Talk:David Howell (chess player)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Publicity
A previously unknown user, Martinlh seems intent on removing the bad publicity David Howell has suffered. I do not see any valid reason for this, as retention gives a more balanced viewpoint. No contest was ever made against the ban, which expires at the end of this year. I can't see any grounds for claiming this is libel in this instance. --ZincBelief 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be beyond the realm of possibility that this is infact David Howell's father. --ZincBelief 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see evidence that this fact merits to be forever in encyclopedia for a teenager. I failed to fing any publicity discussing this ban in press. I see no specific explanation why was this ban placed. Do we log all traffic violations of celebrities in an encyclopedia? `'Míkka>t 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's an inaccurate comparison. More accurate would be, do we log all instances of celebrities barred from working in certain sectors due to their bad behaviour. Anchoress (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's cited, but I'm unable to find anything about this except the single vague mention in the meeting minutes of the Irish Chess Club. Until and unless someone can find more than this, I really would consider this non-notable. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't consider it notable that an elite competitor gets barred from competition by a club for bad behaviour? How on earth is that not notable? Just because it hasn't made the news on the internet doesn't mean it isn't notable in the chess world. Anchoress (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't confuse a celeb on wheels and a teenager who called someone "you fat turd" during a match because this fat turd clandestinely spit on him (not really; we don't know, but it's a punishable example, especially if the fat turd burst into tears and run off; and who was not banned from playing chess, only from taking part in Irish Chess Union events and he happily plays elsewhere). As for "notability on internet", you are free to provide notability in printed newspapers. `'Míkka>t 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. We don't know if it was any more than that, because the only source found so far is a single, vaguely-worded sentence in the meeting minutes of one lone chess organization. Since this is an article about a person, I think we set the bar for notability higher than that. --barneca (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since when does an issue in an rarified field have to make the newspapers in order to be included in Wikipedia? Shawn Adams, a Canadian curler, was barred from World competition while a Junior for underage drinking. It didn't make the papers, but it's in his Wikipedia article and rightly, because it was HUGE news in the curling world (about as popular among the general population as chess), in fact so much so that he was asked about it in pretty much every interview he did for the next 15 years. Anchoress (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- But, in your example:
- You know what the infraction was, and it was serious;
- It was world competition, not the organization for one country;
- I'll take your word for it that it was "huge" in the curling world.
- Here, we don't know what the problem was, and I have been unable to find anything else about this incident, and he is evidently competing everywhere except Ireland. I find it hard to believe this is "huge" in the chess world if there are no other mentions of it anywhere at all online (again, that I can find), so if you don't have any sources beyond this single, vague mention, why is this notable? I'm not trying to whitewash anything, if you can find another reference that indicates this is a big deal in the chess world, I'd support inclusion. But the sourcing here is really weak, and I think it's been established that in BLP issues, if there's weakness, you err on the side of excluding potentially damaging info.
- I also note, to everyone, that it's supposed to be BRD, not BRDRDRDRDRD. --barneca (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies for not being more clear in my comparison. I was only addressing the issue that there was a lack of coverage (of the drinking problem with the Adams rink). I wasn't implying that the chess infraction was as serious as the Adams rink infraction, but rather that - even though yes, this was a national issue, and it was talked about on Canadian national television 15 years later - there was no print media coverage. Therefore, it can't be assumed that because there isn't print media coverage of this issue, it isn't news in the chess world, and isn't a notable element of this competitor's history. Anchoress (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- (e/c) To summarize my position: in it's current form, with that one, lone source, I believe this is "poorly sourced contentious material...about a living person", which, according to the first paragraph of WP:BLP, should be removed on sight. I won't edit war to remove it only because the "poorly sourced" issue isn't a 100% slam dunk, but I'd ask Anchoress to revert to the "conservative", "do no harm" (again from WP:BLP) version until consensus is specifically reached for inclusion. Again, an independent reliable source that indicates this is a big deal in the chess world, in print or on the web, would change my mind. Until then, the default should be removal. --barneca (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- To further confirm the position of Barneca, it is an umfortunate fact that you cannot find any coverage confirming the notability of the event, but wikipedia has strict rules wikipedia:Verifiability. If you cannot verify that the infraction was serious to permanently marr the person's encyclopedia entry, then it is out of the article. If chess world does not bother to provide permanent record of some of their events, it is not wikipedia's job to do this. `'Míkka>t 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- But, in your example:
- Since when does an issue in an rarified field have to make the newspapers in order to be included in Wikipedia? Shawn Adams, a Canadian curler, was barred from World competition while a Junior for underage drinking. It didn't make the papers, but it's in his Wikipedia article and rightly, because it was HUGE news in the curling world (about as popular among the general population as chess), in fact so much so that he was asked about it in pretty much every interview he did for the next 15 years. Anchoress (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. We don't know if it was any more than that, because the only source found so far is a single, vaguely-worded sentence in the meeting minutes of one lone chess organization. Since this is an article about a person, I think we set the bar for notability higher than that. --barneca (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't confuse a celeb on wheels and a teenager who called someone "you fat turd" during a match because this fat turd clandestinely spit on him (not really; we don't know, but it's a punishable example, especially if the fat turd burst into tears and run off; and who was not banned from playing chess, only from taking part in Irish Chess Union events and he happily plays elsewhere). As for "notability on internet", you are free to provide notability in printed newspapers. `'Míkka>t 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't consider it notable that an elite competitor gets barred from competition by a club for bad behaviour? How on earth is that not notable? Just because it hasn't made the news on the internet doesn't mean it isn't notable in the chess world. Anchoress (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's cited, but I'm unable to find anything about this except the single vague mention in the meeting minutes of the Irish Chess Club. Until and unless someone can find more than this, I really would consider this non-notable. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- David Howell was banned after a post tournament altercation. It was reported in the chess media at the time - something like ChessBase I believe had some stories on it. However, it was mostly ignored by the mainstream media. I think it is fairly notable, because it is very unusual to receive a competition ban.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.chessbanter.com/rec-games-chess-misc-chess/15036-david-howell-knocks-out-td.html seems to show this was reported in a popular chess magazine. Perhaps we can give the issue number as an additional supporting reference. I feel this does count as bad publicity.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Dutch version of the article details explicitly what he is claimed to have done.:)--ZincBelief (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I read the main chess magazines in the UK, and they didn't mention this. They did cover the Danny Gormally incident though. As far as chess incidents go, this one by Howell doesn't seem that notable. Compare it with Toiletgate, the various controversies and incidents concerning Bobby Fischer, and stories of some very senior and highly ranked chess players kicking each other under the table. There was also a punch-up by Zurab Azmaiparashvili. My view is to wait and see whether this forms part of chess history as written in a few years time. If so, it can be added back then. If not, it can stay out. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this may be because one player is liked while another isn't. However NewInChess did cover this story it seems. Knocking out a tournament director does seem notable to me. The Irish Chess Union certainly considered it noteable.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Being knocked out depends more on the person being knocked out than the force of the blow being delivered. Howell was 14 at the time, though not a small 14, I don't think. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Confused, I don't see what relevance that has. Is it any different if he knocks out Stewart Reuben at the British Championship?--ZincBelief (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would probably get more coverage! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Confused, I don't see what relevance that has. Is it any different if he knocks out Stewart Reuben at the British Championship?--ZincBelief (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Being knocked out depends more on the person being knocked out than the force of the blow being delivered. Howell was 14 at the time, though not a small 14, I don't think. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Striking a tournament director would (omnia pares) be unconsionable, at a chess tournment; but this was a professional event, the juvenile was an International Master at the time, and the blow induced unconsciousness. Definitely notable and to sportsmen unaccustomed to any kind of rough-housing-- chessplayers-- it's relevant. If a 13 year-old supermodel punched out a photographer on the catwalk at Paris, that would be news too, even though juvenile. Hopefully an apology was published somewhere. Pete St.John (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the additional info provided by ZincBelief, I think I now marginally buy into the notability of the incident. I'm still a little troubled by the verifiability; instead of a vaguely worded sentence in some meeting minutes, we have a vaguely worded sentence plus a blog. However, since the article currently doesn't describe what allegedly occured, and what it does say is verifiable by the source provided, I'll say I'm still against inclusion, but no longer insistent on removal. ZincBelief, when you say "The Dutch version of the article details explicitly what he is claimed to have done", does this mean you've read the Dutch version, or that you've heard that the Dutch version does this? --barneca (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did indeed read the dutch wikipedia article. Why you consider the official Annual General Meeting report of the Irish Chess Union to be merely "a vaguely worded sentence" I find interesting. At the moment I am trying to find the exact issue of the Dutch magazine New in Chess to reference. I like PeterStJohn, think this is a notable incident. It is quite out of character for David Howell, who is by all accounts a nice chap. However, it is noteworthy. 2 year bans by a federation are not commonplace in the normally peaceful chess world.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- If the New in Chess magazine spells out what happened, that removes my verifiability concern, although I still remain, at a gut-instinct, not-backed-up-anymore-by-policy level, uncomfortable with including it. I keep saying "vaguely worded sentence" for reasons outlined by Mikka above; if that was the only reference (as it was last night), it is too vague to determine whether the underlying event was important enough to include. I've already said I accept it as a reliable source for the pure fact of the ban, I just don't think it establishes notabilty. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Publicity 2
This page appears to have undergone something of an edit war. I would like to restate my views. The ban on David Howell is not contentious, and was reported in a chess magazine as well as in the AGM. A 2 year ban on a Chess player by a national chess union is very unusual in chess, it is what we would call noteworthy. Nobody would suggest David Howell is a hooligan, and the sentence is not worded to suggest such. However this is a bit of trivia that is at least as interesting as him having appeared on a UK breakfast tv show for 3 minutes. I would like to retain this fact in the article. It shows David Howell is human. I would reinstate the sentence, but I will wait for some comments first. Would anyone support an alternative wording for instance?--ZincBelief (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Another bulletin board reference www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=72709 can we find some saying what a nice guy David Howell is and include those to balance this out?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about this one? Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't really say what a nice guy he is, does it?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's more the family pics and the "likes" bit at the end. But really, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be about whether someone is a nice guy or not. The original edit called the incident "bad publicity", which is putting spin on it. The neutral way to put it is to just report the incident and the ban, and not say whether it is good or bad or an uncharacteristic lapse or not. That can only be done if an independent source says that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well I did put in a version that just said flatly that David Howell was banned, however that got deleted too. I am just fishing around to see if people can agree on a comprimise over the presentation of this fact. I would be happy with David Howell received a temporary ban from competition in Ireland after issues with his behaviour.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That a bit weaselly though. If you mention the ban, you should say how long it is. If you know why he was banned, you should say that as well. A compromise in this case would involve vague wording, which is not helpful. It leaves people's imaginations to run riot. I still think it is best to avoid mentioning it, and mention it only if another incident occurs and gets wide coverage, at which point the media would pick up on the earlier incident as well. The point here is that Wikipedia, due to its widespread reach, makes things more notable if it covers them, than if the incident had remained as a few mentions on a few chess news sites, blogs and messageboards, plus the formal mention in the minutes of that meeting. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well Wikipedia is an encylopedia, it is supposed to record such details, if it makes them more widely known as a consequence that is only a side effect. I don't like that the article mentions he plays in Ireland, but omits to mention he got banned from playing again as he knocked out the tournament director. I don't see why he should have to get banned from another country before this is included in the article. So, how about David Howell received a two year ban from competition in Ireland after issues with his behaviour--ZincBelief (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- "issues with his behaviour" is still a weaselly phrase, and It could mean almost anything. Better to either say nothing or state clearly what happened. Or quote the Irish Chess Union: "Regarding disciplinary action, as a result of inappropriate behaviour by IM David Howell at the Cork event, the ICU Committee have banned him from any ICU run events, and will recommend a ban on him by other tournament controllers, until the end of 2007." They call it inappropriate behaviour. We shouldn't then turn that into "issues with his behaviour". But please let's keep it off the page until we have decided the best wording. I suggest the following:
And then quote the ICU in full in the footnoted reference. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Following an incident at the European Chess Union Championships held in Cork in March 2005, the Committee of the Irish Chess Union banned Howell from any ICU-run events until the end of 2007.
- Between this and the New in Chess article I think using the phrase issues with his behaviour is appropriate, if other people are happy with your choice of wording I guess that is fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- "issues with his behaviour" is still a weaselly phrase, and It could mean almost anything. Better to either say nothing or state clearly what happened. Or quote the Irish Chess Union: "Regarding disciplinary action, as a result of inappropriate behaviour by IM David Howell at the Cork event, the ICU Committee have banned him from any ICU run events, and will recommend a ban on him by other tournament controllers, until the end of 2007." They call it inappropriate behaviour. We shouldn't then turn that into "issues with his behaviour". But please let's keep it off the page until we have decided the best wording. I suggest the following:
- Well Wikipedia is an encylopedia, it is supposed to record such details, if it makes them more widely known as a consequence that is only a side effect. I don't like that the article mentions he plays in Ireland, but omits to mention he got banned from playing again as he knocked out the tournament director. I don't see why he should have to get banned from another country before this is included in the article. So, how about David Howell received a two year ban from competition in Ireland after issues with his behaviour--ZincBelief (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That a bit weaselly though. If you mention the ban, you should say how long it is. If you know why he was banned, you should say that as well. A compromise in this case would involve vague wording, which is not helpful. It leaves people's imaginations to run riot. I still think it is best to avoid mentioning it, and mention it only if another incident occurs and gets wide coverage, at which point the media would pick up on the earlier incident as well. The point here is that Wikipedia, due to its widespread reach, makes things more notable if it covers them, than if the incident had remained as a few mentions on a few chess news sites, blogs and messageboards, plus the formal mention in the minutes of that meeting. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well I did put in a version that just said flatly that David Howell was banned, however that got deleted too. I am just fishing around to see if people can agree on a comprimise over the presentation of this fact. I would be happy with David Howell received a temporary ban from competition in Ireland after issues with his behaviour.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's more the family pics and the "likes" bit at the end. But really, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be about whether someone is a nice guy or not. The original edit called the incident "bad publicity", which is putting spin on it. The neutral way to put it is to just report the incident and the ban, and not say whether it is good or bad or an uncharacteristic lapse or not. That can only be done if an independent source says that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't really say what a nice guy he is, does it?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about this one? Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More information
Please see User talk:Martinlh#Block explanation for details. Following the concerns raised there, I agree that the incident should not be mentioned in the article, at least not until things are a lot clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, now that Martinlh has kindly answered us all.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
