Talk:Phiona Mutesi

Source

New source on Fox News here.--v/r - TP 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Her rating is less than 1700...how does this make her a chess prodigy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.53.184 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing. I keep editing the article to include additional information, such as the Elo ratings for Phiona Mutesi (1622) and for Ivy Amoko (1851), and observing that neither woman has really earned the World Chess Federation's title of Woman Candidate Master. And within a few hours or days, someone comes along and deletes this added information. Apparently, what I added is inconsistent with the purpose for which this article was written, which isn't so much to inform as it is to popularize. Something sneaky is afoot. Disney is making a movie about a black girl with modest chess skills, whereas it has made no such movie about similarly youthful white children with much greater chess skills, e.g. Judit Polgar of Hungary at age 12 (Elo rating 2555) or, currently, 12-year-old Nicholas Checa of New York (Elo rating 2405). Jenab2 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FIDE titles are awarded not solely on rating (or even norm) basis, there are several players who earned their title (even GM) thanks to single performances at World Youth Championships, World Juniors, Olympiads and other events; see FIDE Handbook B. Permanent Commissions, Table for Direct Titles effective from 1 July 2014 for full regulations. The uncalled-for remark you added ("she doesn't deserve the title") in the article is just over the top, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a sort of open blog. Sophia91 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that you are telling the truth, since it implies that the World Chess Federation tolerates mixed standards for the award of its titles. The requirements for title in your reference should be requirements in addition to the minimum Elo rating, not replacements for it. Even Wikipedia's own articles on the subjects of chess titles and FIDE titles makes no provision for the grant of titles based on "single performances." Nor should it do so, since single performances can be rigged, and cheating can occur.

From the Wikipedia article for FIDE Titles - "Normally three norms in international tournaments involving other IMs and Grandmasters are required before FIDE will confer the title on a player. IMs usually have an Elo rating between 2400 and 2500. Sometimes, though, there may be an IM who has not yet become a Grandmaster but has a rating greater than 2500."

Hence 12-year-old New York resident Nicholas Checa, holder of the FIDE Master title, has not yet been given the title of International Master even though his world Elo rating is 2405, because he has not yet, additionally, gained three norms in international tournaments involving other IMs or GMs.

I stand by my earlier comment that Phiona Mutesi does not deserve the title of Woman Candidate Master, much less any higher title, because she has not earned it through the skill of her play. She will not deserve it, until her world Elo rating is at least 2000. You should remember that an encyclopedia is a place for the truth, the facts, and that it is not a place for the promotion of politically correct hoaxes. Jenab2 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the link to FIDE Handbook? Do you have any idea on how FIDE titles are awarded? How can Wikipedia be more reliable than FIDE itself? The link I provided clearly states that a 50% score playing at least 7 games at the Women's Olympiad gaines the player the WCM title. Also the winner of the open section of World Seniors (eg. Larry Kaufman), World Juniors (eg. Zaven Andriasian), Continental Championships automatically gains the GM title. The winner of the open section of Asian Juniors, World U18, Continental Seniors is automatically awarded the IM title. And no, these results, single performances do not require a minimum rating.

And remember this is not the right place to discuss if she deserves the title, Wikpedia talk pages are not forums. Sophia91 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy

Hi Jenab2, this edit of yours would need a source. Just about everything in Wikipedia needs reliable sources, and anything contentious about a living person needs a high-quality source. For our sourcing policy, see WP:V, and for our living persons policy, see WP:BLP. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, SarahSV. The source was included in the text, but I will create a link in the references to Phiona Mutesi's statistics page at the World Chess Federation's website. I did include that the first time I edited the article, but someone removed my text, including the references.

Also, for the next several days at least, someone ought to ensure that the links provided in the references are still valid. When I tried using some of them, I got 404 error messages. Someone had removed the targeted page. Jenab2 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jenab2, you need to find a secondary source such as a newspaper article that says what you are saying, not a primary source from which you have worked out what you're saying. Wikipedia calls the latter original research, and it's a policy violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Very well then. I will look for such a source. However, journalists are no more skilled in original research than I am, and, likely, most of them are less so. Further, the media have a conflict of interest regarding mention of truthful information tending to bring Phiona Mutesi's public image accurately down-to-Earth. The conflict is the movie being paid for by the Walt Disney Company, a media conglomerate which expects to recover its expenses with profit from fees paid by movie-goers in the near future. Jenab2 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed edit link for previous TALK section.

This is in reply to Sophia91, placed here because someone has removed the edit link to a previous section on this TALK page.

Sophia91, your problem with my added text in the article seems to revolve around my (appropriate) use of the word "deserve." Would you withdraw your objection if I altered my diction from "does not deserve" to "has not met the requirements for"? It is factually correct, and it is validly germane information. You simply don't approve of someone mentioning it.

And would you please use some common sense? If FIDE were to allow single performances to replace the world Elo rating and the primary measure of title worthiness, there would be rigged chess games and tournaments everywhere, with cheaters paying their opponents to lose, with opponents selected so that a cheating player would be more likely to look good, and so on. The Elo rating is a safeguard that FIDE wouldn't dispense with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab2 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know the FIDE rules, the link I provided explains everything. Mutesi scored 4,5 out of 9 points in the 2012 Women's Olympiad (check chess-results.com), hence the WCM title, her FIDE card confirms this. Zhansaya Abdumalik was awarded the WFM title for sharing 1st place at World U10 girls, and at that time she didn't have a 2100+ rating, later she gained the WIM title in a U20 girls event in Indonesia and again at the time she didn't have a 2200+ rating nor the required 3 norms (check her FIDE card). Kenny Solomon became GM for winning the African Continental Championship in 2014, though he has never reached 2500 (again check his FIDE card). These are only some examples, but I know more. These are fact checked accurate info. Sophia91 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I throw the charge back in your face. You don't know the criteria by which FIDE normally bestows titles. The Elo rating is the primary criterion. There may be supplemental criteria, such as playing a minimum number of tournament games with opponents at or above the player's own title level. None of these supplemental requirements for the award of a chess title is a replacement for the world Elo rating. A "grandmaster" who has not a world Elo rating of 2500 or more cannot be a FIDE grandmaster at all; his GM title would have to be a local convention only, and the holder merely a big fish in a small pond.

Edit. It appears that I'm wrong. The corruption in the bestowing of titles, involving reach-downs for African chess players, isn't an isolated phenomenon. Kenny Solomon, a black South African, has been awarded the FIDE chess title of Grandmaster, even though his world Elo rating (2371 for standard chess) would have qualified him only for the title two steps below Grandmaster, or FIDE Master. See his FIDE statistics card at

https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14300192

There are white players in the United States and in Europe, some of them children, who have Elo ratings higher than Solomon's, yet they won't be offered any similar reach-down boost to their FIDE titles. The fact remains that the world Elo rating is the truer measure of chess players' skill, and not how well they perform during single tournaments.

This really needs to be brought out thoroughly. There appears to be a racial factor, or at least a geographical factor, that goes into the determination of who is eligible for any given chess title from the World Chess Federation. How many non-African chess players with Elo ratings in the 2300s hold the FIDE Grandmaster title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab2 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jenab2, this isn't the place to discuss our personal opinions. This page is to discuss which sources are reliable, and which ought or ought not to be used in the article. I'm going to remove some of this shortly, per WP:BLPTALK. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So, once again, the editors of Wikipedia shield the dirty linen of political correctness behind policy conventions. Only journalists who work for the establishment media (who get paid by the owners of media corporations), may do primary research, and how well qualified they are for doing primary research does not matter. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not they have any obvious conflicts of interest, such as the fact that Disney hopes to recover the cost of making its movie "Queen of Katwe" with profit in the near future from fees paid by movie-goers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab2 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jenab2 I have no interest in Disney or their profits, this is about Wikipedia policies on how articles are sourced and handled. I am not sure what your issue with this piece is, but your account has done nothing here at Wikipedia except edit this article to cast doubt on the subject's achievement, something which you have not provided sourced for & which @Sophia91: has pointed out you're factually incorrect about. Considering your comments about it would appear that you have some personal issue here. Maybe consider taking a break for a few days to cool off and look for ways to address it within Wikipedia rules? JamesG5 (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Current Ranking and Hype Controversy should be mentioned

the fact that Ms. Mutesi is the target of a media hype should be mentioned. Not doing so is unfair against her and unfair against every woman holding a real chess title. Praising someone with elo 1622 as a prodigy soon-to-be grand master is equivalent to comparing somebody who can play a tennis ball over the net to Serena Williams. The unjustified hype is not the fault of Ms. Mutesi, but she will likely have to pay the price for it in the end. Wikipedia should not support the marketing machinery of a commercial movie producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.81.115 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks that articles provide bona fide sourced information. If you can point editors in a direction that gives real credence to you points, perhaps they could be included in the article.

(I dont know who wrote the previous sentence.) My first time at this page, Id like to say:

1. The people asking for something to give "real credence" to the obvious-to-anyone-in-chess claim that a rating of 1620 is low: It's what most people would attain within a year or 2 of starting to play. Maybe her real rating should be higher. But it's ridiculous asking for a source. That's like not being able to say water is wet without someone deleting it and asking for a source. (And don't see for yourself if it's wet - that would be original research) Although she did seem better than that in the one game of hers I looked at. Most chess writers aren't mean, inconsiderate etc so they don't say "1620 is super-lame" in print. I get it, you need a phrase to quote from a writer with some authority. The 'tennis ball over the net' analogy is pretty much accurate though. 2. I don't know who Jenab2 is, but they are scary on this issue, with a voice I would call insanely racist. I came here from their blog post on Mutesi, http://jenab6.livejournal.com/53480.html , which, they say "provides insight into the blatant racial-intellectual fraud that is often perpetrated by blacks, or, as in this case, on their behalf by the Jews and leftists who both control the mass media and promulgate endless hoaxes about racial equality" They seem to think that skin colour is the deciding factor alone, in this and other cases they get worked up about. I notice on this page they display the human-all-too-human quality where the opponent's errors are insidious proofs of racist conspiracy, but their own are insignificant and instantly forgotten. Sorry if I've offended WP principles here. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism aside the point about her being actually a rather weak chess player is valid. We should be able to find a source which points out that she is in fact just of average club strength and has been somewhat mythologized by the Disney film. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Her official FIDE profile says her current rating is 1628, and her World Rank among active female players is 5305.[1] {{Infobox chess biography}} includes ranking fields which mean more to lay people than the rating. The article must be read by a lot of lay people and the ranking should be sufficient for them to get an impression without having to choose between sources calling her a prodigy or club level. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Chess champion

"Chess champion" is not wikilinked in the lead, and rightly so, because Chess champion is obviously wrong. She is a chessplayer who have won championships (according to the article), so in that sense "chess champion" is correct. Would it be better to just say "chess player" in the lead? That is the case in the german, french and spanish WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and User:MaxBrowne fixed the text on 4 May (special:diff/778691640). --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit re "prodigy" "chess genius"

A recent edit [2] was justified by the edit summary, " 'Better balance' is achieved by not overhyping her like the Disney movie did. She is not any kind of chess prodigy or genius, her achievements are admirable only in the context of her background."

Prior to the above edit, there didn't seem to be any mention in the article of her being "any kind of chess prodigy or genius". In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the above-mentioned edit said that, "Phiona's present playing standard is that of a modest but competent club player". So it looks like the point regarding her playing ability has already been made and there is no need to repeat it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I discovered this article last year after promos for the Disney film came out and arrived to find a number of harsh unsourced criticisms in it. For whatever reason, there seems to be a dedicated group who're determined to attack Mutesi and minimize her skills & accomplishments, to the point of making all the information here slanted in a critical direction. WP:NPOV has not been respected, and it needs to be. JamesG5 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll find the intention of my LiveJournal web page declared in the last paragraph above the footnotes. I'll quote it here: "I know that posts like this one sound petty. And, in a sense, they are petty. Phiona Mutesi doesn't deserve to be disparaged for playing chess as best she can. But neither does she deserve the elevation that the controlled media are giving her. I don't criticize her personally because she has not been making the excessive claims about her skill. However, others have been erecting pedestals that she isn't fit to stand on. I have been knocking these over, and I will continue doing it." Jenab2 (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The people looking to "attack Mutesi and minimize her skills and accomplishments" fall into two categories - (1) racists and (2) people who actually have a clue about chess. I am in category 2. The stories on her have uncritically reported her as a "prodigy" or "genius" or "one of the world's best chess players", when in fact she is none of these things. This is not an attack on her, it's not her fault that most of our media went gaga over her without bother to check facts. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

New image

It's nice, but would improve with cropping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Please leave it for a few days. I have two ten year olds who are participating in an editathon on Friday and they want to add to her biography. This photo was added to appeal to them. @Another Beliver: Could you help? I added a picture of Mutesi to WikiCommons and I'd like to have it on this page. Thank you. --Bridges2Information (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently this became moot while I slept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"one of the first titled female players in Ugandan chess history"

this statement needs some amplification. Not the first? Second? Third? What title? Surely every competition for women or girls before her had a winner. What title exactly is this about? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. Did you read the whole article? The title referred to is the Women's Candidate Master title, and she was awarded it simultaneously with Ivy Amoko, so she was one of the first two.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-retired? Suggestion

After reading this article from last year, it seems that Mutesi is mostly retired from chess, since she doesn't train or play competitively anymore and is mainly focused on academics. Perhaps we should reconsider describing her solely as a chess player in the lede and throughout the article? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the lead needs changing, since chess is like 97% of the coverage. But the source is decent, and can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)