Talk:David Howell (chess player)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about this one? Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't really say what a nice guy he is, does it?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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: 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. And then quote the ICU in full in the footnoted reference. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Publicity 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More information 

message: This article has been tagged as having subjective promotion of the subject without real information.  I don't see any subjective claims but there are some claims that need to have references/sources.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  subjective claims 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David Pritchard (chess player) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress