikiProject Chess knows, then let them tell us. Or is there a way to do a search, to learn where the template is used, by a number count? Then we'd have some fact to go by. [I personally don't know how to run such a search.])

The only argument I can see for not hiding the problem solution, is if someone prints the WP article to paper. (But again, who is demanding the solution must be notable? You? The editor who included it? The solution went along with the problem, by second nature, unlike spoiler info in a movie or novel which was decided to be included in an article because it had special notability. The deterministic processes are not the same. Therefore they should not be mandated or ruled the same, either. It is okay to print a chess problem without a solution. It's possible to reproduce the problem solution, thru solving it. Nothing "mandates" the solution to be printable, unless the solution is independently examined for notability itself, and, that never happens in the entire environment of chess problems. [Just asking the question, "Is the solution for *this* chess problem notable, versus *that* problem?" is non-sensical and bizarre, in the field of chess problems. It is not non-sensical or bizarre, in the field of movies, novels, etc.].)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, relative to your suppose that "... your point about the template is misplaced--it could well be that the template is basically designed only for use only outside of article-space.", at WikiProject Chess#Diagrams, annotation and notation it reveals that Project Chess intended greater use of the template than "outside of article-space": Template:HiddenMultiLine is handy for the captions of chess diagrams as it allows you to hide part of the caption, e.g. a game continuation or problem solution. FYI, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COLLAPSE Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not be used to hide article content. I think this is a clear enough statement. Projects cannot override WP:MOS, of which this is a part. Ihardlythinkso, I recommend that you do not revert again, as you will have exceeded WP:3RR and are likely to be blocked for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the one violating WP policy by reverting while an item is in Talk trying to get consensus! Stop threatenting me or I'll complain what you did!

What you think is "clear" is nothing more than a shallow read on your part. "Content" means notable info. Who says the problem solution to the Polgar chess problem was decided as notable? You? The editor who added the problem? He/she wasn't performing an evaluative judgement what is/is not notable, as are plot twists in a movie, or other spoiler info addressed by WP:SPOILER for outside-WP works. (A chess problem in a diagram is not an "outside" work. It is defacto in its entirety. Why don't you read the policies you are so zealous to enforce? And why don't you read this Talk before you go shoving your weight and making threats?) You have added nothing to the Talk discussion here. Please only write something if you have somehing to contribute. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No pet, content means content, not what you want it to mean, and you appear to be the one throwing your weight about. WP:COLLAPSE is short and nice and sweet - you may not use a collapse box to hide content in an article. You cannot create a consensus on this page that goes against that nice short little statement. I suggest you revert yourself as you appear to be edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your name-calling here, and on my Talk, is condescending and baiting. (What gives you the right? Who the H do you think you are?)

By "weight", of course it meant you are Admin, and as such have block capability, etc. (Which you already proved by threatening me w/ block on my Talk page, contrary to WP guideline on aggressive behavior).

Content means notable. Just because info is currently in an article, doesn't mean it got there from someone deliberately deciding it was notable. Problem solutions always accompany chess problems if they can, without thinking much about it. This is unlike the evaluative process necessary to decide inclusion of spoiler material about a movie, ala WP:SPOILER.

You've been calling me a condescending name and threatened me on my Talk outside WP guideline. Your discussion here doesn't add much except word "no". You reverted even while a consensus discussion was already initiated. Are you here to be disruptive and abusive? Please go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The hysterical tone does not help reasonable discussion. Calling someone "pet" is common in the north of England; it's usually used by women to men. It does not imply condescension. On the contrary it's part of the relatively classless culture of the area and freedom from conventional gender hierarchy. It's usually best when you add "EEEEE" in front of it. In the North East they call men "pet" and women refer to each-other as "man". Civilisation is unknown! Paul B (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I saw no evidence she was here for "reasonable discussion" (did you?). (What did she contribute, except snobbery? She tried to box me up and ship me out. Funny again, check the noticeboard link! - Where will her self-assured infallibility go now?) Thx for British background re "pet", I appreciate, I did *not* assume a British point of origin. (In American English, unless between friends or in flirtation, it'd be considered a glib, condescending insult.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why we have to assume good faith isn't it - when we aren't aware of cultural nuances. Instant outrage does not help. I could shout for paragraphs on the evils of ranting. What "snobbery"? Her comment was that guideline is clear and simple. Agree or not, it's a valid comment. The point is not to escalate matters. Paul B (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of snobbery: "No pet, content means content, not what you want it to mean, and you appear to be the one throwing your weight about. WP:COLLAPSE is short and nice and sweet - you may not use a collapse box to hide content in an article. You cannot create a consensus on this page that goes against that nice short little statement. I suggest you revert yourself as you appear to be edit warring." (Suggesting I revert myself! After being deaf and non-responsive to any discussion point I made, and I made six, some extensive. And reverting my edit, presumably to create a 3RR problem for me, and ONLY THEN going to Talk page, where a consensus discussion had previously been initiated.) I can understand the British "pet", but in general that familiarity wasn't appropriate, as she was attempting to bully me. I have a threat from her on my User page, contracry to WP guideline re aggressive behavior, which when I complained, she responded glibly about again (using "pet" again). Even the way she opened the issue on noticeboard was condescending towards me, suggesting she only "need[ed] someone else besides [her]" to set me straight. (Have you seen the noticeboard? Her unrivaled sense of infallibility was not justified. A little less ego and a little more humility would be good. The nature of the developing resolution on the noticeboard clearly is flowing from a truer understanding of the nature of chess problems, than was displayed here by the reverters.) I'm done re topic of Elen, it has strayed from purpose of the Discussion board. Thx again for your linguistic insights, however. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The authors of WP:SPOILERS weren't thinking about chess composition problems. They are different by their very nature since what you see, is the complete work. A solution is not a "spoiler" it is a "destroyer". It is not an "outside" work, it is complete if defined in a diagram. An accompanying solution is not independently determined notable or not, like spoiler info about a movie or novel. Clearly, WP:SPOILERS was not conceived or defined or developed, with chess composition problems being part of the pic in the slightest. It is apples and oranges. The blind interpretation of policy, based on the fact the word "text" appears in WP:SPOILERS and the chess problem solution is itself "text", makes about as much sense that I should stack filled ice-cube trays with my books on a bookself, because they are both slender, rectangular objects. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Susan_Polgar_Hiding_in_plain_sight

I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC for Collapse boxes on chess problems to see if there is consensus that chess (etc.) problems constitute a reasonable exception to the general guideline forbidding hidden text/collapse box. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are correct: Articles should not have collapsed content as that would lead to various unencyclopedic tendencies (and difficulties for printed editions). On the other hand, it is thoughtless to put the solution in a place where it is impossible to not read it since any chess player would want to think about the puzzle for a moment before having the solution thrust in their face (that was my reaction). The solution is simple: Add a footnote without any fanfare (no "click here to see the solution"—just a numbered footnote). At the footnote, put "Solution:...". Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, there exists a number of uses of "hide"/"show" already in some rather mature articles, for use not to depict chess problem composition solutions, but rather brilliant or difficult game continuations. For examples of these, please see articles Mikhail Botvinnik (contains two such game continuations), Wilhelm Steinitz (one), and Alexander Alekhine (one game continuation in "Notable chess games" section, plus a problem composition in the same article). And I'm sure there are other article examples besides these. In addition, besides game continuations and problem compositions, there is an additional use of "hide"/"show" demonstrated in the mature article Emanuel Lasker – a diagram about the Rice Gambit. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying chess problem section

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)

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)

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)

Lead

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)

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)

I'm looking at Kasparov's page to get a feel for how hers should layout. Ellie Dahl (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Titles

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)

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)

Thanks for the help! She has a huge list of achievement in chess - they aren't even all properly on the page here. But I figure most people looking for her on Wiki are looking for the titles, medals and unusual chess achievements most of all, so I started filling in the lead. Your organization works much better.Ellie Dahl (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)