Talk:Alexander Alekhine

According to the article, Alekhine wasn't an antisemite, wasn't really a nazi, was only one of many top players to play in Nazi organized tournaments, didn't make up games, didn't take credit for other players' ideas, was mostly a teetotaler, that it was Casablanca's fault that they didn't play a rematch, that he was loyal and protective of his (fourth!) wife, and that he was murdered by the Soviets.

Most of these views are false, the others are highly speculative, and some are so ridiculous as to shock the conscience.

This article is an example of why so many academics bar their students from using Wikipedia. Fielding99 (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Are there particular statements, or omissions, that you find problematic? Most of the statements on these topics are dutifully supported by citations of sources that are considered reliable. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure if we're reading the same article. I think the article paints a fair picture. Yes Alekhine did say and write some vile anti-Semitic things, but he didn't necessarily hate Jewish people personally. It is also factually correct that many top players including Keres, Bogoljubow, Stoltz and Foltys played in Nazi-sponsored tournaments. The Soviet murder theory is presented as speculation, as is appropriate. The article doesn't gloss over Alekhine's generally unlikeable personality. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Article says:

Alekhine is the only World Chess Champion to have died while holding the title.

Vera Menchik was women's world champion when she was killed by a WW2 bomb hitting her house in 1944. I don't know if that should be noted in the article since I'm not sure if the men's and women's world championships were considered separate events back in those days, like they may have been in the Botvinnik (FIDE) era. That became an issue for Susan Polgar in the 1980s, resulting in some rules changes, so today the formerly "men's" world championship is now an "open" championship that anyone can compete in. Thoughts? 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:F42E (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The rules haven't changed; the World Championship is open to players of both sexes, as it was during Menchik's lifetime, and the Women's WC is open only to women.

They have been separate championships ever since they both existed. Conflating them as suggested can only cause confusion and/or arguments.

More generally, statements like "Alekhine is the only World Chess Champion to have died while holding the title" are not very interesting except as the answers to trivia questions. So I am not attached to this statement, but I have no idea if I could get consensus for removing it. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• The article uses some unreliable sources, like old geocities websites and an angelfire website. These should be removed, and the information sourced to them should be cited to other sources or removed.
• To help with the above task, there are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section that can be used instead. The large amount of sources listed in Further reading also makes me think that this article might not be complete. If some of these sources are not usable in the article, I think they should be removed.
• There is some uncited prose in the article.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Would be nice to have because of how commonly mispronounced it is. Kaotao (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

The article uses some unreliable sources, like old geocities websites and an angelfire website. These should be removed, and the information sourced to them should be cited to other sources or removed. To help with this task, there are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section that can be used instead. The large amount of sources listed in Further reading also makes me think that this article might not be complete. If some of these sources are not usable in the article, I think they should be removed. There is some uncited prose in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is the above a complete list of problems you have encountered? I would like something that I (or someone else) could use as a checklist. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bruce leverett: This is a complete list for now. I'm happy to take another look when the above are completed. Other editors are welcome to also post concerns, and after a re-review I might find other concerns. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to do a little more work here. Before I commit hours to this effort, I want to know if there's light at the end of the tunnel. It is not realistic to kick off a GAR without some idea of how much effort it will involve. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bruce leverett: The GA criteria is at WP:GA?. Any editor can review and determine what needs to be done so that the article meets the criteria. Wikipedia is a volunteer service and doing a deep review takes me several hours, which is time that I do not have. I am happy to re-review this article once editors finish making improvements and determine that it meets the GA criteria: pinging me here is the best way to ask me to re-review. Any questions about the criteria can be posted at WT:GA. Any questions about the article can be posted below. Z1720 (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]