Talk:Edward Winter (chess historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Chess Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Note on deletion

Just wanted to note that this article was deleted by Doc glasgow on 14 September 2006 (as far as I can see, this was done as a speedy deletion, and the page was therefore never listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Today (6 October 2006) I have restored it. I think it's clear that Winter is notable enough to have an article, and, even if the current one is not perfect, this is something to be solved by improving the article, not by deleting it. --Camembert 13:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-deleted it. The article contained unreferenced negative maerial per WP:LIVING. Anyone restoring it should be aware that they will be personally responsible for the re-publication of this material, and they should be careful to check that they are not republishing libels.--Doc 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
By all means write a new article conforming to WP:LIVING demands. --Doc 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: I've restubbed with any offending material removed and courtesy-blanked the majority of this talk page. A fresh start = good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hard to argue with the new version, of course, but I cannot understand why the old one was deleted. As I read the relevant policies, the correct thing to do if an article contains unreferenced negative material and also some perfectly reasonable stuff (as this one did) is not to delete the entire article and all its past revisions, but to delete the unreferenced negative stuff and leave the rest intact (this is indeed surely the correct approach; imagine how many times a more obviously controversial article, such as one on a contemporary politician, would have to be deleted and begun again from scratch otherwise). If I restored the article and then deleted the offending material from it, would there be objections (and if so, why)? --Camembert 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You're technically right. The only difference now is that the offending stuff is out of the history, and it doesn't appear like it's a big loss. The article still exists, so that's all that ultimately matters to me at this stage until I can expand it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, OK. Maybe it's the principle of it that bothers me more than anything else. Oh well, if we end up with an article with some reasonable content then I can hardly complain. --Camembert 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The principle is that unreferenced negative material dies, period.--Doc 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Winter is highly critical of Keene and Schiller, and I suspect that he would regard it as a badge of honour, not a negative, that Keene and Schiller have criticised him. Nevertheless, I agree the statements should be sourced. Peter Ballard 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better lean than mean

This is as good an example as any, to see why the existence of a text, on its own, should not suffice for inclusion as a "reference" in Wikipedia - or any encyclopaedia, for that matter. If, for example, we cite works by Messrs Keene and Schiller and leave it at that, we are, technically, abiding by Wikipedia's rules. However, the conscientious Wiki editor should make the effort to select the most reliable among the references that are available. This is where the work of an editor should be rated, such work not prescribed to be, I presume, the function of a copying automaton. Anyone who makes the small effort to compare the texts of Winter which criticize the works of Keene, Schiller and others, with the works of Keene, Schiller, et all, criticizing the texts of Winter, would easily and quite objectively see where accuracy and historical truth reside and where they do not. Also, where substantiation is provided and where speculation, arbitrary statements and outright untruths are displayed. Strictly NPOV work, this. In sum, I'll just say I'm glad the entry for Edward Winter is as lean as it currently is. -The Gnome (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)