Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy

< Template:Did you know nominations
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)

DYK toolbox

Carlsen–Niemann controversy

(
)

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
  • Requesting new reviewer as the current one does not cooperate. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2022_Carlsen–Niemann_controversy&oldid=1115339300"