Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries)/Archive 1

trimmed
The Ep 2 write up is just right, is does NOT need to be trimmed. KymFarnik (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Chess-world's response
You removed and then "partially restored" an edit, but the interesting part wasn't the Netflix data - it was the response from the chess world. CapnZapp (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was written by a user of the website on a user-based website. Anyone could written the article. How could it be a reliable source if the website itself is a user-based website? — Young Forever (talk)   22:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's something that might help us add a proper paragraph on chess' respons to the series:
 * Here's something that might help us add a proper paragraph on chess' respons to the series:

https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2020-11_nov-chess-life.pdf
 * CapnZapp (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a reliable source as it is a Chess magazine with staff writers. — Young Forever (talk)   23:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorporating it now CapnZapp (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Shahade's chess title
Flyer22 Frozen gave no reason for reversion and does not engage on talk page. As seen in her Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Shahade), Jennifer Shahade's title is Woman Grandmaster, not Grandmaster. The differences in titles is also linked on her page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Woman_Grandmaster_(WGM)). As seen on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_chess_players) Jennifer Shahade is not one of 37 females who hold the Grandmaster title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6340:1420:25AC:5231:A424:83FD (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You will also find her in this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_woman_grandmasters) but not this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_grandmasters). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6340:1420:25AC:5231:A424:83FD (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Twitter as a source - not a best practice
Please see WP:TWITTER. There is no need to add information here on what random person x or y (even if they are notable) thought about this show - and the cited policy actively discourages this anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Shahade isn't a random person. She is a Woman Grandmaster, not some random chess player FYI. It can be replace with: . Vanity Fair did an interview with her about the series. Young Forever (talk)   08:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What WP:TWITTER says is that tweets can absolutely be used as a source, as long as certain criteria are met. CapnZapp (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The main criteria is that the Twitter post is from a verified account with a checkmark next to their name. If it is not, it cannot be use as a reliable source. That is because anyone can pretend to be someone else easily on social media accounts. However, if there is a better source to replace the Twitter post (even from a verified Twitter account) such as the one I provided above, then it is recommended to use a better source. Please see WP:Twitter-EL for a more detail explanation. — Young Forever (talk)   20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:YoungForever: WP:Twitter-EL is an essay, not policy or a guideline. I did see the hatnote pointing to it at WP:TWITTER, but since essays are of very variable quality decided not to bother checking it out. Please don't make essays out to be more authoritative than they are. You might still be correct that unverified accounts "cannot" be used (as opposed to "use such accounts with care" or any such phrasing), but to use that language: an essay "cannot" verify such a definitive claim... if you see what I mean. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop pinging me. I am aware of the multiple discussions going on here. Per Template:Twitter, A Verified Twitter account is one that Twitter itself has found to be legitimate. Twitter adds a blue verified badge next to the account's username on a profile and next to the account name in search results. Accounts that don’t have the badge next to their name but that display it somewhere else, for example in the profile photo, header photo, or bio, are not verified accounts. — Young Forever (talk)   10:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No pings - got it. Not sure why you decided to explain what Verified means as regards Twitter. I'm merely asking you to please reconsider telling editors what they can or cannot do based on what an essay (or now a template) says. To verify policy or standard practices in a way that backs up your authority, please refer to authoritative sources. By that I mean things like policy articles, guidelines, or community consensus (I dunno, a Request for Comment maybe, or perhaps even a widely discussed regular talk topic). Thank you - and please remember, You might still be correct that unverified accounts "cannot" be used: I'm not arguing with you, I just wish you'd use stronger sources for your various claims related to Wikipedia best practices here on this talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline errors
The Moscow match is played in 1968 yet prior to that a video for Venus by Shocking Blue is on Harmon's TV. This song was not released in Holland until summer 1969 and not a hit in the USA until early 1970. Put here due to WP:Wiki is full of dumbasses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:29D1:1434:9763:13A5 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's WP:TRIVIA. It's not a docuseries so, it's not important. Also, this happens to a lot of TV series more than you think. — Young Forever (talk)   23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of phone call from Benny to Beth in Moscow
Benny phoned from his apartment in New York at 0700 ("It's 7 AM here," he said), which is 1500 Moscow time. There was daylight in the Moscow hotel room. The call ended about 2 hours later ("Benny, it's almost 5 here," Beth said). She then went to the tournament site to resume the adjourned game in the evening, when it was dark outside. -- Roger Hui (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Episode 4 is missing important events
The start of episode 4 Beth meets someone in her Russian class and has sex for the first time, then graduates high school. Important details that should be mentioned. I suggest the description should start with the following:

At her nightly Russian classes Beth meets a man and spends the night with him, losing her virginity. She then graduates high school at 17 years old. Her and her mother travel to Mexico City for an international tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancwp (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020
Removed the duplicate word in "fellow player player D.L. Townes." in the Overview section Fanfu01 (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done ... thanks for bringing this up. —Bruce1eetalk 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Red links
Per WP:REDLINK, Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wear Your Magazine quote
I believe that this quote does not meet WP:NSOURCE. The publication in question, Wear Your Voice, is little known. In fact, if you look for it on Wikipedia, the first result that comes up is this article itself. –intforce (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lack of hits on a wikipedia search does not automatically mean a topic is not notable; it may in fact be a reflection of wikipedia's systemic bias. In any case, it is not the only publication to criticize the show's portrayal of the "sassy Black best friend" or "magical negro" trope. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NSOURCE makes the assumption that a source should itself be notable, and it's an essay, not policy itself. But sources aren't covered by WP:N, they're covered by WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So is Wear Your Voice this (taking into consideration we're in a Reception section, meaning we're dealing with opinion rather than fact already from the start)? To me it appeared so, but that's not for me to decide. I was mostly happy I found a source representing a minority that seldom gets heard. You're welcome to bring it up at WP:RSN, Intforce. CapnZapp (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If RSN decide Wear Your Voice fails the various lithmus tests, we should hopefully be able to find a similar sentiment elsewhere, just like Max says. CapnZapp (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that it was written by a contributor, not a staff writer. Articles written by contributors are not reliable sources because articles written by contributors do not run their articles by an editorial team and they are treated as self-published sources. — Young Forever (talk)   15:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides the question on whether the magazine is a reliable source, you also have to consider how prominent these critiques are in the sea of commentary and reviews that have been written on the miniseries. The article should display a set of reviews that collectively provide an overview on what the critics have said. Looking at the 71 reviews recorded on Rotten Tomatoes, the idea that the series has a problem with portrayals of race and sexuality is not shared even by the least favourable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It would be like adding in a one-star review that said that The Queen's Gambit "felt rushed". Anywikiuser (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How many of those 71 reviewers are non-White? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt I'll be told this writer and source are not notable, but it's very well written and cogently argued. . MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source's notability is not central to the issue, as explained above, Max. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * YoungForever I've noted you have used it was written by a contributor, not a staff writer as the main deciding factor on several occasions now, so I set out to find what you're basing this seemingly authorative decision criteria on. But I can't find any support for the type of blanket decision you appear to be using: always okay if written by staff, never okay if written by contributors. Are you basing your evaluation on WP:NEWSBLOG? Or what policy do you back up your methodology on? Possibly relevant (or not): Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 250 and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60. CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we're discussing a Reception section here. You need to argue specifically that Maz Hedgehog from the Wear Your Voice magazine isn't "reliable" and what that means? The source is after all not expressing fact, but opinion.
 * Finally, I see that you removed the quote even though this talk discussion was started 9 hours before. Please do not attempt to use reverts to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. Since I was the original contributor of that quote, I won't restore it myself. Instead I'm asking you to undo your 18:46, 1 December 2020 edit while discussion is ongoing. CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me also repeat my earlier comment: if editors feel strongly about this, and no consensus seems to be in sight, let's remember that WP:RSN exists for this very purpose. CapnZapp (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually arguing specifically for the use of the "Wear Your Voice" quote. I do think reactions to the lazy and outdated stereotyping of the "sassy Black best friend" are relevant however. See, this is a "White People" show, made for and by "White People". It's right up there with Stranger Things and Breaking Bad in the "Stuff White People Like" stakes. And I'm pretty sure 90% of the reviews on the aggregator sites like RT are made by "White People" too. My argument is that other perspectives should be represented in the article, one way or another. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What a strange comment. A person's skin colour should not determine their relevance as a reviewer, especially in a series where racial issues are only briefly mentioned. Anywikiuser (talk)
 * I find it incredible that people still think like this. A reviewer's background, including their ethnic background, is extremely relevant. It has a huge influence on how they will perceive the object of their review. The reviewers referenced by aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes are overwhelmingly white and male, and the reviews will be seen through this lens. In particular, they will tend not to be aware of, or to gloss over, any problematic representations of women, minorities, gay people etc. I imagine many Russian viewers will be less than impressed with the Cold War stereotypes too, e.g. how can you play chess "bureaucratically"? In fact most of the Soviets played a very dynamic and attacking style of chess, and no, they did not consign child prodigies who expressed too much interest in decadent Western things like drive-in movie theatres to working as kitchen hands. And what about the "sleazy Mexican salesman"? Isn't that a negative stereotype too? But you won't get these perspectives if you only consider the dominant narratives from mainstream straight white middle aged male reviewers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are few person of color professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes. — Young Forever (talk)   19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The under-representation is real. But Wikipedia's job is to report what on critical reactions, not to right great wrongs. And I'm doubtful that equal representation would actually make that much of a difference to critical reactions. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, contributors can write whatever they want because there is no editorial oversight. The Wear Your Voice article was written by a contributor, not a staff writer. The source would not be a self-published source if was written by a staff writer. FYI, Wear Your Voice do have staff writers. In addition, Maz Hedgehog is not even a professional critic. — Young Forever (talk)   19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because the contributor was not a staff writer doesn't mean there was no editorial oversight. I'm pretty sure, say, the Wall Street Journal doesn't publish any contributors without editorial oversight. Why would this publication be any different? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be quite the similar situation compared to WP:FORBESCON. In any way, I think that the tag "Guest Writer" makes it quite clear that there was little editorial oversight. -intforce (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:YoungForever: you are placing great importance on the distinction between staff writers and contributors. If I understand your argument correctly, we should remove the Maz Hedgehog quote solely based on her lack of "staff status". What I am asking is, what are you basing this on? What policy or RfC or community consensus says staff writer = good, contributor = bad? As far as I can find, things are not nearly as clear cut, and I can't find your basis for removing a source on "staff status" alone. What I did find, was the linked RfC - which ended by deciding against implementing a phrasing that sounds very similar to your position. CapnZapp (talk)
 * I also said that Hedgehog is not a professional critic. Critical response should be from professional critics as stated on MOS:TVRECEPTION. — Young Forever (talk)   23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, does this mean you retract your "staff status" (my words) argument, User:YoungForever? Second, the actual TVRECEPTION quote reads in full Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. Note how the phrasing can be read to mean "professional" as in "not simply a fan". Had I gotten the impression the review wasn't serious or "professional" I wouldn't have used it. Do you read "professional" to mean "qualified" or "paid occupation, not pastime" (or both), and where -in your mind- does Hedgehog fall short? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hedgehodge is not "qualified" and "paid occupation" critic. She is just a regular writer who just watched the miniseries and wrote an article of her opinion about it. Critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are from professional critics who write reviews of TV series, miniseries, or films for a living (occupation). — Young Forever (talk)   15:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, we're not Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and I've never heard of a rule limiting our sources to their selection. Second, where does it say we can't use "regular writers"? She was published after all, and not self-published as far as I can see. I thought you retracted your "staff writer" argument? (If not, I'm again asking you to point me to what policy or guideline you're basing that on). CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:YoungForever Let me emphasize that I am actively asking you to back up your arguments with links to policy or consensus discussion. I also want to remind you of my previous links - they seem to indicate your position wasn't adopted by the consensus. (I could be wrong - which is why I'm asking you!) CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I did, you just chose to ignore them. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, she is not an expert in writing reviews on TV series or miniseries (not a professional critic). For all we know, an editor decided to add a review written by actor (not a professional critic) to this article and the actor had only one review for one miniseries. Does that make the actor a professional critic? Most likely, not. You can't called someone a professional critic when they just wrote one review on one TV series or miniseries. If I wrote a review and got it published on a newspaper, does that make me a professional critic? Most likely, not. Also, per MOS:TVRECEPTION, Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment publications (such as TV Guide, The A.V. Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). — Young Forever (talk)   17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be removed. Neither the author of the review nor the publication are noteworthy or reliable. Max Browne's insistence that we include reviews based on the color of a person's skin runs afoul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- Calidum  19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No policy I've found says sources need to be noteworthy. That's likely just a common misunderstanding that we can ignore. As for the claim the publication is "unreliable", please explain to me how you arrive at that conclusion. Bear in mind that we're using the source to verify an opinion, not a fact. CapnZapp (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If no policy says that sources need to be noteworthy, what stops me from starting my own blog, writing a review of The Queen's Gambit, and adding it to this article? –intforce (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and there is a guideline for that purpose: The manual of style article on television says "Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment publications (such as TV Guide, The A.V. Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anywikiuser (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Where can I go to Professional Critics school so I can get my Bachelor of Professional Film and Television Criticism? What, there isn't one? Does that mean that anyone is allowed to write an opinion on something and get it published, but some get paid for it and some don't? In that case, why is Roger Ebert's opinion on a film more important than mine? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 started a Village Pump discussion about this you might be interested in: Village pump (policy). Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Order of subsections
Per Manual of Style/Layout, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the names or order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles. Can someone familiar with MOS:TV point me in the right direction, or simply check if our sections are ordered reasonably well? Currently, our Production section contains 1. Development 2. Chess 3. Casting 4. Filming 5. Production Design and 6. Music. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would change "Chess" to "Writing", and "Production design" should go before filming, ideally after casting, because the design informs filming. If you think through it logically of the steps of production (generally), it gets developed (1 Development), then it gets written/consulted on (2 Writing/Chess), actors are cast (3 Casting), the production heads begin their design process for costumes, sets, etc. (4 Design), the series gets filmed with those elements (5 Filming), any post production is done (6 Post-production/Visual effects), and then you have the music (7 Music). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a good suggestion, so I went ahead and made those changes. Sfern824 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleo KGB theory
Some sources have suggested that Cleo was employed by the KGB to distract Beth and sabotage her game against Borgov in Paris. They provide some good arguments, however it is never explicitly stated in the show. Should the theory be mentioned? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not as a plot theory. But if reliably sourced could be mentioned as part of a section about fans of the series. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the show that suggests that the inclusion of the Cleo subplot has any other purpose than to illustrate Beth's personality. Please make sure any mentions is kept outside the plot or episode summary sections even if reliably sourced. But to be frank, it sounds like fan theory and therefore TRIVIA to me. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

omg he didn't molest her
The assumption that he would is kind of offensive, and the possibility is only mentioned very briefly in either review. Not that it never happened in such institutions (obviously it did and still does). But the main point of the two reviews is that the show is an unrealistic fantasy in its depiction of the period and of Beth's relative lack of obstacles (particularly sexism) in achieving her goals. Which is a fair point, but the emphasis on Shaibel's non-molestation in both review summaries is definitely undue weight. Like OMG he's a single lonely introverted men, he must be a child molester! (newsflash - most child molesters do not fit such stereotypes). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While WP and NYTM are heavy-weight sources, it's absurdly skewed to phrase our section to put that much weight on the fact both reviewers used the "molest" word. It is wildly misrepresentative and attention-seeking. Read their headlines! Suggesting Carina Chocano & Monica Hesse would want to live there basically by virtue of not getting molested (which is what the reader takes away from the current phrasing and grouping of these reviews) is grossly sensational and outright offensive to my eyes. Let me take a stab at it. CapnZapp (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, the character who *does* molest Beth at the orphanage in the novel is Jolene. While the passage is certainly uncomfortable reading and portrays quite vividly Beth's unwillingness and lack of understanding of what's going on, it's not built on, doesn't seem to affect her too much and she becomes best friends with her bully later on. Probably for the best that they left that part out of the series, it could be considered a fault in the source material. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rewrite done. "Molest" still mentioned but only once - the other replaced by "no skeezy men" - and only as one out of three examples. Hopefully this completely changes the tone - to be more representative of the each review as a whole. CapnZapp (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've slightly edited the wording here. It is true that Chacano wrote what she wrote, but she wrote that she believed the audience were expecting it, she did not note that the audience were expecting it, which would be an audacious claim requiring mass surveying or mind reading. Likewise, for example, this is a reviewer believing that a casting for another film is wrong, rather than "noting" that it definitely is. I would not usually support the World Socialist Web Site being a source for anything on Wikipedia just like Breitbart shouldn't, but in this case such a source is appropriate for the other side of the "argument" made by Chacano. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WSWS is a reliable source for the opinion of the writer. Maizelis is worth a mention in that he represents a different strand of left wing opinion that emphasizes power structures and the class struggle and de-emphasizes identity politics. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) By the way mediabiasfactcheck rates WSWS as "mostly factual", marking it down for its endorsement of wikileaks, which it considers a "borderline conspiracy" site. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

auto archiving
I see someone has manually archived this page. I expected autoarchiving to kick in a few days ago, but something is clearly wrong. My only guess is that the apostrophe has been coded erroneously (by the substing that's done when you use the official copypaste material provided) so the page titles don't match. We should fix the parameters so we don't need to rely on manual discretion. (In fact, we should respect that auto archiving is set up and not override that with manual archiving.) CapnZapp (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware to respect auto-archiving, but it wasn't work properly. So, I done it manually. — Young Forever (talk)   01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And thank you for that. CapnZapp (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And upon further investigation, the apostrophe (or rather its substitution) is indeed to blame: Help:Archiving_a_talk_page CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Nona Gaprindashvili
First off, whenever you are revering please do an actual undo,. Don't make a regular edit with a comment such as "ce, she doesn't appear in the series, just gets a brief mention". I'm going to assume the flurry of edits caused a slip or misunderstanding here and so let's move on to the reasons I edited the passage:

QG is not a documentary, it's fiction. Calling it a deviation from reality is therefore better than assuming there was a mistake or error. And a female actress is there playing the role, even if only for a quick pan, so technically your comment is erroneous. Not that this changes anything.

I want us to move away from accusatory language such as "factual error", "this error" and "This is incorrect". I can't explain why the show made their decision, but I do know that in its alternate history a chess player named Nona Gaprindashvili exists, and that she never played men.

I feel my passage more accurately conveys this, and allows the real Gaprindashvili to formulate the judgement on it, instead of us.

CapnZapp (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Mine wasn't a revert/undo, it was a copy edit. I never hit any buttons, it was all typed manually. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The section is on the chess community response. To a chess player, such a blatantly incorrect assertion about a pioneering (and still living) female player is quite jarring, and they have no problem with calling it "factually incorrect". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mine wasn't a revert/undo, it was a copy edit. What my edit did was to


 * replace it is mentioned that the first female grandmaster Nona Gaprindashvili with a character named "Nona Gaprindashvili" is seen briefly
 * replace which is a factual error (suggesting that they somehow missed that the real Gaprindashvili has played against men multiple times) with and said to "never have played with male players" (meaning the show's character)
 * replace Gaprindashvili admitted that - there's no need to use that language which means "confess something to be true or to be the case"
 * replace this error is "a shame, of course." again using our editorial voice to claim an error was made with Gaprindashvili characterized this departure from reality as

We cannot claim an error have been made since the show is fictional, not a documentary. What makes you certain this is a mistake when we have zero evidence the the show's fictional character could well never have played men? We have simply no way to be certain! The show might have decided to put all the focus of breaking into the men's world on Beth Harmon. Or not. The point is - I don't know and you don't know! On the other hand we can and should give the voice to the chess community if and when they consider this "blatantly incorrect" or "quite jarring". Just find a source and we're good to go! In the meanwhile, we do have one source already: Gaprindashvili herself. So my edit gave her the voice.

Do you see the difference between us saying it, and us quoting notable people saying it?

Now then, your so-called edit. Your edit summary read "ce, she doesn't appear in the series, just gets a brief mention". I am saying I was mislead by it. "ce" indicates copy-editing without a substantial change in meaning, and the rest would suggest you tweaked my language from "seen" to "mentioned". Imagine my confusion when I realized you had walked back nearly every significant change: you again make our article claim it is the real Gaprindashvili that appears, and that the show has made an error (or at least that the speaker is incorrect). This is why I am asking that you consider using the undo button and then make your edit. The end result is exactly the same, except the software triggers an undo signal. By openly sending this signal you avoid any risk of being suspected to try to fly changes in under the radar. (I don't think you did here, I'm giving you a friendly heads-up for future consideration!) CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately Frank didn't feel it prudent to prevent contradiction of the record of Nona Gaprindashvili. Quale (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't call my edit "so-called". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really inclined to delve into this, but anything that others have said and that fact is reliably sourced, we can say as well. In this I agree with CapnZapp. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be different if they'd referred to a fictional character called, say, Olga Sokolova. But they didn't. They referred to a real living person named Nona Gaprindashvili, and they portrayed her falsely, and they were rightly called out for that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand you are personally upset (by the way you aren't really responding to my arguments), so let me assure you, I am not denying or trying to deny your your feelings, Max. But my point is that they aren't just called out by the passive voice - Wikipedia calls them out on it. You call them out on that (with your edit)! (You and the editor that originally added the passage.) It doesn't come across as neutral, is the objection here. I'm not trying to hide or whitewash the depiction, I just want us to find a voice saying it, because we should not. As for you walking back my changes without clearly flagging it as an undo, I'll drop the matter - just don't do it again, please. CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh fuck off, fuck off, and fuck off again. It has nothing to do with "my feelings". Fuck you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, don't ever talk about me, don't talk about "my feelings", don't talk about anything even remotely personal. Just talk about improving the article. Don't even use the word "you". And *never* say "so-called" unless you're trying to infuriate someone. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that ends the discussion. I will hold off editing the section for today, giving an uninvolved editor (or Debresser?) the chance to make the edit first. CapnZapp (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Although the unpleasantness here on the talk page is a shame, of course, (my editorial voice), the current article text 'in a BBC interview, Gaprindashvili characterized this departure from reality as "a shame, of course."' is accurate and correctly reports what Gaprindashvili said in an interview so it is not wikipedia's editorial voice.  I don't see that any changes are required to this text as currently written.  The idea that the "Nona Gaprindashvili" in the mini-series is a different person living in an alternate reality of the series where she never played any men is a strange and contorted rationalization and is not believable.  I'm sure Kasparov and Pandolfini know that it is not accurate.  I'm curious whether they were not consulted about this false claim about Gaprindashvili, if they ignored it, or if Frank decided to include it despite being told it was not true, but likely we will never know.  The inaccuracy is dealt with in only two sentences in the section on the chess community response, and the views of the Women's World Champion are relevant and given appropriate weight here. Quale (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the show, the statement that Gaprindashvili "has never faced men" was uttered by a commentator. Perhaps that is a way for the show to indicate that the commentator is not entirely credible?  I note that in a later sequence, the same commentator also opined that Harmon should accept Borgov's offer of a draw, but Harmon declined.  (The statement "has never faced men" did not sound credible to me, not a chess expert or anything, because as female World Chess Champion it seems plausible to me that Gaprindashvili _would_ have faced men for training purposes.)  Finally, I find the "unencyclopedic language" in this talk page thread entirely regrettable. -- Roger Hui (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC) 17:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Quale You will find that the this departure from reality language is my introduction. Since MaxBrowne2 let it stand, it is not in contention here. Now then - your curiosity lists three possibilities but not Roger Hui's fourth or this fifth one: that the show Gaprindashvili never faced men. If this hypothesis were true, the fact the real Gaprindashvili did play men doesn't make the commentator's remark "incorrect". Aside: Why would the show do such a thing? Maybe to put more emphasis on Harmon as the pioneer? I don't know and I'm not trying to defend the showrunners here. Point is we shouldn't assume there's an incorrectness here. What we should do, however, is to point out that there is a real-life Gaprindashvili that has played men, leading us to her remarks regarding this departure from reality. CapnZapp (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't go back to check the article history, but I agree that "departure from reality" is not the best language to use in Wikipedia for this kind of situation. It is also true that "xxxxx admitted ..." is not the best phrasing for Wikipedia to use.  I was replying to your Dec 19 comment which suggested that an edit was necessary to the two sentences as they appeared at that time, which is why I wrote "I don't see that any changes are required to this text as currently written."  "As currently written" means as currently written at 4:32 PM UTC on Dec 19.  The wording had already been improved and "departure from reality" and "Gaprindashvili admitted that" did not appear in the article any longer, and I was and am unclear what further edits you feel the section needs today.
 * Going back to your original comment, is it really true that "a character named "Nona Gaprindashvili" is seen briefly"? The commentator mentions Gaprindashvili, but I don't remember seeing her on screen as you suggest.
 * Finally, I was wrong to say or imply that Gaprindashvili did play men in the reality of the mini-series. Obviously each work of fiction creates its own reality and in that sense whatever it says about its own reality is never wrong.  But that is a completely uninteresting statement, and some works such as this one invite critical comparison to reality when real people are used in the narrative, especially when those people are still alive.  In the alternate reality of this series Beth Harmon exists, and of course there was no such person in my reality.  But the series uses fictitious names for nearly every chess player except for a few. The only real names used that I recall are Paul Morphy, Jose Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Fred Reinfeld, Grigory Levenfish and Nona Gaprindashvili, and I think there was also a reference to Vasily Smyslov and Levenfish's famous book on rook endings.  Notably none of these characters appear on screen and in fact every one is deceased today except for Gaprindashvili, and only she and Reinfeld and Smyslov were alive in the 1960s when the story is set.  More notably everything the show says about the male players is factually true (Capablanca wrote a couple well-known books for beginners to intermediate players, Alekhine was a fearsome attacker, Reinfeld's books were aimed at beginners and lower level players and were of less interest to masters, the Levenfish is a variation of the Sicilian Dragon which was probably more commonly played in the early and mid-1960s than it is today) or uncertain but likely to have been believed to be true by the character in the reality of the show (a widely known story about Morphy says that he died insane surrounded by women's shoes, and although the Morphy story may be doubtful it is fully believable that a chess player in the 1960s would repeat it).  Only the claim that Gaprindashvili never played men is blatantly false and it was uttered by a character who as a chess commentator would have known that it was a lie.  Despite the many quibbles chess players have with small technical aspects of the show, I think that besmirching Gaprindashvili's accomplishments in that way is the biggest chess boner in the show, and in my personal opinion it was truly unnecessary and unfortunate.  If Frank wanted Harmon to be the first woman to play the top men in the reality of the show, he should either have omitted the false claim about Gaprindashvili or given the women's champion a different name.  To make Harmon the first woman to play men he would have to erase Vera Menchik as well, since she played and defeated male masters in the 1920s and 1930s before her death in a WW II German missile attack.  Using Gaprindashvili's name in this way on the show was a pointless smear to which none of the male historical figures were subjected.  Luchenko was not named Mikhail Tal and Borgov was not named Boris Spassky, after all.  Apparently Walter Tevis wrote "The superb chess of Grandmasters Robert Fischer, Boris Spassky, and Anatoly Karpov has been a source of delight to players like myself for years. Since The Queen’s Gambit is a work of fiction, however, it seemed prudent to omit them from the cast of characters, if only to prevent contradiction of the record."

Since an edit comment expressed uncertainty about my aims, and because there's a very large amount of words discussing unrelated(?) matters, I have simply edited the article to illustrate one way of resolving the issues. (I have also rewatched the episode to confirm the exact words of the commentator that is talking about Gaprindashvili, and I feel confident we can say "seen" and not just "mentioned". I could prepare a still where the camera stops to focus on a woman in the audience at exactly the time Gaprindashvili is mentioned, heavily implying this is her, but I trust you'll take my word for it or confirm it yourself. Thanks. ) Generally, please read my earlier remarks - I really shouldn't be asked to repeat them, but here goes: we should not claim there's been an error, inaccuracy or mistake. (Why? Read the above!) That doesn't mean I want to hide it - just that we need to let chess voices do the talking for us (including Gaprindashvili herself, of course). CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For comparison, here is the scene in the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W4u1SRK9oo from 4:30 on. Here is the corresponding passage from the book:"As far as they knew, her level of play was roughly that of Benny Watts, and men like Laev would not devote much time to preparation for playing Benny. She was not an important player by their standards; the only unusual thing about her was her sex, and even that wasn’t unique in Russia. There was Nona Gaprindashvili, not up to the level of this tournament, but a player who had met all these Russian grandmasters many times before. Laev would be expecting an easy win."

So Tevis got it right; she was a strong player who competed against the male grandmasters, but not an elite level player (though she had her moments, e.g. beating Mikhail Tal in a blitz tournament). So the error really was introduced by the scriptwriters, and it bothered the chess community, as US Master Sam Copeland clearly indicates in that video. After all the header of that section is "chess community response", not "attempt to divine the intent of the filmmakers". To me the formulation 'a character called "Nona Gaprindashvili"' is unacceptable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not committed to that particular phrasing - it's not the main reason for my edit; avoid having our editorial voice claim the Netflix production has made a mistake or inaccuracy or error is. I therefore invite you to further improve the passage, and not just revert my whole edit just because you oppose part of it. CapnZapp (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But it absolutely is an error of fact. If they meant to refer to a fictional character they'd have used a fictional name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't responding to my arguments, Max. I do not believe it was a mistake. I believe it was intentional, misguided or not. I could call it a "creative decision" but won't since that puts a too positive spin on it. The article is currently claiming Netflix made a mistake (This is incorrect) without providing a source verifying that it indeed was a mistake, and you are the editor that's keeping me from fixing that. CapnZapp (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Using this argument it would be impossible for any work of fiction to ever be wrong about anything. What if I wrote a book in which one of the characters was a tech entrepreneur, called, say, Bill Gates? What if I portrayed him as an alcoholic and a drug addict? What if the real Bill Gates sued me? Do you think the court would be impressed if I argued that my book is a work of fiction, that the Bill Gates in my book lives in a parallel universe in which he actually is an alcoholic and a drug addict? I was just making a "creative decision" Your Honor! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us stick to the topic at hand. You assume the script (or that commentator, etc) is wrong as if that is the only conclusion possible to draw from watching the show. Well, it's not. I find it highly implausible nobody at the show realized Gaprindashvili has played against men - they found her name but not her history? Or that they decided to have the commentator make a blatant, ugly and entirely avoidable mistake within the show's universe? No, I find it much more likely they simply decided to repurpose her name. But you don't have to agree - the point is we don't know. And things we don't know doesn't belong! CapnZapp (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why were none of the names of the male chess players "repurposed" the way that you claim was done for Nona Gaprindashvili? Your psychic ability to discern the intent of the filmmaker is impressive, but I find supporting evidence entirely lacking.  I think it's possible that Frank knew that he was misrepresenting GM Gaprindashvili's career and he didn't care, but I also think it's entirely possible that he didn't know.  (Personally I hope it's the latter.)  If we can find a reliable source that explains why he did it it can go in the article.  But Max is right, your concern over why Frank made the error is misplaced because it's irrelevant to the text in the article.  Regardless of why the error was made, it deserves mention in the chess community response section because the chess community has noted it.  03:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized there's another possibility that could make the error slightly more understandable. Perhaps Frank did not realize the "Nona Gaprindashvili" in the novel referred to a real person.  He may have assumed that Tevis invented the name for a fictional character and so felt free to change her background in the mini-series.  But even if that's true, it would not change anything that is written about the error in this article. Quale (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a likely explanation. Another thing which tends to add weight to this explanation is implying that she is Russian rather than Georgian (though Tevis made that error originally). The book (and therefore the show) mixes fictional masters with real ones (Luchenko apparently "crushed Bronstein in Havana"). So it would be understandable if Frank thought Gaprindashvili was a fictional person rather than a living legend who can still kick butt. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Why were none of the names of the male chess players "repurposed" the way that you claim was done for Nona Gaprindashvili? Your psychic ability to discern the intent of the filmmaker is impressive, but I find supporting evidence entirely lacking. Again my point is NOT to claim I know the truth. My point is the complete reverse, that we cannot know the truth. Because we cannot know the truth, we cannot claim there is an error!
 * I think it's possible that Frank knew that he was misrepresenting GM Gaprindashvili's career and he didn't care, but I also think it's entirely possible that he didn't know. (Personally I hope it's the latter.) I don't care about why the show ended up having a commentator claim Gaprindashvili didn't play men! I just want our article to confirm to basic Wikipedia policies - if we claim an error has been committed, where's the source verifying this? (Quoting a chess personality claiming it is an error would be a totally different - and entirely acceptable - thing!)
 * If we can find a reliable source that explains why he did it it can go in the article. Yes. And until we can do that, it cannot go in the article. To be very clear: our editorial voice can't just claim there's been a mistake. (We can still quote chess personalities)
 * But Max is right, your concern over why Frank made the error is misplaced because it's irrelevant to the text in the article. The ability of you two to misunderstand my intents and motivations is reaching comical levels here! I have ZERO concern over "why Frank made the error". My point is instead we can't just assume he made an error! He might well have done, but we can't claim he did without a source!
 * Regardless of why the error was made, it deserves mention in the chess community response section because the chess community has noted it. I am NOT against mentioning the chess community's response! I have NEVER removed Gaprindashvili's comments. What I am against, is us - the article's editorial voice - assuming there has been an error. This claim is baseless and unsourced, and I have tried to remove it twice! If the chess community thinks it is an error, you are most welcome to say so (since sourcing such quotes should be an easy thing).
 * Generally, there's speculation in this discussion thread about why Frank made this error, which is entirely irrelevant and OR. There's too little critical thinking "but was it really an error" of the kind that leads to the conclusion "maybe there was, but we don't know that". And not enough focus on Wikipedia's core policies: if our article claims Netflix mistakenly thought Gaprindashvili never played men, such a claim absolutely needs a source, or it needs to be removed.
 * Once more I will now remove this assumption from the article. PLEASE do not reinstate it just because. You need a solid footing. PLEASE don't assume I'm trying to cover up Netflix mistakes. I have zero problem claiming Netflix made a huge and embarrassing mistake - if we can source it. (I personally don't believe it was anything else than intentional. Misguided perhaps but not a blunder. But what I believe doesn't matter - if you can source it!) And please remember - simply reverting isn't constructive, but do feel free to further improve the phrasing.  CapnZapp (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This time I went for minimal edits: CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "seen" not "mentioned". I haven't found any discussion opposing my comments regarding this. I have repeatedly asked MaxBrowne2 to not wholesale revert an edit consisting of many changes just because he opposes one of them. Since he refuses to do so, now there are two separate edits.
 * 2) Our article claiming "This is incorrect" has been dropped. Instead I made the smallest edit I could think of that still makes the passage readable. Everything else regarding the chess community's response is still intact, since I don't have a problem with any of it, and I'm not here to downplay mistakes made. Feel free to further improve.
 * Ah, I originally wrote a rather intemperate response. I should have slowed down a bit since I think the "in real life" language is fine and I reverted my revert to restore it.  I already objected to "seen", check my earlier comments.  Is Gaprindashvili actually seen in the show?  What is the name of the actor who plays her?  In any case, seeing a character does not say anything about whether or not she played men because even if she was on screen I don't think she was shown playing chess.  The concern is what was said about Gaprindashvili.    Quale (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, cut out the incivility, Quale. Thank you. Next, please stop it with the random examples. Thank you. Next, you did once ask if she was seen, Quale, in your 08:08, 21 December 2020 edit. But I have already addressed this above. Me writing I haven't found any discussion opposing my comments regarding this means it is up to you to discuss in an orderly fashion - you don't get to ignore my comments and force me to repeat myself. Besides, your comment then is not a clear objection, so what does I already objected to "seen", check my earlier comments refer to? I am open to concluding she wasn't seen, but only in a discussion between editors that actually read their counterparts contributions. This thread is already me having to repeat myself far too often. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for toning down your response, Quale. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now then, the main part. You wrote We do know this an error and the chess community sees this as an error which brings us right to the point. This is two different things. You and Max keep conflating the two, even when I - repeatedly - point it out. My entire impetus here is to focus on "the chess community sees this as an error" while avoiding claiming "We do know this an error". Why? Because we do not in fact know it is an error. It could, as I keep saying over and over, also be deliberate. And - again - that does not mean I am arguing it MUST be deliberate. Only that the fact it CAN be makes "it is an error" an unknown. Without a source, speculation. Now please tell me you understand the difference! CapnZapp (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and only now did I see your revert. I too can apparently writer faster than my wisdom can keep up. Anyway, thanks for that - hopefully that concludes that. CapnZapp (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

All I know is that by this reasoning, it is impossible for any work of fiction to make an error, even when they're making blatantly incorrect statements about actual living people. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Placement of Gaprindashvili's response about the series
I want to point out that putting her comment about the aspect of the series on the Critical response subsection is not appropriate as she is not a professional critic. Being the world's first female chess grandmaster, does not make you a professional critic. Her statement belongs in the Chess community response subsection as she is a professional chess player. — Young Forever (talk)   09:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still wonder what qualifies someone to be a "professional critic". Is there a university offering Batchelor of Film Criticism degrees? "Professional critics" are overwhelmingly, white, male and over 50. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. And Gloria Odalipo's opinion is as valid as anyone else's. So is Nona Gaprindashvili's. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A professional critic would be someone that has a Bachelor's degree in something like film studies or journalism; or actually writes for a notable publication like The New York Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc. A professional critic would be someone whose profession is that: a film critic. YoungForever is right, Nona Gaprindashvili is not a television critic, her opinion does not belong in the section devoted to "critical response". Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that putting her comment about the aspect of the series on the Critical response subsection is not appropriate as she is not a professional critic. There's no need to get all huffed up about this as I believe the cause for this is as simple as there was no separate Chess community response subsection when NGs initial statement was added. CapnZapp (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw: her initial comment was meant as her feedback on the show as a whole and read as such in its old placement. Now it is much closer to her pretty intense criticism to the show's usage of her own name, and might come off the wrong way. It might be a good idea to check the flow of that section against the source so we aren't subverting the editor making the original addition, or NG herself? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's as I thought - the original meaning got ripped out by this "move". The source says:

This was previously reported as

I consider this the perfect placement for somebody unquestionably qualified to discuss the demands of chess. She does not talk in the capacity of a reviewer, so why was the segment removed?

In contrast, now her comment's context is:

I would submit this is a lesser version and would like your consensus to restore. CapnZapp (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes Gaprindashvili different from the rest of the Chess community response? Last I checked, she still belongs in the Chess community and not the professional television critics club. Her Wikipedia page doesn't even states that she is a professional television critic and I doubt that you will find a reliable source explicitly saying that she is one. — Young Forever (talk)   18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You ignored every single one of my comments, YoungForever. she still belongs in the Chess community and not the professional television critics club is entirely unrelated to anything I have said (in this section). Anyone else? CapnZapp (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is related. You have been repeatedly saying she belongs in the Critical response subsection simply because she has something critical to say about the series. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Professional Critic
No. This was brought up several times. At no point was anyone able to point to any policy, guideline or consensus decision (such as a RfC) that defines MOS:TVRECEPTIONs Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. Stop excluding opinions just because they're not from the sources selected by Metacritic, say. The only thing the policy states unequivocally is that "professional reviewer" is the opposite of "simply a fan". We can and should be able to include interesting smaller sources. And to do so without checking the credentials of the reviewer - beyond having been selected by a source we at Wikipedia consider to deliver trustworthy television opinions. This nonsense about checking the reviewers bachelor's degrees must stop - we cannot and should not have to make that determination on an individual basis, but trust the source (the magazine or web site) to. Likewise, the "professionality" the MOS is talking about cannot mean we must determine if money exchanged hands, so quit it with the literal interpretation of "professional". For example - Merriam Webster offers the following definitions:
 * 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession. Yeah, sure, writing reviews. No rocket science here.
 * 2a. participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs. Sounds reasonable... except how do we determine "gain or livelihood"?
 * 2b. having a particular profession as a permanent career. How can we possible know whether the career is permanent?
 * 2c. engaged in by persons receiving financial return. I dare you to prove any critic received financial return (without going into stalker territory)

Now, stop removing clearly reasonable opinions just because you don't think they come from big enough institutions! This talk page has repeatedly discussed sources that clearly aren't "simply a fan", and where the MOS does not provide clear support for removal. CapnZapp (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are beating a dead horse here. Your definition of a professional critic is clearly "anyone who writes an opinion piece or have a comment" is a professional critic. It already went through Village Pump. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No I am not. And I am certainly not suggesting that definition. I am referring to Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_162 which in no way supports the notion your education level must be some fixed minimum and/or that "notable" means only sources on the level of The New York Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter. CapnZapp (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you said on this Talk about professional critics certainly suggest that definition. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don't get the concept that someone's not qualified to criticize a film of tv series just because they don't write for a major newspaper or magazine. If we restrict our commentators like this we will be left with a very narrow range of opinions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Emotional problems" is a crap term
Everyone has "emotional problems" when their dog dies or they get a speeding ticket. It's just such a vague term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Trauma" is no better, especially since trauma is even more general, as it can mean physical trauma as well. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I googled "Queen's Gambit trauma", and got quite a few articles. I think it would be quite safe to use "trauma" here rather than "problems".  Moreover, it's a more specific term.  No, "psychological trauma" would not be confused with "physical trauma".  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you propose to replace "emotional problems" by "trauma" or "psychological trauma"? The first, would be too vague. The second sounds too medical IMHO, when "emotional problems" says the same in simpler English. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have to think some more about this. "Trauma" isn't what she's "struggling with".  I want to insert the word "trauma" somehow, because all of the reviewers use it, and I want to replace or remove "emotional problems", because it's not very informative, but can't just substitute one for the other.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * we're chess players not psychologists, but never knowing your father, surviving an attempted murder-suicide by your mother and spending your formative years in an orphanage would be "traumatic" for any kid. I don't understand why anyone would object to using that word in the article rather than the less exact "emotional problems". And as you say plenty of commentators/reviewers have used the word "trauma" in relation to the series. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, one good reason is, as I mentioned above, that "trauma" can be physical as well. Don't test my patience with ignoring other editors' posts and arguments. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your objection appears to be based more on personal dislike (understandable, I can be a prick) rather than any objective considerations. In this context, native English speakers will certainly interpret the word "trauma" in psychological terms. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The argument "trauma can be physical as well" can be easily resolved by saying "emotional trauma". The choice between either "trauma" or "emotional problems" is a false one. CapnZapp (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What was bothering me was that I saw "trauma" as a reference to the attempted murder-suicide, and, since it's in the past, she's not "struggling" with it. I think the whole sentence needs to be somehow reorganized and/or rewritten.  Indeed, "struggling", like "problems", is a substitute for real vocabulary.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a semantic issue really. "Political correctness" if you like, though I loathe that term. Some people really object to phrases like "wheelchair bound" and "battle with cancer". But I don't think the word "trauma" carries any such stigma. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't "play chess" on your own
You can however study it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you can. I've done it myself numerous times. It's not the same thing as studying. I think the previous wording was better.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you P-K3! I thought so too... Asc85 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make readers of this talk page have to hunt down what you're talking about in article page history. If this isn't resolved, please clearly explain what the disagreement is about here on talk. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the diff. In the scene Shaibel quite clearly is playing chess by himself, it's just whether that should be described as "studying." I happen to think "playing chess by himself" is more precise and better wording.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (And for the record, I have no problems with Mr. Shaibel playing chess by himself, but then again, I have no strong opinions either way.) Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At a cafe in London I read a column (might have been Short in Daily Telegraph, can't remember) and played over the game on a board provided by the cafe. Someone commented "how do you play chess by yourself?" I replied, "you don't, you study chess by yourself". So that's where i'm coming from. But yeah it's trivial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that players can play simultaneous games against many players, (and not especially playing myself) I suspect one could play simultaneously against themself. That is, imagine it as two separate games. That would seem different from studying. Gah4 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that players can play simultaneous games against many players, (and not especially playing myself) I suspect one could play simultaneously against themself. That is, imagine it as two separate games. That would seem different from studying. Gah4 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

quality grading
I feel this article easily deserves a quality grade higher than C-class. But as a contributor myself, I cannot bring myself to increasing it above B-class. I invite impartial editors to consider regrading it further. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I'm asking myself the question - is this still only of Low importance? CapnZapp (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed it high now since it received a lot of recognition. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd also like to thank user for his take on the WikiChess project rating. Can I ask you to explain your rationale here? (Please note I'm not saying one rating is necessarily better than another. I just think discussion is better than just changing the assessments back and forth) CapnZapp (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Other films with a chess theme such as Pawn Sacrifice and The Dark Horse get a low importance rating from Wikiproject chess, so this is consistent with that. Within WikiProject Television it may well be high importance. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Then the question becomes: can any film or series get a higher importance rating from the chess project than low, because if the answer is yes, I feel QG easily qualifies. CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not. And Searching for Bobby Fischer should probably be downgraded. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Tentatively upgrading to as it appears obvious to me the series had had an impact in the chess world like no other. Hoping for feedback from project members (I believe projects get automatically notified of rating changes like this?) CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Title card vs. promotional poster
There seems to be some disagreement about whether to use File:TheQueensGambitCropped.png or File:The Queen's Gambit.jpg – or rather User:BartocX keeps reverting to the latter. MOS:TVIMAGE states that an intertitle shot of the show or a promotional poster be used, though without clear precedence. In this case though, I think I would prefer the promotional poster, as the title card is not particularly representative of the show (compared with, say, Game of Thrones's title card at least). Thoughts? –intforce (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster with Anya Taylor-Joy's awesome stare, unless there are copyright issues. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster as it's more identifiable and representative of the show; the title card is very bland. Plus, I think there's more of a precedent to use poster art for miniseries. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. Chernobyl comes to mind. –intforce (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster per the above. If not poster, something - anything - else than that dreary title card. CapnZapp (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Intertitle: Regardless of being a TV series or miniseries, I believe there is a general consensus/common practice to use the official intertitle card for a series' main article on WP:TV. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to link to some sort of example or discussion of this general consensus/common practice, User:YoungForever. In order to argue we're an exception to the rule (or not), we must first agree on the rule. CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do a Category search on TV series and Miniseries, for those have an image in their infobox, most of them show an intertitle. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   15:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most probably do use an intertitle, but that doesn't mean a poster can't be used. It's why MOS:TVIMAGE states an intertitle or poster should be used. If there's a local consensus (which there seems to be here), then we can use the poster art. Intertitles make more sense for continuing TV series, because there's new poster art for each season, while a miniseries just generally has one poster (or a small set of them, a main one and a few alternates). It's hard to argue that the bland title card is a better representation and more identifiable than the poster art. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:YoungForever. However, most of them show an intertitle is a much weaker argument than what you suggested first: there is a general consensus/common practice to use the official intertitle card. Common practice is not the same as just looking at what the majority does. When I think of "common practice " I envision something explicitly hashed out by discussing until a consensus arrives - a tangible piece of text that can later be referred to much like precedent in law. This is much stronger than just observing usage patterns, which may or may not just happen with no underlying active decision-making. (I feel zero obligation following the herd and no compulsion explaining why I'm not, while I do feel an argument would have been needed to deviate from common practices.) Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't why you keep arguing when there is strong consensus leading towards using the Poster. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are when you called a title card dreary. In addition, please stop pinging me to this Talk, I am aware of the multiple discussions that are still going on here. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   17:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster I also noticed this slow edit war, and my thoughts were that the poster is by far the more informative and interesting. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster Per the above. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poster agree re ATJ awesome stare. -- Roger Hui (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now there is a disagreement over The Queen's Gambit (miniseries).png and The Queen's Gambit.jpg. These appear to be the same photograph, digitized in different formats.  Bruce leverett (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Beth Harmon article
I think that the character's protagonist should have her individual page. The miniseries has become popular with 62 million of households, and the character is kind of popular. Joy has received accolades for her performance and I think that her own article deserves because of her storyline and abilities can encourage other people. But that’s your decision. Awaiting answers. Alvrix3104 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Alvrix. While I could simply say "go ahead, noone's stopping you" I do want to point out that the question here is: are there sources talking about Beth Harmon? As opposed to articles about the series the character's in, I mean. I think a reason there isn't a proper Beth Harmon article already might be because there really isn't much written about the character, independent of reporting on the show. Most articles about "Beth Harmon" focus on not her, but real-life women chess players. If you do find sufficient material to sustain an article, do be bold and create one, though! CapnZapp (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Beth Elizabeth Harmon
Here you go, a talk section to hash it out in. I'll go first.

If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[j] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name.
 * MOS:HYPOCORISM only discourages whether we should go Elizabeth "Beth" Harmon. (We shouldn't, Beth qualifies as a "common" hypocorism). It says nothing about never using the full name. It only discourages explaining it.

All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source.
 * MOS:TVCAST discusses the Cast section of a TV article. It does not say anything about character names in other sections.

Ergo, we should definitely credit Anya Taylor-Joy as Beth Harmon, and not Elizabeth Harmon or Elizabeth "Beth" Harmon in the Cast section. But these policies leave it up to our discretion whether to occasionally use other names for the character elsewhere. The policy does not prevent us from referring to the character as, say, Beth or Ms. Harmon. We could conceivably refer to her as Elizabeth.

Since editors repeatedly add Elizabeth to the article, maybe there is merit in allowing the occasional such usage?

I'm reminded by an earlier edit spat where it was argued we couldn't credit Annabeth Kelly as Young Beth Harmon unless credited as such. CapnZapp (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be argued that Beth is sometimes short for Bethany, so it wouldn't hurt to drop the odd "Elizabeth" if it can be done unobtrusively. The Russians nickname her "Liza" and I quite like the "Liza" drop in the final episode description. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anya Taylor-Joy is only credited as Beth Harmon though. She wasn't credited as Elizabeth Harmon or Elizabeth "Beth" Harmon. Isla Johnston is only credited as young Beth and Annabeth Kelly is only credited as five-year-old Beth. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with both arguments of CapnZapp. MOS:HYPOCORISM holds true where that name is not commonly used, and tells us that we shouldn't mention a diminutive just because it exists. However, in case that the diminutive is commonly used, including in reliable sources, we should mention it, see e.g. Dick Cheney. MOS:TVCAST may discuss cast sections, but I see no reason why the same convention shouldn't be used in other sections as well, provided they don't have a separate MOS instruction, like e.g. the lead. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I may be misreading, but I see nothing in MOS:HYPOCORISM that suggests it has any application at all as pertains to fictional character names. MOS:HYPOCORISM is specific to biographies. This article isn't a biography, therefore citing that as a rational is misplaced, imo. Anastrophe (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. I am not invested in the actual Elizabeth/Beth issue (I see zero harm in allowing the odd "Elizabeth" but won't oppose removing them either), but I do want to point out that the applicability of either of the two wielded policies is far from given. Mostly the edit war needed to stop and its participants come to the table (this table). CapnZapp (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly I have no dog in this fight. The character is referred to as Elizabeth in the series more times than I could possibly (or would wish to) count. The character expresses a preference for Beth, but that 'preference' - one that exists in a fictional character in a fictional world - doesn't define the clarity with which we describe the fictional world presented, where her name is Elizabeth, and her character prefers Beth, and not even aggressively so. Anastrophe (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, maybe editors can have this talk section in mind before reflexively reverting future (good-faith) insertions of "Elizabeth" by drive-by editors. CapnZapp (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so long as we can avoid Elizabeth "Beth" "Lizzy" "Betty" "Liza" Harmon. (all 5 names are used in the series). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Chess community response section
User:Wallyfromdilbert removed/repurposed the section on Chess community response (diff: ) negating the hard fought consensus regarding several passages discussed here on talk, including at least one still pending.

Per WP:BRD I have reverted the edit and am now opening this talk section for Wally to lay out his arguments for the change.

At the very least this needs to be readded as several individual edits so each one can be judged on its own merits. CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you should have specific reasons for reverting content. Please note that your consent is not required to make changes to the page. If you have a reason for objecting to a particular sentence I added, please let me know and I will try to explain why I think it is due. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for my revert was specific enough in my mind. You preempted existing discussion before it had concluded. CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable chess player
We include a sentence in the "Chess community response" section about how "Several female chess players have suggested the show's legacy might well be a surge in interest from young female players". The sentence mentions the name of three notable chess players who have their own Wikipedia pages. I recently removed a reference to a non-notable chess player, former British women's chess player Sarah Longson, as the sentence was already fairly wordy mentioning the three other individuals, and I do not see what benefit including a non-notable person in addition to the three people already named. had previously removed the red link, while has reverted both of our edits. I would like to see if there is consensus to include this additional name as per WP:ONUS, which says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Langston is being included because of her involvement in the UK Chess Challenge. It makes sense for someone who helps promote chess among schoolchildren and girls in particular to be mentioned in this context.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may make more sense to include if she was mentioned in that context, although there are hundreds of other people who also help promote chess among schoolchildren and girls, and Longson does not seem to be notable as a player or an expert whose opinion would be more relevant. If the chess tournament you link to had some link to the TV show, I think that would make sense to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have a connection to the show, she's a part of the chess community's response to it. But she is a prominent part of it, making major media appearances such as Today..-- P-K3 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, I added this name many months ago, and since it's been accepted there is/was clearly consensus to include it. Thank you for bringing a disputed edit to talk but you are (or should be) asking the question if there is consensus to remove it. Next - the name has been de-linked many times, but always restored per WP:REDLINK. You, User:Wallyfromdilbert, are the first and (as far as I can recall) so far only editor that have removed her. Might you be confusing delinking (a desire to clean out red links) with removal? CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

When I added Sarah Longson with a pair of edits on 19:09, 17 November 2020‎ I wrote the edit summary: →‎The chess community: tentatively redlinking someone that sounds like article-worthy in full accordance with WP:REDLINK. Her link status does not define her notability. Sorry but I can't say her involvement with UK Chess Challengewas my impetus to include her. Instead I was simply googling around for more good chess voices talking about the show and found the Guardian article where her picture fronts the article, so it was natural to consider including her. And as a British Ladies Chess Champion I didn't really question her notability. (Whether the lack of an article on her has something to do with Wikipedia's gender bias I'd rather not discuss). I did try to add her to the chess project's list of "suggestions for BLP articles on females" (can't remember exact name) but couldn't get a grip on how to actually do that. Anyway - are we sure we aren't removing her just to get rid of that red link? (I seriously doubt the practicality of WP:REDLINK, but as long as it remains, there should be zero issues maintaining red links in our articles...). Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Awaiting your comment, Wally. CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears the opposition to featuring former British Ladies Chess Champion Sarah Longson in our article has died down, so I am tentatively restoring it, pending a resumption of this discussion of course. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted me with the comment please wait for consensus to include this per WP:ONUS but I have already addressed that issue and now the move is with you, Wally. I have asked you several questions and put forward several arguments that you so far have not responded to. You are the only one removing the mention of Sarah Longson. I waited two days then reminded you to respond then waited two more days. Unless you continue the discussion and argue for your standpoint there is clearly nothing more to discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not particularly interested in responding to your bad faith assumptions. I made a good faith effort to improve the section, and you reverted it wholesale (before someone else promptly reverted you). This article and its talk page get a lot of traffic, but if no one else is interested in this discussion, then you could try to start an RfC to gain consensus. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You (and only you) have now made several attempts to remove Sarah Longson from the page. You are the only one claiming she isn't notable. Now you have even rephrased the entire section to have her evaporate from the page. You deleted her, you were reverted (by me), now you need to achieve consensus for your change. Otherwise editors obviously don't mind her being included, and you need to stop blocking me from restoring her. But I'd like to first ask you politely to edit Longson back in yourself, especially with the changed phrasing of the related articles. Barring that, make a different argument for her exclusion than "she's not notable" (an argument that gained zero traction) or perhaps "let's avoid red links". CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp, similarly, you are the only person who has added the name to the article, and you were even restoring it to a sentence that already mentioned 3 other names ). I don't think a list of names of chess players who share an opinion about the show's legacy is helpful, especially with ambiguous language like "suggested". Adding a name simply to add a name is also not helpful (especially when the person does not appear notable, which you may want to take into consideration if you have been repeatedly restoring a red link removed by others). I made a good faith attempt at improving the article by adding sources and content to expand two sections (which you reverted for no apparent reason  before it was reverted back by another editor). One other person on this talk page has thought the person you mention was relevant to include, and no one else has commented. That is not normally what would be considered WP:CONSENSUS. This is a heavily-trafficked article, and so I would suggest waiting to see if anyone else has opinion, although you could also post to a noticeboard or start an RfC to try to get more voices included. Please also read WP:AGF and avoid making accusations against other editors based on your perceived motives. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I added that name months ago. The silent consensus was clearly in favor of keeping it. Stop pretending the addition hasn't been established yet. The burden of proof no longer rests with me. In stark contrast, when you deleted the name, you were immediately contested (by me). You have so far been unable to garner any support for your move. Copyediting the article does not change this. You boldly removed her, you were reverted, now you discuss. But since you are unable to achieve a consensus that removing her was the right move, that edit is going to be rolled back. Simple. As for your procedural flailing, I did wait (2 days, then asked you to comment, then 2 more days), and no, I certainly don't need to spend my time on an RfC. If you are dissatisfied with the level of attention your arguments have attracted so far, you do that. In the meanwhile, your edit (supported by noone but yourself) will be stored by Wikipedia in the edit history of the article. This is a very simple case of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no need for an RfC on a routine edit that only Wallyfromdilbert seems to be objecting to. I also support the inclusion of the name for the reasons I mentioned above.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is a way to add her name while benefitting the article, I am not opposed to including it, but I don't see how "'It’s great for girls, and it’s great for chess,' said British Ladies Chess Champion Sarah Longson, while Houska hoped that would be the series' greatest legacy" is an improvement over "Jovanka Houska also hoped that the show's legacy would be a surge of interest from young female players." That seems to be inserting a quote just to include the name of Sarah Longson while making the sentence more ambiguous as to what Houska actually said in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to reframe your changes as me trying to add in something when it is you that removed Sarah Longson. You even rewrote the passage, cutting her out. You had your chance to report on that Guardian article and you did not take it. I gave you the chance of adding her back using your own words: But I'd like to first ask you politely to edit Longson back in yourself, especially with the changed phrasing of the related articles. (10:55, 15 February 2021). Now you have the gall to revert me as if that's constructive, as if you get to judge the writing you forced me to do?!
 * tl;dr: This is your third attempt to remove this red link, each time with a new motivation. Nobody agrees with you. Now you resign. CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To other editors: if you feel there's a better phrasing of Longson and Houskas hopes for girl chess, feel free. CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp, could you please actually explain how you think your change is an improvement? As I said, I believe adding the quote "It’s great for girls, and it’s great for chess" is not useful as it is a vague claim, and your removal of "a surge of interest from young female players" from the sentence also makes the content more ambiguous as to what Houska actually said in the Guardian article. Also, please continue this discussion before restoring contested material to the article. There are no deadlines here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed Longson, you restore her. You do not get to reframe the discussion to be about my edit. Either write it to your satisfaction yourself, or accept my edit. I am not here to dance to your pipe, Wally. I have wasted enough time on keeping you from erasing the red link as is. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Longson is sufficiently notable to mention in this section. But there is no particular reason to quote Longson while paraphrasing Houska, or the other way around. I would be inclined to write a paraphrase that would cover what they both said. While we're in there, there is a forward reference to Longson from the previous section, "Chess community response", which should be fixed. I would be happy to entrust this rewrite and fix to User:CapnZapp, but I'll do it myself if you don't. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see your take on it and see value in bringing in a third party (hopefully it will mark the end of Wally's crusade) CapnZapp (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , neither your addition of Longson to a sentence that already named 3 people nor your addition of a quote by Longson to a sentence where it made the sentence less clear  were improvements to the article. Considering the Longson reference in the "community chess response" was never removed (you simply failed to add her first name or the link to the reference when you moved the other content to its appropriate section ), you should probably stop your personal attacks against me. If anyone has a crusade, it is your attempt to repeatedly restore a name to an article even if it is detrimental to the article simply because you were the one who had originally added the content to the article. Given your interactions with others on this talk page, you probably need to take into consideration WP:CIVIL a little more and focus on the content rather than making comments about other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the issue is not whether to include Longson at all, but whether to include her in these changes made by CapnZapp: . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had some more time to look at this. The last paragraph of the section "Interest in chess" has some weaknesses.  It is pretty silly to quote Kasparov here, since he is, ahem, a far from neutral observer.  The first sentence is a generalization, so presumably it is supposed to be supported by the subsequent citations of Polgar, Houska, and Longson; but it isn't, really, because it says "... has increased the popularity ...", while the women masters are all quoted as saying that they wish that it would increase the popularity of chess among girls.  But this is not a very interesting sentiment.  Polgar, Houska, and Longson all have interesting things to say about, for example, sexism, and the realism (or errors in realism) in the movie, but that's not what this paragraph is quoting or citing.  It doesn't add anything much to the first paragraph -- can we just drop it? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps easiest would be to show us your version (either here on talk or boldly on the page itself), Bruce? CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to removing the paragraph for now. Although I can understand why some editors may want to keep it, I also understand that it doesn't add a lot beyond what is said in the first paragraph. I think the problem right now is that a lot of the reporting is more news-style coverage, which doesn't always result in the best content for an encyclopedic overview. However, the series is immensely popular, and its impact on chess is going to continue to be discussed in the future. I think within the next year we will get additional sources discussing the impact in a more retrospective rather than prospective way, and we will be able to make the section a lot stronger. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I agree with your forecast that in due time the dust will settle and we can nudge the article away from journalism and towards encyclopedic.  Bruce leverett (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree the current phrasing is a bit weak, Bruce. Longson appears as just one voice in a long line of voices to say something about the realism of the show. We should not keep her just because. Let me instead remind everybody that the article in question is titled "Igniting girls' interest in chess may be great legacy of The Queen's Gambit". If you look at my quote (the one Wally has been edit warring to keep out of our article) its place isn't in the Chess community response (Accuracy) section but the Interest in Chess section. I would submit that it would make better sense to use Longson there instead, however you want to phrase it. Just as a suggestion, instead of letting a man speak of this increased interest from girls in chess (GM Maurice Ashley) how about we choose a woman, and why not Longson? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)