Talk:Gastón Needleman

Controversy

I have removed the Controversy section, copied from this article, from Julio Granda, Alexander Onischuk, Gilberto Milos, Gata Kamsky and Giovanni Vescovi, due to WP:BLP concerns.

There is a single source, a chessbase.com article, that supports the section. However, the article has the following editorial introduction:

Before the somewhat dramatized account that follows, a quick update. In a brief conversation with young Gastón he said he didn't believe there was any conspiracy against him. We also found out from him that the progression of the tiebreak tournament makes any such collusion very unlikely. Needleman had the bye in the first round and beat Milos in the second round while Felgaer lost to Granda. It would have been crazy to agree to short draws while behind. Gastón added that Kamsky and Granda played a full game at the start. We thank him for his honesty and congratulate him on his tremendous result.

The problematic section makes implicit, but very clear accusations of collusion and dishonesty against the players in question, and yet the source itself is clearly very ambiguous regarding the validity of such accusations, as evidenced by the above quote. I believe therefore that this section violates both WP:BLP and WP:PROPORTION.

For the time being, and for the sake of the discussion, I've left the same section standing in this article (Gastón Needleman), although I must say that the concerns are identical. GregorB (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your argument. Will you also make a note on the talk pages of those five articles? Bob.v.R (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it's better to have a centralized discussion here. All of my edit summaries point to this talk page, so that anyone who wishes to comment will presumably do it here.

I've taken another look at the text of this article and - while obviously the above mentioned issues and concerns still generally apply - I don't think there is a WP:BLP problem here. The event may legitimately be covered in Needleman's bio, and his belief that there was no collusion is duly mentioned, so I'd say this is fine. GregorB (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Following suggestions/requests to me on my talkpage, I have put notes of attribution on the five talk pages. Now that you have again removed the copied section, it would seem fair to me if you would be so kind to make a note of the new situation on the five talk pages. Discussion can take place here. Bob.v.R (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. This is a bit unusual in that the text was copied and then removed. I'll have to check whether the attribution boxes should be removed too, I'm not sure myself. But at least a note of some kind is in order, I agree. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding a short note to the attribution boxes would clarify the situation without deleting what has happened. Bob.v.R (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

GregorB, a reply to this would be appreciated. Thank you. Bob.v.R (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is GregorB now inactive? This doesn't help. Bob.v.R (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

GregorB, can you let me know your opinion on the much shortened version of the text that I placed on the article Gilberto Milos? - Bob.v.R (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob.v.R, sorry I haven't replied sooner - first I got sidetracked before I got to leave talk page notes, as I promised, and then I had an unscheduled wikibreak...

I'm still against adding the paragraph - even if it's a shortened version - to Gilberto Milos. It's not just WP:BLP concerns (there is not only no compelling evidence of any collusion taking part, but there is also zero evidence Milos personally had anything to do with it) - it's also a matter of WP:PROPORTION, as already noted (For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.). Currently, in Gilberto Milos article, the "Controversy" section is almost the same size as the section on his entire career. (In, say, Gata Kamsky this would not have been the case, though - although the same basic concerns apply too.) The essence of WP:BLP is to be careful when something might hurt living people and, frankly, if I were Milos, in this particular case, I'd be seriously upset to find my WP biography gave as much space to a rather obscure "controversy" as to my entire career apart from that. In fact, WP:PROPORTION thus becomes essentially also a WP:BLP concern - if (as quoted above) it warns against adding impartial information, then it obviously warns even more strongly against adding contentious information. GregorB (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

GregorB, thank you for your reply. For the moment, I'm assuming that you will add notes on the five talk pages, as we have discussed here. Bob.v.R (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I will, but is it five or four talk pages? What are we going to do with Milos? GregorB (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the shortened version of the "Controversy" section. Bob.v.R (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

GregorB, it is five talk pages. Bob.v.R (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Done: a short note left in these five talk pages, pointing to this discussion. I believe this settles it for the time being. GregorB (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gastón Needleman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224045133/http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=782 to http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=782

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)