Talk:Edward Winter (chess historian)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: By all means write a new article conforming to WP:LIVING demands. --Doc 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The principle is that unreferenced negative material dies, period.--Doc 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Note on deletion 

message: 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 al, 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)
thread_title: Better lean than mean

message: It was very satisfying to see this article in Wikipedia, since I was looking for information on Winter. Why anyone would want to speedily delete it is beyond my comprehension, especially given the nature of some other Wikipedia articles, some of which are on truly trivial topics. My only disappointment is that there is not much more information in the article.Lestrade (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Just glad to see you

message: Edward Winter lives in Geneva, Switzerland, as evidenced in his most recent books, in which potential correspondents  are directed there (not to a P.O. box but to an address).-The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Residence

message: Does no one have any biographical information about the man?  How is that possible?  Is he related to the late English chess master William Winter?  The sparsity of information is incredible. Abenr (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There simply aren't any sources out there, unfortunately. Winter is an intensely private man (so much so that there have been doubts raised in the past as to whether he even exists) and has to my knowledge never given an interview.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Information? 

message: I came across a review of Winter's book Chess Facts and Fables (here) claiming that he is not a historian, but rather a researcher (and a fine one at that!) The main point was that historians comment on research, while researchers do not.
Is it an issue of semantics? Being a small field, are chess writers, researchers and historians all simply called historians?
Stummelfüßer (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that, but it's a good point.  Winter doesn't really offer analysis or put the facts he unearths in a larger context, and his writing never states or argues a thesis.  Maybe the article should be Edward Winter (chess researcher).  Quale (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's difficult to come up with a definitive title, but I think 'historian' can be used in a wider sense. There are certainly occasions where Winter has used his fact-finding (or fact-rubbishing) to alter our perspective on chess history.  One of his more notable quests was to follow through the claims of Kasparov, Keene et al, that Campomanes had halted the first K-K match to protect Karpov. With quite deep research, Winter showed that none of the supporting evidence was very credible or convincing, and that 'inconvenient' facts had been sidelined. In that instance, Winter hadn't 'disproved' the conspiracy theory, but had showed it was baseless. Hence, he fell short of a statement that Campomanes was completely exonerated, but the implication was that he had been improperly 'judged' on this issue. As Quale says, this tends to be Winter's style; to avoid bold proclamations, and simply separate the indisputable fact from the fiction and speculation. In some senses, I'd say that his facts do the commenting for him, so it may be a bit spurious to call him just a researcher. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  I have a couple of Winter's books, but I certainly haven't read everything he's written.  My impression is that he doesn't generally allow his own opinions to influence his writing, although I get the sense that his love of Capablanca and antipathy toward Alekhine might slightly color some of his work involving those great players. Quale (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian or researcher? 

message: I don't recall the earlier, deleted article, but certainly Keene, Evans, Soltis,  and other targets have defended themselves against what are sometimes very odd attacks.  For the sake of balance, should not their defences be added to this article? --Abenr (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is like saying wikipedia should be more "balanced" about things like young earth creationism or homeopathy. Sure these things have their advocates, but wikipedia should not confer on them the same credibility as established science or medicine. Winter's articles are always well researched and if someone is criticised by him, they most likely deserve it. (Keene definitely does!) MaxBrowne (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that's a good analogy - giving space to creationism and homeopathy on Wikipedia science articles would be an example of false balance given that the overwhelming majority of scientists reject those ideas. This is a different case - if Winter is criticizing these writers and their work, then they have a right to respond and it would be appropriate for their views to be represented (briefly) in the article. The reader can then make up their own mind as to who is the more credible.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: I need to contact Edward Winter. Where can I find some contact data? His shop has no informations, his page neither. This is very strange for a "chess historian", isn't it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.118.203 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward Winter's email address is in the first paragraph of his Chess Notes website: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html . Isofarro (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to contact Edward Winter 

message: I'd prefer a block quote for the verbatim copy I inserted, but, alas, I can't figure out Wiki's formatting within my time constraints. Perhaps wiki could add this obvious editing feature to the toolbar?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.210.138 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  C.N. 11763 - aka curtailing notice 

message: A Google search for "edward winter chess" -
https://www.google.com/search?q=edward+winter+chess
- returns a teaser page that includes correct summary information about Edward Winter and his Chess Notes publication, and the correct link to his Wikipedia page, but also returns an image of Rupert Brooke while giving the impression that this is a picture of Edward Winter.
(The picture is derived, I think, from the Chess Notes article about Rupert Brooke -
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/brooke.html )
This is unintentionally misleading to the general public, but I do not know how to edit the Wikipedia entry to inhibit the return of that misleading image, or alternatively to ascribe the image correctly to that Rupert Brooke article when the Google search picks it up.
To the best of my knowledge and research, no picture of Edward Winter himself is publicly available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn Oliver (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect image appears on Google search