Wikipedia

Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy/Archive 1

< Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Tkbrett in topic motion to dismiss
Archive 1

Shouldn't, you now, the game itself be included in the article?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

. 80.49.60.84 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the Sinquefield Cup game, I don't think so. The game itself was not particularly noteworthy except for its outcome and there's no way to "prove" cheating in a game that consists only of legal moves just by analyzing the positions. Also not included in RS. AviationFreak💬 14:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Article move

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Do you think it'd be a good idea to remove the "2022" from the article title? NytharT.C 08:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I might make a bold article title move if someone doesn't reply. NytharT.C 18:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree, although I feel like it should have a more accurate name than just "controversy" anyway. Been searching the web a bit, and the most common descriptions appear to be "feud" (prominent examples: CNN, ABC News) and "cheating scandal" (examples: Forbes, The Guardian), although just "Hans Niemann vs. Magnus Carlsen" often suffices. ChessBase calls it "The Carlsen-Niemann Affair". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You moved the page right before I left my comment, oh well. I guess we can also wait and see if any predominant name arises. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"Cheating scandal" might violate BLP because there isn't evidence of cheating; "feud" is an option. NytharT.C 23:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree about "cheating". "Affair" has somewhat similar "vibes", though I think most reasonable people would see past them, in context. I don't know about "feud", because Carlsen "put him over" in his "post-match promo", nice and respectable-like. Of course, Ric Flair did the same to Sting during one of their feuds, even "took him under the horsemen's wing", then BAM, back to being "married" for seemingly ever. I definitely like how the year was "buried", one of a kind, whooo! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsavory speculation without evidence.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Editors, these are still living people. WP:BLP still holds. Exceptional claims still require exceptional sources, and furthermore, 'some people baselessly allege' is never an acceptable inclusion. Please do not re-introduce speculation about cheating devices that share similarities to marital aids without actual evidence or any basis for the allegation. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this. These people are cyber bullying a literal teenager and it is morally wrong. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

moving information into background section.

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

most of the sections in this article contain background information—hans niemann's past cheating, magnus carlsen's unbeaten streak, and a few more bits—that is not laid out in a chronological format. i believe this article would be best served by collecting this information and placing it in a background section.

however, i want to hear the consensus on this. Ayyydoc (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. AviationFreak💬 13:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Fully agree with this, the article could be much benefitted from placing these events within a chronology. Would support anyone who attempts to do so. Criticalus (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable chess sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Since this controversy will involve citing chess sources along with news sources, I wanted consensus on which chess sources should be considered reliable, apart from citing other news sources bound by Wikipedia policy WP:RSP. Below is a list of chess sources I've found.

Chess.com News
Chess24 News
Chess24 Wall
Chessdom
Chessbase
World Chess

Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate this, but I was actually considering saying something about chess24 the other day - Aren't they heavily affiliated with or somehow monetarily attached to Carlsen? Could that be a conflict of interest? AviationFreak💬 22:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that was in my mind when I decided to make this discussion. Carlsen's company Play Magnus Group acquired chess24 in 2019, and Play Magnus AS in turn was acquired by Chess.com in 2022. Carlsen's financial affiliation with all of those entities arguably raises conflict of interest issues. My question is whether that impacts their news coverage of the controversy. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Chess.com and Chess24 have a direct COI here. Chessdom is generally unreliable. Chessbase and World Chess: Maybe? Mainstream news outlets tend to have slightly more editorial oversight. – SJ + 16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed a link to Yosha's analysis. A self-published YouTube video is difficult to accept as a valid source. --B (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Yosha Iglesias did not do the research that resulted into the spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/127lwTsR-2Daz0JqN1TbZ8FgITX9Df9TyXT1gtjlZ5nk A friend of FIDE Master Yosha Iglesias recommended the sheet, see 0:34 in her video The most incriminating evidence against Hans Niemann. Yosha Iglesias is a secondary source.
Hikaru Nakamura checked both video and spreadsheet, see Is This Proof That Hans Niemann Cheated? His conclusion: Yosha Iglesias' video and the spreadsheet are credible. Niemann did play games with an unlikely 100% accuracy, outperforming Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen. Uwappa (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about the Carlsen-Niemann controversy. The purpose of it is not to prove or disprove whether Niemann cheated. But even aside from that ... Hikaru is an expert on chess. He is not an expert on statistics or the scientific method. That he thinks Yosha's videos make sense has no bearing whatsoever on whether they should be included. I watched Yosha's video. I watched Hikaru's video. The logic is so indescribably bad as to be indefensible. A move is considered "accurate" if it is the best move according to any chess engine. So if you have 50 moves in your game and 45 of those moves are the best move according to some chess engine somewhere (not necessarily the same chess engine for all 45 moves), then you have 90% accuracy. That has the obvious logic problem of, which engine is he using to cheat? In these "100% accurate" games, no single engine said they were "100% accurate". So that's a completely meaningless statistic.
Further, what is the basis for saying he outperformed Fischer, Kasparov, or Carlsen? Did they run this same study on all of Fischer's games? Or Kasparov? Or Carlsen? I haven't seen that spreadsheet. And that's the whole problem with the methodology and the reason that nobody who actually is an expert on statistics or the scientific method would consider it to have any meaning whatsoever. If you run the identical test on 50 different chess players and you show that Niemann's accuracy is a whole lot better than everyone else, then you have something to talk about. (That still doesn't prove cheating - it just proved that there is a difference.) But that's not what she did. She didn't even run the same test against five different players. She just gives estimates of what she thinks the accuracy rating should have been and says 100 is too high.
Hikaru ran a few of his own games through the tests (maybe 5 of them? I'm going off of memory from his video) and one of the few he ran got 100%. Obviously it's a small sample size, but it casts doubt on any validity of this mumbo jumbo.
In any event, unless or until this is is not merely some self-published youtube videos, it has no business even being considered here. --B (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Dlugy (2022 Sep)

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The two sources cited for the claim "Dlugy has also faced accusations of cheating on Chess.com" are not reliable sources for that claim. They don't themselves give sources for that claim, for instance. Indeed, I have not been able to find support for that claim by searching the Web. I have no way of affirming that there were any such accusations. Note that chess.com vigorously erases discussion of cheating claims from the talk pages of its articles, so very likely, even if Dlugy had in fact been caught cheating, we would have a hard time finding reliable sources. That's life. Due to WP:BLP, we cannot ourselves make this claim without exquisite reliable sources. We have to somehow explain the innuendo in Carlsen's remark without violating BLP rules. Any suggestions? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I added a link to this Guardian article, which mentions the allegations. One of the refs seemed completely unrelated and didn't mention Dlugy's name at all so I removed it. (Maybe it was in comments or something? No idea? I couldn't find Dlugy in there at all.) The other is an article on Chess24 written by a professional chess journalist working for Chess24.com. I don't see why it wouldn't be considered reliable. --B (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Chess24 has a COI issue with Carlsen. 0xDeadbeef 13:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If chess24 could lead me closer to the source of the allegations about Dlugy, I might be willing to overlook that it is associated with Carlsen. But it doesn't lead me any closer. Readers who want to find out more about Dlugy's alleged cheating are stymied. They can't find out which tournament it was, or the exact date, or whether or not the allegations were proven (or disproved), or who made the accusation, or even whether or not there actually was an accusation. This is WP:BLPGOSSIP at its worst.
As I mentioned, we are unlikely to get what we want here. Chess.com does not routinely disclose anything about cheating accusations -- they don't want to get sued any more than we want to. And, whenever anyone mentions cheating in the talk page of one of their articles, they scrub it out. So we aren't likely to get out of BLP hell by getting more and better journalistic sources. Obviously Carlsen thinks there were cheating accusations against Dlugy. But who knows if he has any sources either -- he certainly isn't saying. We would be remiss if we didn't explain that Carlsen's mention of Dlugy was ironic. But if we say out loud that Dlugy has faced accusations of cheating, we don't have a leg to stand on, and we can get sued as much as anybody else. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think providing resources for learning more about the allegations against Dlugy is a requirement for mentioning his name, nor even relevant to whether his name should be mentioned. The purpose of mentioning the allegations exist is to explain Carlsen's name drop, not to prove the truth of the accusations or even offer a view as to their validity. (It's worth noting that the Maxim Dlugy itself does make mention of the accusation.) The fact that the accusation exists is established in CBS Sports, The New York Post, Vice, and Fox News, among others. I don't see any BLP problem here with saying the accusation exists. We're not going into great detail. We're literally just explaining why Carlsen dropped the name. --B (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Since I posted the above dire forecast, the situation has greatly improved. Another editor (anonymous) has added some text to Maxim Dlugy that cites an article in Vice about the allegations of cheating. The article is a genuine secondary source -- the author has gotten permission to review the relevant emails between Dlugy and the chess.com staff, and the author has analyzed and evaluated them; thus, the reader can find out what the problem was (and is), and can evaluate how relevant it is to the Carlsen–Niemann controversy. I will shortly (hopefully later this evening) tidy up that citation and the surrounding text in Maxim Dlugy, and add the same citation to this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I added the information related to the new Vice report on Chess.com's emails with Dlugy. The facts cited make the "allegations of cheating" issue moot, since Chess.com have authorized this disclosure themselves. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CEO and Daniel Rensch of Chess.com making Reddit comments which got reported by NYT - comment?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While going through the Chess subreddit, I noticed that the CEO of Chess.com, Erik Allebest, as well as chief chess officer and spokesperson Daniel Rensch frequently making comments on Reddit.

Commentary related to Allebest's posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/search/?q=ceo&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1
Commentary related to Rensch's posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/search/?q=rensch&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1

While Reddit isn't a notable source, the fact that these notable individuals are making material responses online on the controversy is getting noticed and reported by the news media:

Report on Allebest's reddit activity: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/professional-chess-cheating-scandal-magnus-carlsen-hans-niemann-1234602625/
Report on Rensch's reddit activity: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/crosswords/hans-niemann-magnus-carlsen-cheating-update.html

Chess.com representatives making substantial online commentary worth reporting? Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I certainly think so. They're closely tied to the situation and it's been reported on by RS. WPscatter t/c 03:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Dlugy (2022 Oct)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

maxim dlugy released a statement regarding this controversy that i believe would be of note. although dlugy is not a direct casualty of this controversy, he's certainly involved, and the material in here has encyclopedic value. what do you all think ? Ayyydoc (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has added a reference to that statement in Maxim Dlugy. It is very relevant to that article, but I am not sure where or how I would cite it in this article -- does it help to clarify about Niemann and/or Carlsen? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We should go by secondary reliable sources: what they say and how they say it is relevant to Hans-Magnus determines the weight it deserves in this article. Aside from weight issues, I don't think we should be using either of the links cited on Dlugy's article; they are not reliable. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Background of Invitation to GM Hans Niemann

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article begins by mentioning that Magnus Carlsen entered the Sinquefield Cup as a wildcard, but it doesn't mention the significant fact that GM Hans Niemann was invited as a replacement for Hungarian GM Richard Rapport, who became unable in late August to travel to the United States. https://twitter.com/GrandChessTour/status/1562468636975312896 Later in the article, it's mentioned that Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen raised concerns with the organizers about Niemann's inclusion, but the timing and context of this are unclear in the article. 100.15.126.133 (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Anal beads

Latest comment: 2 years ago52 comments13 people in discussion

Would anyone like to make a case for or against this section that 23.84.19.247 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing? Sure, it's a borderline ridiculous claim. But the section is about the public discourse and it's incredibly well-established that the anal beads are a part of the public discourse on the issue. Even Elon Musk tweeted about it. --B (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree, this isn't one rogue source that decided to print something outlandish, every ref in that section mentions the beads. It is an important component of understanding this controversy and the external attention it received. By the way, the IP editor has breached 3RR with their repeated reverts. Davey2116 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, what is 3RR? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh wait. Found a description. Well sorry. Like I said. I don't know how Wikipedia works. Am learning now. But either way can the default remain not to include this slander until decided otherwise? Have sympathy for this 19 year old TEENAGER! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
First of all sorry. I don't know how Wikipedia works. Didn't even know there is a talk page. Second, please do the morally right thing and not propagate these rumors! This is a 19 year old child! If he were older, then it could be fair game, but this is a child and please take his mental health into consideration! Furthermore, in those reverts I quotes the BLP guideline that was being directly violated. This should absolutely NOT be included. The age MUST be taken into account! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the BLP guidelines:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, until there is consensus (on hopefully NOT including this bead nonsense), can the default be it not be included until it is decided otherwise? Please. This is a child. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose inclusion of such a shameful and slanderous claim, which, tellingly, started out as purely a joke and ended up in a Wikipedia article. The sources invoked in favor of inclusion are either childish writeups of the reddit variety (editors should look up "reddit" in WP:RSP: "generally unreliable", is the generous assessment) or reports that a joke had been made.
WP:BLPREMOVE is razor clear: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources; relies on self-published sources; or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards. Emphasis added. And I will underline once again what that policy states in no uncertain terms about yer ol' edit warring: The three-revert rule does not apply to removals [of such material]. End of story. And one more thing: Any editor who has attempted to remove this disgraceful material should be lauded. -The Gnome (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for backing me The Gnome! Since I am an IP user, I'd expect I'm at the lowest rung of the totem pole hierarchy. I normally don't speak out or make edits, but this was just different because it is a child! Thank you for your support! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I could not disagree more strongly with The Gnome. The anal beads point of contention are definitely worthy of mention on this article. Currently the second paragraph notes that "[Niemann] offered to play in a closed environment without electronic connections and said "if they want me to strip fully naked, I will do it" to disprove any allegations of cheating.[13]" -- without the context of the anal beads accusations, this information is inert and lacking the necessary background as to why he would make such a statement.
This is not "contentious material about a living person" because no claim is being made by Wikipedia as to the veracity of these ridiculous allegations, but rather, the fact that these allegations were made in the public sphere and the resultant effect on this controversy and the actions thereafter. Anyone who has followed this controversy as it developed knows these spurious and unproven allegations played a huge role in developing this situation: they are not a mere footnote in the story, and removing them from this article is an intentional alteration of the historical record. If you find the allegations 'distasteful' or 'disgusting' and use that as prerogative to rewrite history, rethink your MO. Here are some further sources to peruse:
a) https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/09/27/chess-grandmaster-denies-cheating-by-using-anal-beads
b) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/20/carlsen-v-niemann-the-cheating-row-that-is-rocking-chess-explained
c) https://kotaku.com/chess-champion-anal-bead-magnus-carlsen-hans-niemann-1849542639
d) https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7v38y/the-silence-of-my-critics-speaks-for-itself-hans-niemann-says-he-is-being-unfairly-attacked-in-chess-scandal
The VICE source includes a timeline that might be helpful in sorting out how this happened. "According to The Guardian, a possibility of cheating could be that Carlsen’s pre-game analysis was leaked to Niemann, but the structure at hand was already played in a well-known game against England’s Michael Adams in 2006. Another, more outlandish theory, which seemingly started as a joke but has been bandied about, proposes that Niemann cheated by using electronic anal beads connected to a chess engine computer, which would vibrate when he made the correct moves. Elon Musk tweeted about this theory, which was first posited on Reddit and then was later mentioned on Canadian grandmaster Eric Hansen's ChessBrah Twitch feed, which has 282,000 followers: "That's probably a good one, right? An anal bead would probably beat the thing, I'm serio[us]," Hansen said in response to a commenter on his feed. "The engine—it would probably, I don't know. I really don't know. Think about it. I told you it was a prostate massager, but I'm not an expert at that stuff." " Criticalus (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a 19 year old child! Please have sympathy for his mental health! Him being forced to refute such slanderous claims to save his reputation doesn't not constitute evidence and it absolutely doesn't grant you a license to then spread the rumors further without a second thought. It is still libel and is explicitly against BLP rules. Can you explicitly answer why this very specific subsection of that page does not apply?
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops
If you can explain why the the above guideline doesn't apply, then I'd say you have a credible argument. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. Accidentally used double negative. I basically meant that it does NOT constitute evidence. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
a 19 year old is definitely a child. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In most countries (including the US where Wikipedia's servers are based) the dividing line between child and adult is generally held to be 18, so a 19 year old is an adult. If I can have consensual anal sex with Niemann on the grounds that they are an adult we can most certainly discuss allegations of similar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Not if it is defamatory gossip. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Criticalus, I sincerely suggest you revisit the WP:BLP policy, in particular about defamation. This is not about Wikipedia making any "claim as to the veracity" of the allegations. It is about Wikipedia simply reproducing the allegations. They began as purely a joke, and then were amplified in sources that are deprecated in Wikipedia, such as reddit. This is contentious material, which we are expliticly not allowed to reproduce here, even if the "joke" has been mentioned, again as a "joke," in mainstream media. Defamation is defamation. -The Gnome (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Umm ... reporting about defamation is not defamation. BLP demands that we remove unsourced or poorly sourced material - this is neither. The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and plenty of other mainstream sources have covered it. If we were talking about some silly thing that hadn't left the world of reddit and youtube, then obviously we don't include it. But that ship is long-since sailed. --B (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • More accurately than the way B, reporting about defamation is not defamation, of course, but reproducing the material claimed to be defamatory is, or at the very least, could be, in itself, defamatory. The practice can actually be punished in court in many countries, such as the United Kingsom. The "serious" media invoked reproduce a joke of controversial nature, i.e. Nieman cheating by a very specific manner. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
cool vice.com refers to my r/chessmemes post! :D
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7v38y/the-silence-of-my-critics-speaks-for-itself-hans-niemann-says-he-is-being-unfairly-attacked-in-chess-scandal
https://www.reddit.com/r/chessmemes/comments/x8217h/the_real_answer_is_actually_elementary_magnus/
in this part
'Elon Musk tweeted about this theory, which was first posited on Reddit (...)'
Of course I didn't come up with the theory. XiTro did. I just shared it. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A couple of things some editors above are getting wrong:
  1. This is not defamation. I mean, the fact that reputable sources such as The Guardian, Business Insider, ESPN, The Washington Post, Slate, The Atlantic, etc., have all covered it should already make it pretty clear that reporting on the beads rumors does not constitute defamation. In fact, even the beads rumors themselves are not defamatory either; from a legal perspective, U.S. courts have repeatedly affirmed that "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining [what was alleged]" is protected speech and does not rise to the level of defamation; a reasonable person would conclude that such rhetoric does not purport to convey facts and thus it is deemed non-actionable in a defamation case. Given this, I see no issue with Wikipedia covering it (I reiterate, not declaring it true nor stating it in Wiki voice), especially given its importance to understanding the public reaction to the controversy.
  2. This may be contentious material, however, only contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards need be removed. None of these apply here. The fact that reliable sources have covered the beads aspect of this story means there is nothing in WP:BLP that prohibits us from covering it in the same way. The intent of the policy on contentious material is to exclude material whose only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources, which this has. Same goes for the WP:BLPGOSSIP section: the sources are reliable, it is true that many observers outside the chess community have focused on the beads rumor, and this is highly relevant to our coverage not of Niemann but of the controversy, where (as already explained by three different editors above) it gives necessary context to both the public discourse and some of Niemann's response to Carlsen's cheating allegation.
  3. The 3RR situation the IP editor got themselves in did not qualify as exempted behavior under WP:NOT3RR, according to the admin who decided the ANI report. Therefore, this matter is not the clear-cut BLP case that some editors above would have you believe, far from it. Actually, while I'm on this point, the sentiment expressed above that the IP editor should be lauded for edit warring is kinda appalling.
Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The statement about editors who remove the unsupported gossip being lauded was made by me - and I fully stand by it. The reason for such a stance is the supreme importance Wikipedia places on information concerning living persons. While WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:BLP are all Wikipedia policies, the strongest possible language is used in BLP to warn against the aforesaid practice of reproducing controversial & unsupported material about living persons. (Refraining from such practice means, among many things, protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits.) That's all there is to it.
As to the "sourcing", the only "information" imparted through some admittedly reliable sources, is that the "joke" has been made. Which, by itself, does not make the joke worthy of mention in Wikipedia. If one thousand comedians make a joke about, for example, Donald Trump having a small penis, that, by itself, does not make the joke worthy of inclusion. (Not to imply that Wikipedia vandals have not tried their hand. For the attempts at infamy, see here. For their spanking, see here. For some fallout, see here.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
^ I second this! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The Gnome is right here. Articles about people or orgs should not be coatracks for whatever gossip was popular about them, even for historical figures, and we take extra precautions for living people. It has become accepted for ridiculous and offensive rumors to be picked up and reported on by modern news media, deriving attention from the ridiculousness of the claims, under the fig leaf that the media are "just reporting on the crazy things others are saying!1!"; but a) this is not good practice, b) to the extent mainstream outlets do this they become less reliable as sources, and c) it is not WP style to embrace or further amplify that practice. – SJ + 17:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Please explain how it is defamatory for Wikipedia to include information in this article explaining how outlandish internet rumors fueled and fed into the controversy that the article describes. It's reporting on defamation, as B says, and I also concur with what Davey2116 says.
Also, I have no quarrel with IP editors, having done so myself for decades, but I find it intriguing that 23.84.19.247 repeatedly cites BLP as sole reasoning (with the same additional elements of Niemann's age and mental health) for edit warring when less than 24 hours ago on this very talk page you said: "I don't know how Wikipedia works. Didn't even know there is a talk page." while also contradicting the guideline you're citing by claiming that "if he were older, then it could be fair game." The little bit which you read and are now harping on is not the be all and end all that guides what is included on Wikipedia. Since you are new to Wikipedia editing, firstly, welcome and I hope you make very valuable contributions here. I recommend you to read WP:TE and WP:SOAPBOX as I believe they may help inform your approach moving forward. Neither the mental health or age of Neimann has any bearing on whether Wikipedia should record what happened historically; Twitter might be a better venue for that conversation. When in 2035, chess aficionados who look up this article for information are missing bountiful context because of the squeamishness of a few Wikipedia editors, who will be deprived, and who will be responsible? I'm sorry anal beads make you uncomfortable. Criticalus (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Where do you get the impression that an editor opposing inclusion does so because "anal beads make [them] uncomfortable? Criticalus, kindly please refrain from any such personal characterizations because the practice here is strictly frowned upon. We're doing quite well so far, civility-wise. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair, I withdraw that. It was just a bit of a turn of phrase, a double entendre to lighten an otherwise heavy message. Criticalus (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I will accept this oblique apology, but nonetheless your characterization of your PA on me seems disingenuous. It didn't lighten the message but rather made it more aggressive and your comment now seems more of an attempt to backpedal than apologize. But whatever, apology accepted. Please refrain in the future. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per WP:UNDUE. Yes, reliable sources have covered it, because modern media loves controversy and will amplify things that grab attention. But how enduring or encyclopedic is this puerile speculation? Why should Wikipedia further hype media distortions? Ovinus (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree it's puerile speculation, but the existence of that speculation played a large role in this scandal. Carlsen quit his game without comment. Within the gap left by his lack of comment, speculation about what happened took hold and was the originator of this controversy. Before Carlsen made his sort-of accusation statement against Niemann, the cheating scandal had been amplified by Jimmy Fallon and Elon Musk precisely because of the outrageousness of the anal beads aspect. Leaving that out is intentionally limiting the scope of the article. If you do that, you're choosing to leave an article incomplete and missing context in favor of what feels less puerile: how encyclopedic is that?
If Carlsen had never brought weight to this controversy by making his statement, this article would not need to exist in the first place. In the context of Niemann's individual article, I would agree that this unsubstantiated allegation should certainly not be included. In the case of an article about this specific controversy, where this aspect is important to the development of that controversy, let's not be willfully ignorant and put our heads in the sand, and let's make the most complete and neutral article possible. No one is suggesting the article become some deep dive into the anal beads speculation, rather the mention of its existence and how it impacted this controversy's development is warranted. Frankly I don't get how this is so controversial here...
Criticalus (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The anal beads speculation was never serious to begin with, it was a comment taken out of context that the online news cycle decided to run with. But it's undeniably a large part of why the scandal got so popular, even if it's undoubtedly wrong and unsubstantiated. It merits mention in the article for that alone, although I would argue that a mention of its near-certain falsehood would not violate WP:NPOV. Wpscatter (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I see, so it's important because this speculation accelerated the controversy. I didn't understand that, sorry; thought it was some random comment that gained no real traction. If the text added to the article explains how the speculation changed the overall discussion, I withdraw my opposition. Ovinus (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
No don't believe them. Perhaps the reason the controversy attracted the attention of these supporters of inclusion because of this sex toy rumors, but it certainly was not the reason for the rest of the chess world. The real controversy was that the number one ranked player was accusing another grandmaster of cheating against him and then resigning multiple games because of it. The speculation was focused on why Carlsen quit those matches and not because of all this other nonsense. These editors framing it this way is both disingenuous and puerile. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the chess world cares because of the accusations, but the anal beads comment gained enough traction to draw the attention of many people outside the chess world. Besides, if the beads comment is such a disgusting accusation, wouldn't you say that the article clarifying that it isn't true would be a good thing to include? Wpscatter (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carlsen–Niemann_controversy_and_Hans_Niemann. Seems the consensus on the notice board is that it is NOT worthy of inclusion. So I'd say they have the higher authority on this. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is so sanctimonious I can't help but laugh. Where to begin? First, there is absolutely no consensus to be gleaned from looking at that notice board post, which you also cherry-picked by ignoring the larger, more substantive discussion occurring here where the consensus seems to be growing in favor of inclusion (though still in early stages). Also that you never noted or responded to my comment to you earlier (seen above on this thread) where I encouraged you to read WP:TE and WP:SOAPBOX, so I will reiterate these recommendations. Your selective choice of what to acknowledge and to respond to, seen in these two examples, dovetails well with your desire to omit essential material for this article while grandstanding about morality. This is not a platform for you to be pushing how you want the world to be, this is an encyclopedia. In fact, were you not warned for edit warring on this very post? Worthy of note. Criticalus (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I consider this and that other post you mentioned a personal attack. Didn't respond then but will now: Please refrain from doing so in the future again since you have established a pattern of personal attacks. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You can't just conjure up a "pattern of personal attack" by claiming it. I would say you are taking this rather personally, as anyone reading anything you've written can see clearly. Statements like "as long as well [sic] all agree, for whatever ultimate reason, that this should absolutely definitely NOT be included on his bio page, then I don't care what you call it" which you made on Niemann's talk page indicate a lack of regard for Wikipedia principles and a willingness to contort them to whatever final result suits your purpose, which as you've stated numerous times, is to counter perceived "cyber bullying" by Wikipedia's inclusion of any reference to this rumor. If pointing that out makes you feel personally attacked, I am sorry about that, and I hope that you do not take this personally, as I have no avarice against you. Also, I just saw as I was typing this that you posted something on my talk page trying to continue to establish some kind of pattern? This kind of gaslighting won't work, and it's beneath both you and this platform. Criticalus (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You attacked me personally at least twice on this same page. That is a pattern. And your framing of this attack on me as me just "taking it personally" is disingenuous. You yourself just admitted above that what you wrote was a personal attack. My notice on your talk page was a request that you STOP from any more personal attacks on me. Please and thank you. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with what Wpscatter just said. Unfortunately in some media this aspect is being reported almost as if it were fact, and people coming to this article are highly likely to have heard of it - it's Wikipedia's job to set them right (by noting that it is unsubstantiated speculation) rather than pretending it doesn't exist. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Absence of inclusion of something in Wikipedia does not in any way, manner, or form means that the something does not exist. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
People sometimes look things up here because they've heard a little about them in some other source. If someone reads about the controversy in the Atlantic, then a few days later looks it up in Wikipedia, he or she is going to expect Wiki to mention all the important things he or she saw in the Atlantic. If we don't mention something, such as anal beads, the reader will immediately notice, and will infer (correctly) that we are being squeamish. Encyclopedias in particular, and reference works generally, don't get any points for being squeamish. Credibility is everything for Wikipedia; if it gets around that we are censoring or suppressing news, we are doomed. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Nope. That's most certainly not the case, not how you describe it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Bruce leverett. And it is not a collection of random information, either. Actually, Wikipedia itself, and in itself, is not a reliable source of information. For news updates, we look elsewhere in media. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In service of improving mainspace rather than overly litigating this in the talkspace, I have re-inserted this information in a manner that I believe to be responsible and respectful, it does not make any claims or assertions, nor any sexual references, but rather only serves to include how the controversy was impacted by the speculation, and how the speculation altered Niemann's response. I believe that this serves the bare minimum for now. Criticalus (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • My only qualm with your edit is that "concealed device" feels like deliberately beating around the bush; there is no doubt about what it's referring to, so we shouldn't self-censor. At the same time, "concealed device" is as descriptive as it needs to be for the context, so it may be fine. I'll leave that decision to someone with more experience. Otherwise, thanks for the additions! Wpscatter (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The edit is fine, Criticalus. We best leave things as they are and await developments on that bagatelle. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    APPROVE inclusion
    Why? Because many sources are getting it wrong -- example a sports show mentioned the scandal and it was clear the commentators thought 1) the OTB cheating was proven rather than alleged 2) the beads were the mechanism. They acted as if it were true.
    That is enough for me to suggest a very brief 1-3 sentence section that says -- categorically -- the beads were a JOKE made in response to the allegations and that they are not (categorically not) involved in any real mechanism for OTB cheating at the 2022 S Cup (and in fact there is no evidence at all -- the alleged event is a unicorn, a ghost, a chimera...unfounded and without evidence).
    If you don't include it and make it clear it is not true...the public will continue to act as if it is true. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Chess ipsa loquitur.

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Please someone somehow work 'Chess speaks for itself' into this page. Lol. But really like perhaps mention the 2022 Crypto Cup game? Thewriter006 (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Niemann made the "Chess speaks for itself" remark weeks before the Carlsen-Niemann controversy started. It had then, and still has now, no bearing on the controversy. Some articles about the controversy in the chess press have mentioned it, but that's their problem, not ours. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks for your honesty. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Low importance for Chess wikiproject?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How is it only low importance? I would say that for now and for a while, the controversy will be one of the most significant chess controversies in 21st century chess. Rarely do you have the world chess champion personally accuse another player of cheating. Magnus Carlsen can make or break other people's chess careers, and prior to the controversy he was never known for pulling moves like he did during the controversy. This single controversy is the introduction for many people into the top chess players in the world if not chess itself. RPI2026F1 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly done. AviationFreak💬 19:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant!

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

All who contributed to this article, WELL DONE! I feel like this is the kind of article for the general reader that *only Wikipedia can do in this era. Kudos to all who brought their skills (and time) to fore. jengod (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

i couldn't agree more: it's really remarkable seeing such a high quality article being putting together, and i'm happy we're a part of that. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Warmly seconded. Especially for noisy topics like this where 'news' outlets are awash with bad rehashes of one another's summaries, offering little context and propagating hearsay and mistakes, this is a balm for the eyes. – SJ + 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 2 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Created by AviationFreak (talk). Self-nominated at 05:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC).

  This article was created within the week before its nomination, and its current revision is at least 1,500 characters in length and isn't a stub. It hasn't ever been featured in ITN, but is an ITN candidate. Nonetheless, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, it concerns me that the article cites Magnus Carlsen's recent tweet, which contains an insinuation – most would describe it as a veiled accusation – of unfair play. The policy on biographies of living persons makes clear that self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – are, in this case, not allowed to be used, and that such sources are never allowed when they involve claims about third parties. This applies when the source of a quoted text is a tweet or other self-published source, even when the text is cited to a secondary source.

Second, there are a few minor issues:

  1. The article claims that the controversy has garnered significant attention from outside the chess profession, but – after a citation check – I found that it's cited to a transcript of a four-minute radio interview with a chess fan where neither the interviewer nor the interviewee makes that claim.
  2. It's worth noting that there seems to be a little bit of proseline throughout the article – completely understandable for such an article and unfortunately all-too-common for articles about current and recent events.

Good start, but the article still needs a little bit of work. Once the issues I've detailed above have been resolved and you're confident that the article is ready for a re-review, do feel free to reply. As for the hook, it looks concise and well-sourced to me. Quandarie12:46, 2022-09-20

@Quandarie: The tweet is not used as a citation for any prose material. It shows up on the references list because of the way {{tweet}} works. I think including the tweet in the article is rather important, as it shows one of the major developments of the controversy. As far as the first issue, the prose now simply demonstrates the controversy's wider coverage by mentioning its inclusion on talk shows. As far as proseline, I'd argue that the article reads much more like a legitimate well-constructed telling of events than the typical proseline format. The article was created after all the major developments so far, and therefore there hasn't been any rushing to add new information by editors. AviationFreak💬 13:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. The issue at hand isn't that the tweet is cited, but that text in the article was sourced from it. Citations simply acknowledge where information in an article comes from. Secondary sources contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of primary sources.
Identical copies of a source – including excerpts and quotations – aren't treated differently from the original, assuming the copies are authentic. If an online news article contains an embedded PDF of a court filing, the court filing remains a primary source, even if the news article is a secondary source. If a newspaper quotes a press release, the press release is still a primary source – see here for more information. Likewise, if you're citing an unaltered copy – such as a quotation or excerpt – of content from a self-published work, it is treated the same as that self-published work.
In other words: a source is not where text was obtained from, but where it originated from. To cite text from a tweet that was quoted in the New York Times, you should cite the tweet, because that's where the text originated from, and cite the New York Times, because that's where you obtained the text.
Back to the point: the policy on biographies of living persons states that self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – are, in this case, not allowed to be used, and that they're never allowed if they involve claims about third parties. This means that Carlsen's tweet shouldn't be in the article or used as source material for information within the article. Quandarie15:46, 2022-09-20
Look, maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying, but WP:BLPSPS simply doesn't apply here. His tweet doesn't reference any third parties, it only states that he is withdrawing. That is precisely why the situation is so rocky: Carlsen hasn't made any formal allegations. Tweets are displayed in articles all the time (there's even {{Tweet}} for this express purpose) - They're very similar to an image as far as usage goes. Showing the reader primary sources is often useful, and as long as we don't draw anything from those primary sources (instead relying on secondary sources to do that for us) we're using them properly. AviationFreak💬 16:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The policy is to never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
It applies to all tweets used as sources of material about a living person – regardless of whether the living person is a third party. Since Carlsen's tweet is used as a source of material about the controversy, and the controversy involves living people, the policy applies.
An article's subject is, by definition, what the article is about – and, according to policy, an article's title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
The article is about the situation – not about Carlsen, who has his own article. Since the article isn't about Carlsen, his tweets shouldn't be in it. Yes, a lot of articles cite tweets, but they shouldn't be used as a source of material about living people. Quandarie16:54, 2022-09-20
Ok, so the tweet in which Carlsen announces his withdrawal is somehow a source of material about Carlsen or Niemann? I think that's quite the stretch, and I think WP:BLP applies here only marginally - We're not writing a biography of either player, we're writing an explanation of an event (or series of events, depending on how you view it). Just because the event involves living people doesn't mean we treat the article like it's a BLP. Frankly this all seems a bit like WP:WikiLawyering to me. The spirit of the guidelines and policies is not violated by including a legitimately relevant tweet as a (properly attributed) primary source. AviationFreak💬 19:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so the tweet in which Carlsen announces his withdrawal is somehow a source of material about Carlsen – indeed. It's about Carlsen's decision to withdraw from the tournament. I don't think that's a stretch. I don't see how that's a stretch. It's not a stretch.
The policy is to never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
The article violates that. In other words, it contains a BLP violation. Quandarie21:42, 2022-09-20
BLP's guidelines on not using primary sources are designed to prevent Wikipedia from spreading misinformation or inaccurately portraying a negative image of someone. This use of a tweet is simply to show the reader an extremely relevant (included in multiple major news sources on the subject) piece of content that pertains directly to the controversy. The tweet is not being used as a source, but rather serving a similar function to an image (better demonstrating to the reader what happened). The tweet's inclusion in the article is not there to support any of the prose. Zero. AviationFreak💬 01:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone started an AfD discussion for the article. I'll take a fresh look at this after the AfD closes. Quandarie02:12, 2022-09-21
The policy is to never use self-published sources – that is not true at all. WP:SELFPUB says they are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published sources from experts are allowed, as well as statements about oneself if they are not extraordinary/controversial (tweet that say "it's my birthday" are frequently used to cite a person's date of birth, for example). So it's not like having a tweet in the references list is automatically a bad thing. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's a direct quote from this policy: Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Emphasis mine. Quandarie13:06, 2022-09-21
What do you think that proves? The citation is sourcing a quote from Magnus Carlsen, nothing more. It is not someone saying defamatory stuff about Niemann or something. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  There are issues with the article:
The policy is to never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
It applies to all tweets used as sources of material about a living person – regardless of whether the living person is a third party. Since Carlsen's tweet is used as a source of material about the controversy, and the controversy involves living people, the policy applies.
Identical copies of a source – including excerpts and quotations – aren't treated differently from the original, assuming the copies are authentic. If a newspaper quotes a press release, the press release, including the portion of it quoted in the newspaper, remains a primary source – see here for more information. Likewise, if you're citing an unaltered copy – such as a quotation or excerpt – of content from a self-published work, it is treated the same as that self-published work.
The article is about the situation – not about Carlsen, who has his own article. Since the article isn't about Carlsen, his tweet shouldn't be in it. The inclusion of the tweet, which contains an insinuation of serious wrongdoing, is a BLP violation.
That the tweet contains such an insinuation is, nonetheless, irrelevant; if it didn't, it would still violate the policy. I'm not a chess enthusiast. I don't take sides in this controversy. I'm making these observations as part of the DYK review. Quandarie05:59, 2022-09-22
I am confused now, I thought you meant only the {{cite tweet}} is the problem. Do you mean the inclusion of the tweet quotation in the article itself is the problem? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah – that's what I meant. Quandarie13:22, 2022-09-22
I don't want to go in circles on this forever so I'm more than happy to have a disinterested third party come in and evaluate the discussion at any point, but this is just a sorry case of WikiLawyering in my opinion at this point. The idea that a tweet can't be placed in an article because it relates to a controversy that contains living individuals is ridiculous. The spirit of the policy (WP:BLPSPS) is clearly meant to say that we shouldn't use self-published sources to make claims about people other than those publishing (and writing) the sources. Here, the tweet only provides information about Carlsen, the one who published the tweet. Just because the article title isn't "Magnus Carlsen" doesn't mean we ought not to include it. AviationFreak💬 14:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Let me address the accusation head-on. I'm not lawyering. I'm not stretching anything to fit any agenda. I've directly quoted relevant policies and – as part of the DYK review – thoroughly explained where the article is in violation.
I have no vested interest. I'm not an "interested party," as you seem to be insinuating. I don't take sides in this controversy. I'm making these observations, which are grounded in policy, as part of the DYK review.
Now, with that said: how are you coming up with your interpretations of policy? "Here, the tweet only provides information about Carlsen," you say, but it also contains what many interpret as an insinuation of serious wrongdoing.
Of course, whether the tweet contains such an insinuation is irrelevant; even if it didn't, it would still violate policy. Remember, the article title isn't "Magnus Carlsen" – therefore, the subject of the article isn't Carlsen.
The policy is clear. Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Both Carlsen and Hans Niemann are living people.
It's clear what the policy says. It says only what it says and nothing else. I don't understand – and you've never explained – the rationale behind your interpretation of what the policy is somehow "meant to say." Quandarie15:22, 2022-09-22
Apologies if you see my comments as insinuating a conflict of interest or some other intentional breach of policy. I don't mean to insinuate any kind of wrongdoing on your part besides a legitimate good faith misinterpretation of policy/guidelines (in my opinion, obviously). Many interpret the tweet as containing, as you say, "an insinuation of serious wrongdoing." However, I don't think the tweet being displayed on the side of the article as the article discusses and describes the tweet itself, sourced to NYT and WSJ, is using the tweet as a "source of material" about any living person. The tweet block exists simply to act (again, much like an image) as a visual representation of something in the article so that the reader may better understand the material at hand. AviationFreak💬 16:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You said, "However, I don't think the tweet being displayed on the side of the article as the article discusses and describes the tweet itself, sourced to NYT and WSJ [...]." I'm not sure what this refers to.
If this refers to the fact that the article discusses the tweet with citations to excerpts of the tweet within NYT and WSJ articles, do note that identical copies of a source – including excerpts and quotations – aren't treated differently from the original, assuming the copies are authentic.
If a newspaper quotes a press release, the press release, including the portion of it quoted in the newspaper, remains a primary source – see here for more information. Likewise, if you're citing an unaltered copy – such as a quotation or excerpt – of content from a self-published work, it's the same as citing the self-published work itself.
The tweet block, similar to an article's infobox, still needs to follow policy, even though both are supplementary to the article's prose. There are different policies for media files, such as photographs. Quandarie18:31, 2022-09-22
That excerpt refers to the article's prose ("...tweeting a simple announcement of his withdrawal alongside a video of José Mourinho saying 'I prefer really not to speak. If I speak, I am in big trouble.' Carlsen's withdrawal did not formally allege that Niemann had cheated, but the broader community saw his tweet as a heavy insinuation of an accusation.") discussing the tweet. While the tweet may remain unusable as a primary source, the tweet is not being used to cite any additional information in the article. The tweet block is not a citation, but a supplementary piece of content designed to better represent the story for the reader.
Requesting a   Second Opinion on this matter from another editor at DYK. AviationFreak💬 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Quandarie, are you saying that no one can be quoted in an article unless the article's subject either is the speaker or does not involve any living people? dying (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Editors can't source information or text from a tweet – that would contravene the policy. Exceptions exist, but none of the exceptions apply to Carlsen's tweet, which also contains an unsubstantiated insinuation of serious wrongdoing. Quandarie23:52, 2022-09-22
what are the exceptions that exist? from my reading of your previous statements, i had gathered that you were saying that the only exceptions were when the article's subject either was the speaker or did not involve any living people, but i want to make sure that i am understanding you correctly. dying (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah – those are the exceptions. Quandarie01:34, 2022-09-23
do you have any issues with the inclusion of maurice ashley's tweet in the article? the above exceptions clearly do not apply. dying (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I do have concerns – but I'm less concerned about it than about Carlsen's tweet. Carlsen's tweet concerns me the most, since it contains an unsubstantiated insinuation of wrongdoing – that's the reason I wanted to address Carlsen's tweet first.
On that note, there's a bit at the end of the article's third paragraph that summarizes a strongly-worded tweet by Garry Kasparov. The tweet – viewable here – is strongly worded and mentions Carlsen by name. The fact that information sourced from it is in the article could also contravene policy. Quandarie02:56, 2022-09-23
you have previously mentioned that "[t]hat [carlsen's] tweet contains such an insinuation is, nonetheless, irrelevant; if it didn't, it would still violate the policy", so i am not sure why the content of carlsen's tweet should matter. in any case, from what i understand, since you also consider ashley's tweet, and the summary of kasparov's tweet, to violate the policy, you therefore would still fail this dyk nomination even if carlsen's tweet was entirely removed, unless the other two violations were also similarly excised. is my understanding correct? dying (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as the inclusion of any of the tweets is a violation of policy. Quandarie05:16, 2022-09-23
does the method of publication matter? for example, if carlsen had posted his statement on telegram, would it have been perfectly fine to include it in the article? what if he had made his comments while streaming on twitch? dying (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Social media posts are considered self-published sources. Quandarie08:04, 2022-09-23
Sorry – let me clarify this a little. The method of publication for posts on messaging services, streaming sites and social media platforms is fundamentally the same; they're all considered self-published sources. Quandarie08:17, 2022-09-23
does this mean that the key issue isn't whether or not the source quoted is a tweet, but whether or not it is a self-published source? if carlsen had posted on telegram, commented on twitch, edited the wikipedia article about himself, or distributed at a tournament pamphlets that he had printed himself, none of those instances could be quoted in this article because they are all examples of self-publishing, correct? dying (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC) [pinging Quandarie. dying (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)]
It'd depend on whether they contain information about living people. Quandarie15:15, 2022-09-24
okay, Quandarie, my current understanding of your position is that no one can be quoted in an article if the source is self-published and contains information about living people, unless the article's subject either is the speaker or does not involve any living people.
the julius baer generation cup game, in which carlsen resigned after playing only one move, appears to have been an online game, played via the chess24 and microsoft teams platforms. this means that, in effect, the entire game, and carlsen's resignation, took place in self-published sources. the content of the sources involves a game played by living people, and the resignation of a living person. does this mean that the entire section in the article covering this game violates policy and should be removed? dying (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been away for a while and since then a lot of discussion has happened, but I still don't understand Quandarie's argument. You have been quoting a policy about sourcing – so the stuff in <ref>...</ref> tags – and yet you claim that the quotation of the tweet in the article body is the problem. That has nothing to do with sourcing, that's more akin to including a photograph or a chess position in the article. And given that this tweet is one of the primary points of discussion in the controversy, it makes a lot of sense for it to be there, and if it wasn't there it would be a clear omission in the article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The word "sourcing" refers to where information or text in an article comes from – i.e. where it was sourced from – and whether or not there is a citation to that source isn't relevant. Quandarie23:52, 2022-09-22
The word "sourcing" means and has always meant citing a source in a citation. The BLP policy uses the word "sourcing" in only this way. Sourcing is about references that support the article content, not about the article content itself. The policies around sourcing are about when those references sufficiently support the article content, and only when they do not then the content needs to be removed. In this case, the content of the tweet is sufficiently supported by a reference to the primary source (as the use of a primary source is recommended by WP:RS/QUOTE). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The policy in question doesn't use the word "sourcing." Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
Since the content in the tweet block comes from a self-published source, it is in clear violation. Quotations of tweets are the issue only because the source of the text within the quotations is a self-published source. Quandarie08:17, 2022-09-23
To claim that any statement can never be quoted just because it happens to be self-published is utterly ridiculous and would imply that a lot of existing articles are in violation. There exist articles entirely about tweets (e.g. Covfefe), do those need to be deleted? Tweets themselves can be an important aspect of a topic (as in this article) and without them in the article a reader would not have a complete picture of the situation. Posting something on social media is nowadays nothing different from saying something in public and that being quoted by journalists. All of these things are obviously not in the spirit of the BLP policy, and the RS policy clearly contradicts it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Policies related to BLP exist so potentially false statements about living persons aren't introduced into articles – we don't want another Seigenthaler biography incident, do we?
The policy reads, "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." It's clear what the policy says. It says only what it says and nothing else.
My interpretation of the policy – that self-published sources can't be used as sources of material about a living person, unless the sources are written or published by someone who is also the subject of the article – is clearly within the policy's spirit.
Policies reflect consensus. Please: if you disagree with a policy, raise it in the appropriate avenues. I don't have the power to unilaterally change a policy. The article on covfefe isn't in violation, as covfefe isn't a living person. Quandarie10:17, 2022-09-23
Since the tweet has been referenced extensively in secondary reliable sources, can we just cite it to one of those, instead of directly to Carlsen's twitter?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Identical copies of a source – including excerpts and quotations – aren't treated differently from the original, assuming the copies are authentic. If a newspaper quotes a press release, the press release, including the portion of it quoted in the newspaper, remains a primary source – see here for more information.
Likewise, if we're citing an unaltered copy – such as a quotation or excerpt – of content from a self-published work, it is treated the same as that self-published work. Quandarie11:25, 2022-09-23
I am not disagreeing with the policy, I am claming that you are completely misinterpreting it. If your interpretation of this policy is correct then it clearly does not reflect consensus at all, because there many articles that would then be in violation (just look at almost any transclusion of Template:Tweet).
You have said multiple times that the content of the tweet is not the problem, but that it being a self-published source is the problem. That tweet in the covfefe article is exactly that, and the article cites the original tweet. If you think that the content of the tweet is the problem, then it still doesn't make sense, because the tweet talks about nothing but himself and does not mention Niemann (all interpretetions of that tweet come from reliable, secondary sources that are also referenced in the article). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's a breakdown of the policy:
  • Never use self-published sources – this includes websites and tweets.
  • as sources of material about a living person – no material about a living person should come from a tweet or other self-published source. Since covfefe isn't a living person, the article on covfefe isn't in violation of the policy.
  • unless written or published by the subject of the article – if the subject of the article is a living person, his or her own tweets can be included in the article if it meets certain criteria.
My interpretation of the policy isn't novel. It's an interpretation grounded in what the policy actually says. It's clear what the policy says. It says only what it says and nothing else. Quandarie11:54, 2022-09-23
For context, there is a BLP issue that remains in the article:
The policy is to never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
It applies to all tweets used as sources of material about a living person – regardless of whether the living person is a third party. Since Carlsen's tweet is used as a source of material about the controversy, and the controversy involves living people, the policy applies.
Identical copies of a source – including excerpts and quotations – aren't treated differently from the original, assuming the copies are authentic. If a newspaper quotes a press release, the press release, including the portion of it quoted in the newspaper, remains a primary source – see here for more information. Likewise, if you're citing an unaltered copy – such as a quotation or excerpt – of content from a self-published work, it is treated the same as that self-published work.
The article is about the situation – not about Carlsen, who has his own article. Since the article isn't about Carlsen, his tweet shouldn't be in it. The inclusion of the tweet, which also contains an insinuation of serious wrongdoing, is a BLP violation.
That the tweet contains such an insinuation is, nonetheless, irrelevant; if it didn't, it would still violate the policy. I'm not a chess enthusiast. I don't take sides in this controversy. I made these observations as part of the DYK review. Quandarie12:06, 2022-09-23
  Hello. Since Carlsen has released a statement, I would consider the article as having been based on a notable allegation that has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources – not merely on an insinuation.
I did have concerns about WP:PROSELINE, but since the article is about the controversy and not the one game, I'm inclined to believe that most of the article is WP:DUE. Editors at WP:BLPN don't seem to share the concerns I had about the inclusion of the tweet, so I wouldn't mind it added. I am a revert the WP:BOLD name change, though – no cheating has yet been proven.
I'd also like to apologize to the nominator. This discussion was more heated than it needed to be, and I'll take partly fault. Quandarie 20:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Glad to hear this is going through - I would tend to agree with the name change. Definitely concur that the discussion here was perhaps a bit more than it needed to be, and I certainly wasn't blameless either. :) AviationFreak💬 21:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Bump to keep from archiving as the deletion discussion is still open -M.nelson (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

English variation

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since September, this article has been marked with EngvarB, indicating that British English ought to be used. By MOS:ENGVAR, I'm not really sure why. Of the main figures involved, one is American and the other is Norwegian. Secondary figures (Rensch and Nakamura) are also American. The inciting incident took place in Missouri and the lawsuit is located there as well. By MOS:TIES, should this article instead be in American English? Tkbrett (✉) 12:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I too raised an eyebrow at EngvarB. But I do not think the ties you have mentioned to the United States would be conclusive. Tournament participants were from many countries, including Norway, and one tournament was online. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Does it really need to be conclusive to make the switch? There are numerous American connections to the subject of this article, but there are no British connections at all. It may as well be in Canadian English. The only rationale I can see for retaining Brit English is MOS:RETAIN, which I don't think is a strong argument for an article that is only two-months old. Tkbrett (✉) 11:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems like EngvarB was first added on October 7 but back-dated to September. At that time, the article actually contained American English spellings like "criticized". Between this (MOS:RETAIN) and the (slight) national ties above, it seems like American English would suit the article best. -M.nelson (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this. The IP address that added "EngvarB" did not make any other edits to the article.
Reading the documentation for EngvarB, I see that it is not for British English specifically, but for "non-specific but not North American spelling". I wonder what that is supposed to mean. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I've only ever seen it used to refer to British English, but as you point out the documentation does seem somewhat vague. Tkbrett (✉) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No one else has weighed in, so I changed it to American English in the meantime. Tkbrett (✉) 17:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

are we gonna include the wesley so - magnus carlsen game that was not in the 2018 london chess classic?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

1:30 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw&t=90s Niemann: Magnus Must Be Embarrassed to Lose to Me | Round 3

it appears to be...this?

https://lichess.org/qFHmX2f7

https://www.chess.com/games/view/14459045 Thewriter006 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thewriter006 You'd have to start by explaining the relevance, providing an WP:RS, or both. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
this game is a counter-argument to leaked prep!?!??! oh wait...(checks article)...is leaked prep excluded actually?
ah i see...there's no need to include the wesley so thing because in the 1st place the article so far doesn't cover the leaked prep stuff? Thewriter006 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Leaked prep was a reddit/Twitch theory that, AFAIK, was never commented on in the media. (The theory was that Hans had friends in Magnus's organization, they leaked the super secret opening Magnus was going to play, and that's how Hans beat him.) But Magnus has made it clear that's not what his accusation/claim is. --B (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
ah ok ok thanks. as for the last part 'But Magnus has made it clear that's not what his accusation/claim is' source please? Thewriter006 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

motion to dismiss

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

not that i find it noteworthy but why aren't we mentioning the recent motions to dismiss? Thewriter006 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I added mention of the motions. If something isn't there, it's probably just because other editors haven't gotten around to it. You can always add sourced info yourself. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlsen–Niemann_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1189825331"