Talk:K. K. Karanja

Fame
Is it possible that at least one achievement that K. K. Karanja had be considered in a race-independent fashion? aigiqinf (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish, but it looks like it isn't possible, and as a result, the article is an unreadable mess of racial self congratulation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.182.198 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely untrue; Karanja's achievements are pioneering, regardless of his race. The fact that he is African-American makes them only more noteworthy; just as the fact that Steffi Graf or Chris Evert are women make them a noteworthy tennis players. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted-edits rationale
I have reverted an editor who hasn't followed consensus on another page, and engaging in edit-warring by continuing to edit in uncited claims, personal opinion, and WP:PEACOCK terms such as "prestigious", as well as removing citation-request tags.

We all have to following Wikipedia policy. Please do not re-add this material without good-faith discussion here. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have followed Wiki policy. You have no right to remove my information unless you can show that the references I cite do not support the claims I have made -- that is why the citation tags do not belong here. It is you who are engaging in a war by distorting this page, not me. I will now re-add the material on this page. --Shotcallerballerballer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be clear
It seems some editors think being brown is sufficient reason to tout what are otherwise mediocre accomplishments, easily rivaled and frequently exceeded. Just so I'm clear, is it that being brown makes one's otherwise non-noteworthy accomplishments suddenly more important? Or is the point that brown people need to be held to a lower standard? I'm just having a hard time understanding why something as irrelevant as pigmentation is the dominant theme in this article about an otherwise unimportant chess player.97.104.182.198 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)no, i don't sign, thanks for asking, but no

First of all, drawing Kasparov (the greatest chessplayer of all-time) in a simul while he was world champion, winning the National Elementary Championship, and winning the Laura Aspis Prize are not "mediocre" accomplishments, regardless of gender, age, or race. Secondly, being a pioneer is noteworthy. Is Arthur Ashe not noteworthy because he didn't win as many Grans Slams as Rod Laver? Of course not. Part of his noteworthiness is that he paved the way for future African-Americans to play tennis. Karanja's accomplishments and legacy in chess in the United States are similar. Pigmentation is not irrelevant; it was the basis of a horrid aspect of the history of the United States -- slavery -- which has left indelible disparities which are only slowly being overcome, even now in the 21st century.

This is not about holding anyone or any group of people to a lower standard; it is about recognizing pioneers, who are by definition noteworthy. Please reply if you have any further questions. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur Ashe won three Grand Slam titles; he would be noteworthy whether he were white, black, or purple. Similarly, Maurice Ashley happens to be African-American, but is noteworthy as a chess Grandmaster irrespective of his race. I know of no other chess player in Wikipedia whose peak rating was 2200 and whose career ended at age 16. Being a flash in the pan does not, to my mind, make one notable. Krakatoa (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is the first of their race to accomplish a major feat is notable, regardless of how long their brilliance lasted. Apart from being African-American, Ashley would not be noteworthy as a chess player; there are hundreds of grandmasters in the world, and the vast majority of them have higher FIDE ratings than Ashley. Ashley is notable because he was the first of his race to become a GM. Karanja's feats are impressive regardless of race, but even moreso because of his race. That is why his career is notable, and why his page should not be deleted. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Members of WikiProject Chess consider chess grandmasters, including Ashley, to be pretty much per se notable. Race is a social construct, and I don't agree that the first person of a "race" (however exactly that is defined - the first Hispanic National Master, the first Asian National Master, the first Eskimo National Master, the first Native American Master, . . . ) to accomplish a major feat (however exactly that is defined) is notable. Krakatoa (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue that "only" four African-Americans becoming All-Americans is off-putting and actually inaccurate. There is no reason to list all of the people who have done so since one would have to keep updating the article so that it will remain accurate. The source from The Chess Drum citing three of the All-Americans was written many years ago and it is better to delete the reference altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaim777 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Theophilus Thompson
Is Theophilus Thompson considered a prodigy? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No he is not, because as stated on the Wiki page for Chess prodigy: "Chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat Masters and even Grandmasters, often at a very young age".

Hence, Karanja was a prodigy (being a Candidate Master at age 10 and drawing with the World Champion in a simul while still a teenager), while Thompson was not, because his exploits did not occur until after childhood. Similar to why Maurice Ashley was not a prodigy. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Delete?
Why not just rewrite the article entirely? 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is notability, and that wouldn't change with a rewrite. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've began a rewrite of the article, and hopefully will remove the offending weasel words. I feel that Karanja is still notable, as a pioneer in the Chess world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.103.161 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm using the username Newchess now. Will continue to work hard. Newchess (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrites
I've began working on this article and I figure I could use some help doing a rewrite. I'm not the most knowledgeable person and definitely not the most gifted wikipedian. | Newchess21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Newchess (talk • contribs)

Book?
I searched for a book by K. K. and I couldn't find any. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy one, it's said in an existimg reference. I read it before. SunCreator (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw in one of the references that he wrote a book, but I can't find any information about said book - title, date, ISBN, etc. For instance, Bookfinder doesn't list it. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The chessdrum article combines the book mention with 'does a lot of chess promotion in Kenya' - so a book released in Kenya? Would that explain why it doesn't show up in the book search system. SunCreator (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be - my Bookfinder search only looked for English books. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article survives the AfD, I don't think it needs a section "Books" unless some details are known - that can be combined with the last sentence of the previous section. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it may as well be improved now. SunCreator (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he wrote a book but it wasn't published. IF that is the case, I don't think it needs to be in the article.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)