Jump to content

Talk:Hans Niemann/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copyediting required

Did some basic clean-up, but this article requires a thorough copyedit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

should world chess champion (in streaming career) link out to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's time to add a "Controversy" Section

Or just add the facts under "2022". I don't see Magnus's twitter and implication about Niemann cheating in this Wiki. I just added them. Aawodii (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's just gossip and speculation at this point, which is not Wikipedia noteworthy. If and when Magnus makes an official comment, we can add that. APGP360 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Fully concur with APGP360. Besides the fact that the case might evolve with FIDE blame on Magnus and Hikaru and/or Magnus'team leaks which is not cheating technically speaking. Best clearly is to wait at this stage and gather multiple reliable sources / decisions. Don't miss Hans video interview to counter-balance chess.com / Magnus / Hikaru / entitled "Niemann: I Have NEVER Cheated Over The Board | Round 5" by Saint Louis Chess Club keeping in mind that money corrupts everything it touches, chess included. Al ashton (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume this will be added at a later date in regards to controversy.
Niemann has admitted to two previous events of cheating, while being interviewed, but nothing else. I'm sure that the whole Magnus withdrawing is a notable event. Although, I doubt much will come out for the next few months making any of the circumstances clearer, apart form the usual gossip lark.
Agreed, adding a section now, would be way too early, and just lead to he said she said, as there is lots of unverified information about, and a complete lack of clarity on the situation. 2A00:23C7:7B8D:D301:84BE:4C9:6F10:B1C7 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Controversy sections are never appropriate. We include positive and negative content unsegregated in the appropriate existing section.
Inference about Twitter posts is original research and definitely falls afoul of BLP. If reliable sources report seriously that Niemann is suspected of cheating by particular people or organisations, then we could report such. If no reliable secondary sources are provided then there is nothing to say. — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
It makes little sense to ignore the issue and the current level of coverage he is receiving . A quick search reveals articles by many sources, such as the Guardian, Washington Times, News.com, Times of India, even the Financial Times. It is also not helpful to wait for clarity, which may never come. It's quite possible to write a section based on these existing sources, and not WP:OR based on Twitter inferences, or in violation of WP:BLP. It could say something like (and this is just a badly worded example to try make the point) "Carlsen withdrew after his loss to Niemann, and the manner in which he did so led to accusations/inferences of cheating by x based on circumstantial evidence c1,c2. No evidence of cheating has been found, and Nieman, while admitting that he had previously cheated online at age x, professed his innocence." Something like that, expanded as appropriate. i.e. neutral, but addressing the issue that's currently the reason for the majority of current visits to the page. This would hopefully reduce the number of drive-by edits that address the issue in a non-neutral way. Greenman (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, it's time to add the section. It's garnering noteable coverage which is all the evidence we need to add it.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree that it doesn’t need to have a “Controversy” section, and understand that we don’t run a rolling news service. That said, to have no mention of the 2022 issues, and his admissions of earlier cheating, when they are receiving coverage in multiple RS,[1][2][3][4] does make the article look a little odd. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
At this point it's clear that wikipedia is a joke to censor the biggest news chess has had in decades. 2600:4040:25F4:C700:B523:6718:8CFA:D702 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Since neither Carlsen nor the organizers of the tourney have made no direct allegations against Niemann, and high level chess players are split between accusing and defending him, saying that Niemann is "widely interpreted as [...] cheating" without clarifying who is making the accusations feels inaccurate.
I'm not sure who is exactly making what claims at this point since the supposed main accuser per sources is Hikaru, but Hikaru himself has only claimed that he thinks that Carlsen thinks that Niemann is cheating, so its not correct to say that Hikaru is accusing Niemann directly either. --LatakiaHill (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I preferred the wording "incident" over "controversy". I think an "internet consensus" is emerging that he wasn't cheating. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing the 2022 allegations

First of all, I believe extremely strongly that Niemann is 100% innocent with regards to any and all over-the-board cheating allegations. However, since I have been following the tournament since its beginning, before Magnus withdrew, I am probably not able to make edits to the article from a position of neutrality. However, I will link to some coverage from WP:GENREL sources about the game and the allegations:

Samboy (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Some others:
Some chess specific sources:
Joacom14 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It's an elephant in the room, I don't see how we can have this article without mentioning the allegations. We just need to handle it properly. Link to reliable sources, and definitely include the fact that other players and writers like Aronian, Aagard etc have defended Niemann. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Just in general, I see a lot of "red" (unreliable) sources have been cited, twitter, instagram, blogs etc. We should weed these out; find a better source or remove it. This is a BLP. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Both of these sources are WP:GENREL:
Samboy (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the WSJ source, it includes the very relevant info that acknowledged computer cheating expert Kenneth Regan analyzed the game and doesn't believe Niemann was cheating. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Another WP:GENREL source: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/09/chess-hans-niemann-hits-back-over-cheating-controversy-in-st-louis Samboy (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Apart from being mostly paywalled WSJ is one of the best sources to use. It's right of center but with good journalistic standards and generally factual, a rare combination in the US media landscape. UK equivalent would be the FT. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Another green WP:GENREL source: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/chess-cheating-magnus-carlsen-hans-niemann-b2162509.html Samboy (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Chess education

He currently has a coach but isn’t saying who it is publicly. He also had a coach as a kid. He talked about this in a recent interview on the Saint Louis Chess Club YouTube channel. 2600:1700:40A0:86C0:68C3:6DD3:1671:BD1A (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I really enjoyed Niemann and Yasser Seirawan talking about their memories of the late John Grefe and thought it was a very touching moment in the middle of this controversy. I don’t think there are any WP:BLP concerns stating that Grefe was a coach for Niemann, as long as we use the exact point in the video where he starts talking about him, so it is probably worth including, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Samboy (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Here’s a video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35aoMHzSMsQ&t=945s this is where Niemann starts talking about his memories of John Grefe. Samboy (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I’ve added a mention of John Grefe’s coaching of Niemann. From the chatter I’m seeing online and Niemann’s own words, Grefe was an important figure for Niemann, so he deserves a one sentence mention in Niemann’s Wikipedia biography. Samboy (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

add after Chess.com for cheating the following: at 12 and 16 69.122.149.197 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the "2022" section to more accurately describe FTX Crypto Cup.

The current description of what happened during the FTX Crypto Cup in the 2022 section is inaccurate. It currently reads:

Niemann later won the first game with the black pieces in his second round match against reigning World Champion Magnus Carlsen. In a later interview, Niemann said: "Chess speaks for itself." Niemann subsequently lost all his matches in the tournament.

For improved accuracy, it should be annotated that (1) this was a rapid tournament, not classical, and (2) that Carlsen and Niemann faced off 4 times, and Carlsen won 3 out of 4 times. Here is a source: https://en.chessbase.com/post/ftx-crypto-cup-2022-live

Here is a proposed rewrite:

Niemann and reigning World Champion Magnus Carlsen faced off four times in the rapid-format tournament, with Carlsen prevailing in three of their four games. Niemann won the first game with the black pieces in his second round match against Carlsen. In a later interview, Niemann said: "Chess speaks for itself." Niemann subsequently lost all his matches in the tournament, placing last among the eight competitors, compared to Carlsen who won the tournament.

Further, in the "Sinquefield Cup Controversy" section, the earlier information was used in a way I find misleading. It reads:

In the third round of the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, Niemann defeated Carlsen again with the black pieces, playing the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

It uses the earlier tournament to describe the events in a way that sounds less surprising than it was. If you'll recall, Carlsen actually trounced Niemann overall in the tournament, and it was in a different (and far more volatile format). I propose the following rewrite:

In the third round of the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, Niemann defeated Carlsen with the black pieces in classical format, playing the Nimzo-Indian Defense. This ended a classical win-streak of 53-games

Here is a source for the win-streak: https://esports.gg/news/gaming/magnus-carlsen-drops-a-cryptic-message-after-losing-undefeated-streak-to-hans-niemann/ Deagonx (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The “again” wording accurate reflects what a WP:GENREL source has to say about this controversy. Look at https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/09/chess-hans-niemann-hits-back-over-cheating-controversy-in-st-louis and I will quote the relevant paragraph
The Californian teenager, who does not have a coach but whose rating has jumped 250 points in three years, had already beaten the world champion a month earlier in an online tournament in Miami, when he made headlines for a one-sentence victory interview where he said: “ Chess speaks for itself,” before walking off. For a while at St Louis, he became an outcast.
So, since Niemann’s previous victory over Magnus is noted by generally reliable sources, and since I haven’t found WP:GENREL level coverage pointing out Niemann ended up being dead last at the rapid tournament where he won one game against Carlsen, I think the current wording is OK. We need to avoid WP:SYNTH, especially with this subject which has very significant WP:BLP concerns. Samboy (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Very few large newspapers are going to report in any substantial way on Chess, I do not feel that we should restrict ourselves to a single Guardian article when reliable information about the FTX crypto cup is available elsewhere. I don't believe what I have written amounts to WP:SYNTH as neither of the additions I made were the result of combining information outright. Each article I produced states the information clearly.
The chessbase link provides the results for the entire FTX Crypto Cup, and it is plain to see that Magnus and Hans faced 4 times, which Magnus won 3 of. The website also directly shows the rankings for the cup, and Hans placed last.
The esports link clearly states that in the classical format, Carlsen was on a 53-game win streak.
My argument is not that the Guardian article is inaccurate, it's that it is reporting on a very niche subject and has only provided a limited amount of details about these events.
To add further, the page already has number sources citing websites similar to chessbase and esports, such as game results from "chess-results.com" "uschesschamps.com" "uschess.org" "chess24.com" and etc Deagonx (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue is this: We can use stuff like "uschess.org", "chess24.com", "chessvariants.com", and so on for stuff which doesn't have WP:BLP concerns, such as the rules for a chess variant or the undisputed results of a match. But, once we make a claim which has WP:BLP concerns, and, yes, wording Niemann’s match results to possibly imply it’s really unusual for him to beat Carlsen at the 2022 Sinquefield Cup does have WP:BLP concerns, we need to stick to very reliable sources, ideally WP:GENREL sources. I do understand we must also be very mindful of WP:BLP concerns about Magnus Carlsen, but the mention that Niemann beat Carlsen before the Sinquefield Cup comes directly from a WP:GENREL source (Guardian), as does the claim that Carlsen strongly implied Niemann cheated (Wall Street Journal). Samboy (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
>wording Niemann’s match results to possibly imply it’s really unusual for him to beat Carlsen at the 2022 Sinquefield Cup does have WP:BLP concerns
I don't see how implying the opposite (that it was not unusual) is any less concerning, especially since the information used to do so is described in an incomplete manner.
Would it not at least be worth filling the FTX Crypto Cup description with the full results? It is objectively true that Magnus and Hans played 4 times in that tournament and that Magnus won 3. Deagonx (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mocking link to article for "Entitlement"

The Streamer section mentions an incident where he expected to play at a tournament for free, and the text links to Wikipedia's article for Entitlement.

This seems like more of a joke link than a serious explanation, and I'd argue loses neutrality. (the "entitlement" page is largely irrelevant as recommended expanded reading for this incident, aside from its paragraph stating that psychological entitlement refers to expecting something one has not earned or deserved, and although I obviously agree that Hans did not "earn" free admission to charity tournaments, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to state an opinion on whether he was acting entitled or not)

This link just seems very subjective and against Wikipedia's normal standards, personally as a frequent reader of Wikipedia I've never seen such an unprofessional mocking link as part of an article. I thought it was obviously vandalism and went to fix it, but the article is protected...

TLDR: The link to Entitlement should be removed from that sentence. Izzy991 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Refusing to chip in ten dollars to charity comes across as quite entitled (in the colloquial sense), but I agree that assessment should be a private one and not in Wikipedia (unless properly sourced). I removed it per WP:EASTEREGG. Kleuske (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I do want to clarify that I absolutely agree it's entitled behavior. Anyway, thank you for linking to WP:EASTEREGG, that's exactly what it felt like but I did not know the terminology to describe it. I'll keep that standard in mind for the future. Izzy991 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You were right to question the submarine link and also the horrible violation of WP:NPOV, but really that entire sentence doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'll take a contrary view: Niemann was correct: GMs usually are not charged entry fees. There's no requirement that a charity tournament wave an entry fee for a GM, but there's also no reason to expect that a GM will pay to play in such a tournament. This was a non-event that is not encyclopedically noteworthy. Quale (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
at the time it got a fair bit of coverage while Niemann was still pretty unknown, in light of recent events it really isn't noteworthy. jonas (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Better photo?

Is there a better photo of Niemann that we can use? The current one does not seem optimal. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

More news regarding incident

Magnus Carlsen formally accused Hans Niemann of cheating: https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1574482694406565888. The artical does not seem to mention it. Should we update it? 50.200.223.190 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP reminder: Hans Niemann 9/6 interview and his alleged cheating

I have had to, twice, in the last 24 hours, revert edits which violate the WP:BLP policy. In particular, two editors added allegations that the cheating claims in the chess.com report contradict the extent of cheating Niemann owned up to in his September 6 interview.

This is an extremely serious allegation and so WP:BLP is in full force. Be aware that WP:BLP trumps many other policies; in particular, it trumps WP:3RR. This allegation can not be added unless a WP:GENREL and WP:SECONDARY source reports the claim. In particular, the only WP:GENREL secondary source we have on the chess.com report at this time, is the article published in The Wall Street Journal, which does not echo the claims Niemann was inaccurate about the extent of the alleged cheating on September 6. Since that article is paywalled, because of the extremely serious nature of this allegation and the importance of letting other editors know exactly why we can not put this allegation in the Wikipedia, I will go to the extraordinary step of linking to a non-paywalled version of the article: (Link removed, see below)

Samboy (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, never mind. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article:
When Niemann addressed the suspicions last month, he said the only instance in which he cheated in an event with prize money was when he was 12. He said he later cheated as a 16-year-old, in “random games,” and that they were the biggest mistakes of his life. He also said he never cheated while live-streaming a game.
“I would never, could even fathom doing it, in a real game,” he said.
The Chess.com report contradicts those statements. It says several prize-money events are included in the 100-plus suspect games and that he was live-streaming the contests during 25 of them. It adds that he was 17 years old during the most recent violations, which subsequently led Chess.com to close his account.
This in mind, I will restore the content, since it has been echoed in the Wall Street Journal article. Samboy (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @samboy and @berdfordres I've made what I consider a bold edit at the lead and make no strong objection if it is reverted with reason. I've taken out the reference to over the board play in the lead. There are clearly strong feelings around this article and ongoing events, so I thought I'd quickly explain my edit. I inserted the reference to the Chess.com report a few days ago because it's a highly notable detail in respect of the subject and is covered in the main text of the article. I see that it has been edited to remove the reference to 'raises questions' about over the board play to make esssentially the opposite point. I completely see the point that Chess.com is not well placed to definitively analyse over the board play and agree it is best left out. In which case, the same should apply to anything in the Chess.com report about over the board play. This is essentially @bedfordres' point in the article edit history and I agree.

I am not a chess buff (although i do play chess) and I can see that there is a lot of emotion around this article. There's a couple of obvious examples of vandalism, in my opinion (as noted by @samboy), and I agree with some other contributors here that there is both an ongoing situation here and that the issue of whether the subject was a child when he cheated is relevant. We should be careful about the WP:BLP rules and @samboy's quite right about that. I very much disagree that the subject is a child, as suggested above, but it is relevant that we do not yet know definitively if he cheated as an adult. We should take a cautious line on that and leave any such suggestion out, since the personal implictions of that would be much more serious, as would be the implications for chess as a whole. The same applies, in my opinion, to the idea of cheating in over the board play. Emmentalist (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There can be serious WP:BLP concerns with leaving key information out though. The fact is was 17 the last time he allegedly cheated is relevant because: 1) Juvenile court makes it clear misdeeds done before 18 are generally treated very differently than adult misdeeds 2) Both the chess.com report and the WSJ summary of the report point out he was 17 the last time there’s credible evidence of him cheating. The fact that there is no credible (concrete, etc.) evidence of him ever cheating over the board is relevant because he has been unfairly accused of over the board cheating, to the point that there are undoubtedly people out there who really think he used an anal beads butt plug to cheat, since that’s how it has been covered in late night talk shows (they made it clear it was a joke, but people sometimes don’t remember that). Samboy (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the chess.com report tries to (and, IMHO fails to) throw shade on Niemann’s over the board games before concluding they don’t actually have credible evidence he has cheated in a non-online game, I will instead use a reference pointing out that Ken Regan doesn’t see evidence of over the board cheating in the lead. We’ll probably have to add the silly anal beads joke (which has no basis in reality and is nothing more than a light night talk show joke) as a footnote, but I’ll leave that to other editors for now. Because of WP:BLP, one simply can not say he was accused of cheating without pointing out there isn’t credible evidence of OTB cheating, and I think the age is quite relevant too, because of Juvenile court and because it has been pointed out both in primary sources and secondary WP:GENREL reliable sources. Samboy (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Yes, good points and I do agree. The juvenile thing is very important. Emmentalist (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

FTX Crypto cup and Sinquefield Cup 2022 game scores

Since there seems to be a bit of confusion, I’m going to link to game scores from the 2022 FTX Crypto and 2022 Sinquefield Cup chess competitions:

Samboy (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The current citation is not fit for purpose, it is concerned with the Sinquefield Cup and only peripherally mentions the FTX Crypto Cup. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The reference did briefly discuss the FTX Crypto cup, but we should use another reference which discusses the FTX Miami cup in more detail. I welcome any other editor to add a better reference; I will add one in a few days if no one else does so first. Samboy (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLP/N

Since I brought up semi-protecting this article over at WP:BLP/N, they brought up some concerns that we shouldn’t be using the chess.com report too much in the article at this point. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Time_to_semi-protect_Hans_Niemann_again for discussion. That in mind I have removed the link to the chess.com report from the lead for now and will wait for a solid consensus to emerge as to what we can include from that report and where we should include it.

Here are some links, all WP:GENREL sources discussing the chess.com report on Hans Niemann:

We probably should include some information from the chess.com report in the article, but we need to make sure the any contentious claims are extensively sourced from multiple reliable secondary sources. Samboy (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Two sorta already mentioned points that I feel are important.
1.I believe that, based upon their behavior in the past, and their involvment in this saga, we should, whenever in doubt, ere on the side of the report not being reliable.
2.I'm with Ovinus, I think, in that I don't know how much WSJ ect. can be used because I don't see it as they did their own research. I agree with Ovinus that it is more of a "republishing" than anything else. I am skeptical that these websites did a ton of research to check everything of the report, and I don't see those as making the report reliable until there are other reports in agreement.
It should be noted that it states in the report that "Notably, Ken Regan, an independent expert in
the field of cheat detection in chess, has expressed his belief that Hans cheated during the 2015 and 2017
Titled Tuesdays, as well as numerous matches against other professional players in 2020." And I don't think that chess.com would directly lie due to legalities.
I believe that metioning that he likely cheated in about 100 is accurate and could probably be used.
Chess.com basically said in the report that there is only circumstantial ("no direct evidence") evidence (i.e rating rise and other arguements I consider weak) for Over the Board cheating, and I feel it might be safe to say that (though I don't know if any secondary sources mention that). Chess.com does say that otb is not there area of expertise + they muddy the waters with everything, but maybe? Bedfordres (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Let's be clear about one thing, chess.com has no jurisdiction whatsoever over OTB games. They can do their analysis and speculate about his OTB games and rapid rating rise, but ultimately it's got nothing to do with them. FIDE has authority over OTB games, and to do date they have no information to indicate Niemann has been cheating. If anything, they may discipline Carlsen for unsporting conduct. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
(Paraphrased from what I said at BLPN) The four pieces above are rather cautious and never take anything from the report and restate it in their "own voice". I'm okay with a sentence or two given the coverage exhibited by Samboy, but we need to abstain from giving credence to the single source which they are all referencing. That's why my suggestion is to wait until we have other sources which directly assess the report, its methods, and those methods' merits or lack thereof. The NPR piece is closest to doing so, with While Regan hasn't tried to reproduce every one of the site's findings independently, he said, "In general I have no quarrel with their methods; mine may be sharper in the vein where we overlap." If those sources don't materialize in a month and the rest of this crazy situation hasn't changed, then... we'll have to see, I guess. Ovinus (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, some edits with WP:BLP concerns:

Point being, there are serious WP:BLP concerns, but a couple editors are not discussing their changes or coming to consensus before making potentially WP:BLP violating edits. Since there have been two editors making edits about a WP:BLP issue without discussion on the talk page first, I will bring this up to WP:BLP/N again. Samboy (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it makes an unverifiable claim. We cannot say "there is no evidence" of anything - we of course don't know that. The chess.com report concluded that they did not find any, and it's fine to add that. Or remove the accusation altogether, which your subsequent edit did. BLP may trump a lot, but it doesn't trump verifiability. WPscatter t/c 00:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m willing to have the chess.com cheating claim in the lead, as long as we make it clear he was 17 or under when the alleged cheating happened. The no evidence of OTB cheating comes from Ken Regan (and I’ve made that clear); while there has been some grumbling about Regan’s analysis online, none of that grumbling, as far as I know, has been reported in WP:GENREL WP:SECONDARY sources. I would be happy with no discussion of cheating in lead, or discussion with the note he so far looks clean over the board. Also: Refs for the Regan claims are in the body; it’s referenced, verified, etc. Samboy (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you have it backward. The addition of an undue and uncontextualized line in the lead presents BLP concerns, and it shouldn't be restored absent consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
While consensus can change, the current consensus is to include a one sentence note about the Regan claim of no evidence of OTB cheating in the lead. Having things be one-sided in the lead has WP:BLP concerns (namely, having just the accusation of online cheating without mentioning the accusations are from when he was 17 or younger, and without mentioning Regan’s claim his OTB games look clean), and I will be happy with all claims in the lead (online-only cheating when he was under 18, but he looks clean OTB) or none of the claims in the lead. Samboy (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm also fine with all or none. As coverage continues to develop, we'll get a better sense of which viewpoints should be afforded more weight. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how we can not even mention the cheating accusations in the lead. Fact is, that is what he is primarily known for by the general public. The point of the lead (I refuse to call it "lede") is to summarise the content of the article. It is factual to say he has been accused of cheating, and the wording (as I originally wrote it) made no judgement one way or another as to the veracity of the claim. I don't agree with mentioning the age when he was last alleged to have cheated in the lead, it looks to me like an attempt to minimise it and thereby violate NPOV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I know some editors think we should wait before mentioning the chess.com accusations, and while they have a point, I’m OK with them being here for now as a brief mention because the accusations have been mentioned in four WP:GENREL sources. I feel the chess.com report is unreliable except for the under-18 online cheating accusations (which Regan himself seems to support, and which have been commented on enough as secondary analysis to look Wiki-worthy, see above), and the note they have that we don’t have concrete evidence of over the board cheating by Hans. Samboy (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, it’s not WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV-violating mentioning the age. The chess.com report mentions the age, the WSJ summary of the chess.com report also mentions the age, as does the NPR article when it quotes the chess.com report. Mentioning the age merely echos the report and the age is mentioned by WP:GENREL WP:SECONDARY sources. Samboy (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I do think we should be careful to avoid OR/SYNTH if mentioning the lack of OTB cheating evidence. The chess.com report directly stated that it found no evidence of OTB cheating. If citing the report, or a news article that reported on it, then I see no issue. But we can't just make the claim that there is no evidence based on the lack of sources saying there is. WPscatter t/c 01:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks like User:MaxBrowne2 can not agree with having the “17 or under” bit, so I think we shouldn’t mention the cheating accusations in the lead until we have something all of us can agree on. Samboy (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning his age carries an implication of lack of moral culpability. And it's absurd not to mention the accusations at all in the lead. That's why the article's getting so many hits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the implication that the lead should always mention the reason an article is popular at any given time. There's a whole section in the article for the allegations; people won't leave confused. WPscatter t/c 01:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy not mentioning the allegations with WP:BLP issues in the lead for now. The “implication of lack of moral culpability” because he was 17 exists in the chess.com report, it exists in the WSJ summary of the report, and it exists in the NPR summary of the report. It doesn’t matter what our own personal moral judgments are; we need to report things as reported by reliable sources. Another editor agrees the age should be reported. I will not object to a mention of the allegation being added to the lead as long as we note Niemann’s age when the alledged cheating happen, and as long as we mention Regan doesn’t see any evidence of over the board cheating. Based on where this discussion is going now, I won’t put it in the lead again for the time being until consensus about adding it and what to add is more established. Samboy (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"Editor X agrees" is hardly compelling. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
As a note: added see also:carlsen-niemman controversy. I believe that should be mentioned regardless Bedfordres (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am OK with that for now. Samboy (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm editor X. If that isn't a noir movie title yet then it really should be. @Samboy's point, I think, is that there's support for his position, and he's quite right. I do agree with @MaxBrowne2that the cheating allegations should be in the lead (I've also stopped using 'lede'), which is why I put it in in the first place, but also with @Samboy that a reference to the subject's being under 18 at the time of the alleged cheating is also appropriate there. Cheating (allegedly) as a minor is really quite a different thing from doing so as an adult. I don't really agree with the degree of parsing of articles at reliable sources above, but I do agree that it's probably best to leave the reference to the Chess.com report out of the lead for the moment. It's perfectly possible that things will change as more information emerges. Until and unless they do, it's important not to do harm where is possible not to. Just my opinions, obv. It's a very good and intelligent discourse above too, if I may say. All the best, colleagues, Emmentalist (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
So far, here’s what I’m seeing. @Ovinus: Opposes having allegations in lead right now. @MaxBrowne2, Bedfordres, and Emmentalist: Support having allegations in lead right now. @Wpscatter and Firefangledfeathers: Neutral w.r.t. having allegations in lead. Everyone, even @Wpscatter seems OK with the note that Regan has not found evidence of over the board (OTB) cheating, as long as it’s attributed. @Emmentalist and myself say we need to note the allegations need to mention he was 17 or younger when the alleged online cheating occurred; @MaxBrowne2 opposes mentioning Hans’s then age. Rough consensus right now seems to be that we should mention the allegations, as long as we mention the age, mention that it’s chess.com making the allegations, and mentions Regan not seeing OTB cheating evidence. I know @MaxBrowne2 and @Ovinus won’t be 100% happy if we add the allegations again in that form, so hopefully we can find a middle ground which makes everyone happy. I won’t add the content again, but would edit it if it’s missing Hans’s age or Regan’s analysis, since both bits of nuance are important and rough consensus (if not each and every editor) supports having both. If I am wrong about anyone’s views, let us know. Samboy (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand the arguments for inclusion in the lead and will of course respect the consensus, which seems to be toward that. Ovinus (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very good summary. Thanks @Samboy Emmentalist (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The most recent cheating allegations were quite recent (2020). I don't agree that 18 is some magic age where one suddenly becomes mature and responsible, and drawing attention to age at the time of cheating just sounds like making excuses. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
My personal preference is we state the year(s). I feel like in the discussion of his alleged cheating that when it occured in relation to years is important.
I personally don't care either way on the age.
But just my thoughts Bedfordres (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

this article is a mess

The all but only homegrown usa super gm in chess after Fischer (not imported from cuba or armenia or having Japanese/Italian roots) - and showing potential to be equally as great and/or crazy - needs a better article. This guy is a future chess superstar, but this idiotic article is embarrassing. Personal life lists his chess trainers, twitch part talks about some trivial issues. This shabby article speaks for itself! Terrible. BAD! SAD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.111.189 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A short two sentence summary of a controversy covered by multiple articles seems reasonable and I don't see how that impacts the neutrality of the article. Perhaps better sources or including Niemann's defense of the incident would be better? --LatakiaHill (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Why should it be important that he is a "homegrown usa super gm"? Wikipedia is international and not USA only. Hahne9 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To add to what Hahne said, Nodirbek Abdusattorov's article is about equal size, even though Abdusattorov has achieved much more.
Chess juniors simply aren't that important to wikipedia, if you can add some facts that you feel are wrongfully excluded feel free to enter them. Kvothe356 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
no he has not nor is he nearly as controversial 216.164.249.213 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Cycling attributes seem unsubstantiated

Double check cycling race results against "top rated cyclist" 24.6.49.252 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that the reference is to a self written article, and have been unable to find any corroborating sources. I have amended to make it clear it's a self claim, but am personally happy to remove the line all together? Dauwenkust (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That looks good. I’ve revised the wording as per the WP:SAID writing guidelines we have on the Wikipedia, and to avoid wording which may potentially have WP:BLP concerns, something I am extremely careful about right now because of a lot of the noise I’m seeing on Twitter and Reddit. Samboy (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
He greatly exaggerated his childhood achievements as a cyclist. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) And by the way I don't agree that its inappropriate to link to this article. If verifiable information is unflattering to the subject of a BLP, that's not wikipedia's problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

several things

1. hans only started performing "normally" at the sinquefield cup once a broadcast delay was introduced

2. this incident is far more serious and significant than toiletgate for many reasons including its implications on cheat prevention

3. many commentators agree with magnus, why not mention those?

4. ken regan ratified the chess.com report. why isnt this mentioned? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

update: regan has called part of the report "bubkis". but he stands by affirmation of the rest of it. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the Chess.com report should be included. It's very comprehensive, and has been referenced by several reliable sources. Niemann has openly admitted to cheating on Chess.com. This report belongs in the main article, if we're being fair. Elsewhere in the main article, it states that Nakamura accused Hans of cheating on Chess.com. Without the inclusion of Hans' admission, and the comprehensive report, Nakamura's statement appears to be out of line. Not including the foregoing facts is not fair to Nakamura, who is also a living person. MainePatriot (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

introductory body

...should be rephrased placing emphasis on the original controversy, as opposed to the lawsuit, as that was the more significant event 216.164.249.213 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Anal Beads Rumors violate BLP guidelines against rumors!

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carlsen–Niemann_controversy#Anal_beads.

Key points:

23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention, this is TEXTBOOK CYBERBULLYING! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
You keep saying this is "cyberbullying". I don't think you know what that term is. But as literally wrong as everything you have said here is, the anal beads content does not belong in this particular article. This particular article is a biography of Hans Niemann, not a detailed account of everything that happened in the Carlsen–Niemann controversy. The anal beads thing does not belong here. --B (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Insult me all you want. As long as this libel/slander gets removed, I don't care what you call it. I am going by: Cyberbullying or cyberharassment is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic means." 23.84.19.247 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I copied and pasted it but somehow all this other stuff got pasted with it. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there any way to edit a comment after you post it? I want to remove all that extra garbage that got added to my comment. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@23.84.19.247 I have edited the comment to how I think it was intended, however if not I will self revert. Dauwenkust (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
For the record, he's not a child, he's a young adult; it's not "cyberbullying", it's a stupid internet meme; it's not really a BLP violation because nobody actually believes it's literally true; but still it doesn't belong in wikipedia because it's dumb and unencyclopedic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
A teenager is still a child. Kids that age still have self-esteem problems and etc. i.e. he is still especially vulnerable to cyber harassment and hence why it is still morally wrong. If you tried to bully a 35 year old, then yeah. You'd expect by that age they can handle it better than a 19 year old.
And it still is cyber bullying. Taking wholly unsubstantiated sexual rumors and putting it on his Wikipedia bio page, so that everyone in the world can see his name attached to a sex toy!? That is the literal definition of cyber bullying. Go read the Wikipedia page on it!
But whatever. As long as well all agree, for whatever ultimate reason, that this should absolutely definitely NOT be included on his bio page, then I don't care what you call it. Just leave it off his page! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
A 19 year old is an adult. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I was the 1 who posted the meme that Elon Musk tweeted. I didn't type the theory. I just shared it. Lol. https://www.reddit.com/r/chessmemes/comments/x8217h/the_real_answer_is_actually_elementary_magnus/ Thewriter006 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Nope! Perfect Thanks! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Hans' photo?

See the subject. Thewriter006 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was deleted from Commons, see the discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg -M.nelson (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thanks! Thewriter006 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Photo?

Ok so what now then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans_Niemann#What_happened_to_Hans'_photo? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to dispute that deletion, see c:Commons:Undeletion requests. Otherwise a new image will have to be found - there are some instructions at WP:Finding images tutorial. -M.nelson (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-taught?

How can the article call him "self-taught" when just 2 lines above it states "John Grefe was one of his coaches"? 47.20.129.74 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Niemann/Archive_1&oldid=1244566907"