Talk:Beth Harmon

Reviewer Notes
This fictional protagonist does appear to be individually notable as a fictional character. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

However, there previously was an article on Beth Harmon, which was cut down to a redirect by User:Onel5969. This draft is longer than the version in the history. I think that there is more than a 50% chance that this draft, as an article, will be kept if there is an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A history merge will be required. This comment was unsigned. CapnZapp (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The following talk section might be of interest: Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Beth Harmon article
Hi guys I was thinking. Why Beth Harmon doesn’t have her own article. Don’t you think she deserve to have one I mean. Beth Harmon is one of the most interesting characters who deserve to have her own page due to the themes she represent. The Netflix series has become also one of the most watched so, why no let her have her own page. Don’t you think will be a little be fair to let her have hero own article?? Alvrix3104 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"After AfD" discussion
Now that the recent AfD has been closed as no consensus, it's tempting to think it tells you there's a roughly even split between keep and merge not-votes. In that case I'd like to remind everybody that for the purposes of AfD you do not need to actually justify a keep not-vote. Such a not-vote is really just only a not-vote against deletion. "Are there more than zero RS covering the subject? Yes. Okay, done deal, keep."

But there is a different discussion to be had: Does the few available sources merit/justify a standalone article, or is Wikipedia better served by merging the article into the main article? The "main article" clearly here being The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) and not The Queen's Gambit (novel) - 99% of sources are dated post-Netflix and discuss the show exclusively.

This time, arguments to keep can be analyzed and scrutined to sort out the ones only intended as not-deletes from the ones actually arguing for keep. It makes such a discussion imo much more worthwhile to have. We're going from ">0 sources so keep, duh!" to actually questioning if there really are enough content to support a stand-alone article, and thus also scrutinizing the sources on the page. (At least in the beginning of the article page history many sources were pure FANCRUFT, and indeed this was also the stated reason for the AfD nomination).

(At this point, this is all I wanted to say. Actually nominating the article for a merge is a distinctly different step. At least for me - if you want to do it right away, have at it!)

Best regards and thank you for reading, CapnZapp (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I !voted merge, but I'm trying to think of legitimate ways the article could be expanded. Vera Menchik is another real-life player to whom Beth Harmon has been compared . There are quotes from Magnus Carlsen praising how the focus is on Harmon's playing abilities rather than her gender . And chess.com launched a Beth Harmon Bot to play against.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

the Polgar connection
User:TJRC wrote (as an edit summary) " there doesn't seem to have been anyone suggesting Polgár was the inspiration; the prior text was apparently to provide some context that the novel was written before Polgár's rise, but was kind of WP:SYNTHy anyway"
 * I would say more articles have compared Harmon to Polgarġ than any other chess player. The reason that sentence was there (in my edited shape or the previous one) was because many readers will come to the article looking for verification/refutation of any Polgar connection. Yes, despite the obvious chronological impossibility. In my mind a more constructive edit than to remove it would be to ask for sources verifying the "While others have suggested Judit Polgár as a potential inspiration" claim (since there'd be loads of such articles). I also invite you to rewrite the sentence in a way that meets your de-SYNTHed standards rather than outright removing it. I would agree most articles only suggest the connection by comparing the two (without outright claiming H was based on P). That still drives readers here, so I edited it rather than removed it. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's dubious unsourced speculation. It's more constructive to remove it. TJRC (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TJRC, let me try this one more time: In the wake of the Netflix show, lots of articles compared Harmon to Polgar. It is likely readers will come here with the question on their minds "is Harmon based on Polgar?" Do you now see how non-plussed I might be when you tersely write "It's dubious unsourced speculation. It's more constructive to remove it." as if you haven't listened at all? CapnZapp (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are lots of such articles (presumably in reliable sources), feel free to re-add the statement, citing at least one of the lots. TJRC (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. But I would like to remind you Beth Harmon is not a BLP article, so next time please don't instantly remove statements you feel aren't sufficiently sourced, especially when opposed on the talk page, TJRC. Instead, once you have understood the reasons why that statement was there and acknowledged the validity of those reasons, perhaps improve it instead of deleting it? CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm going to add it back. I will assume in good faith that if you feel it is still, say, "SYNTHy" (in your parlance) I will assume we agree you will tag it or improve it but not again remove it. CapnZapp (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The prior text read "[Tevis] also said he found it more interesting to write a female character, and that there was no particular reason a woman couldn't become a world class player. This was before the rise of Judit Polgár." That gratuitous sentence about Polgár is the the editor's own surmise about her influence or lack thereof. That's what was synthy.
 * As I said, I have no problem with the text you proposed, provided it was supported by references.
 * On the text you added, the Hungary Today cite supports the assertion, so I have no issue with it. The Town & Country reference does not (it mentions Polgár, but does not suggest that the character was based on her or than anyone else says it was based on her; in fact, to the contrary, it says she would have made a good model for the character, but was not sufficiently prominent for that to have been likely). I don't know about the Times source; it's paywalled for me, but I'll rely on your assessment. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The T & C source was to verify exactly that, that she was "not sufficiently prominent" as you put it. I assumed you would have reverted me if I did not verify both the speculation and the claims it was wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As User:TJRC correctly surmised, the point of mentioning Polgar was not to imply that she was an inspiration for or in any way connected with Beth Harmon (obviously she wasn't), it was to put Tevis's remark that a woman could challenge the top players into its historical context. In 1983, no woman had been competitive at top level chess (not even Gaprindashvili) and it was a controversial opinion to suggest that there was no inherent reason why it couldn't happen. Many male GM's (e.g. Kasparov) thought it was impossible. Noting that he made the remark before the rise of Judit Polgar was a "parenthetical" comment; I debated whether or not to include it and didn't mind it being removed. But a RS noting how prescient Tevis was in that remark would be most welcome.
 * Not sure what you mean by "(obviously she wasn't)". We all agree she wasn't. That did not prevent widespread speculation she was. In many cases she wasn't directly claimed to be his inspiration - but the fact Harmon has been compared to Polgar many many times is enough for us to bring up the subject. Our readers expect to find verification/refutation of such a widespread claim. CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way I'm very disappointed with the standard of journalism at Tatler. It's supposed to be a well established magazine for high society types, but these days they just write junk listicles. For starters, Lanni was never on the cover of Sports Illustrated (Lisa Lane was), Lanni was briefly quoted in a 1985 SI article about women and chess but that's all. The Tatler article is obviously based on the batgirl article and Shahade podcast, but it introduced errors of fact. It is a poor source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If the point of the previous phrasing "This was before the rise of Judit Polgár" was merely to say "Tevis wrote his book before there was a top-tier woman player" that wasn't conveyed clearly enough (or sourced for that matter). Anyway, my edit was prompted by how it did not address the much more obvious and immediate link: that the premiere of the Netflix show gave rise to a notable wave of speculation that Harmon was based on Polgar. By the way please stop attacking the quality of my submitted sources. Their role is only to verify that indeed this speculation took place, added specifically at the request of TJRC. Since the speculation is obviously wrong, of course the quality of the sources can be debated. But we're not using them to verify facts! Anyway, if you have better sources, feel free to use them instead. So far you have successfully prevented others (me) from improving the article - now remains the other half of your job, to replace it with something you *can* agree on. CapnZapp (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm totally ok with not mentioning Polgar, and I'm even more ok with not mixing up Judit and Zsuzsa/Susan. After all the text makes it clear that Tevis explicitly denied Harmon (or any other of his characters) were directly inspired by anyone. I stand by my assessment of the Tatler article. It's bollocks. Tell you what I'll remove the mention of Tevis's remark that a woman could compete with the top players. It's interesting, it's prescient, and it'as at least peripherally relevant to the article, but it's not worth edit warring over. Screw it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: assuming this was directed at me, I'm confused. I haven't mixed up Judith and Susan (AFAIK)? I am not defending the Tatler article's accuracy - I am pointing out it was supplied because I was asked to verify the claim "Polgar has been suggested as the inspiration for Harmon". I haven't contested any of Tevis' remarks? I have no problems with us pointing out there were no Judith Polgar caliber women players during Tevis' time. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I am stating a preference for or against is that it feels entirely natural for this article to present an overview of significant suggestions as to influences and inspirations: Lanni, Fischer, Polgar just to mention three off the top of my head. The fact Tevis denies any such influences and inspirations does not mean they weren't suggested or notable. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You did mix up Susan and Judith to the extent that you added (or restored, whichever) the text "or had even immigrated to the United States." It was Susan Polgar that settled in the US; Judith stayed in Hungary.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, that explains that. CapnZapp (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)