|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > March 2006 > Parr on Winter on "The Termination"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Parr on Winter on "The Termination"
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-12, 7:35 pm |
| On 12 Mar 2006 07:51:01 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>help bot wrote:
>
> You point out what is both a strength and weakness in Winter's
>approach to this subject. Most journalists have tended to give Kasparov
>a free pass -- even when he's plainly wrong, or contradicts himself, or
>makes baseless accusations, it often goes unquestioned. Winter, on the
>other hand, is not afraid to call it bull when GK speaks bull, and so
>sometimes catches things other writers miss.
> On the other hand, Winter, as far as I know, has confined his
>research mostly to published sources, e.g. Kasparov's book, Keene's
>columns, Campomanes' press statements, etc. That is not enough to get
>to the heart of an affair where so much went on behind closed doors.
>For that you need inside sources and contacts. I don't think Winter has
>those -- at least not to the extent required to get to the bottom of
>the Termination. His approach would be about the only feasible one if
>the subject was an event from 100 years ago, but not when all the
>principal parties are still alive.
> Still, I think Winter's article serves a useful purpose. Best case,
>it would inspire some ambitious investigator who *does* have the
>necessary contacts to pursue the matter in real depth.
Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual.
There is no incident in the entire history of chess that has more
written about it than the stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
Match.
AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about this,
which were pub;lished in the world press.
Nobody gives Kasparov a "free pass". Kasparov is the most criticized
personality in the world of chess.
Edward Winter (aka Taylor Kingston) gives his attention to Kasparov's
book and Keene's columns for one simple reason. Winter is obsessed
with Keene. Almost everything Winter writes is either a direct or an
indirect attack on Keene. It is true that Keene was a central
character in the Kasparov-Karpov match and any discussion of the match
would have to include a mention of Keene but to write an entire book
about Keene is ridiculous.
Also, nothing about the match went on behind closed doors. The much
disputed events of the match were neveretheless not secret. I know
things about the stopping of the match which have never been
published, and I was not even there. For that matter, Keene was not
there either. He was in London.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-12, 7:35 pm |
| On 10 Mar 2006 06:53:12 -0800, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:
quote:
> The memoir TAN CHIN NAM, NEVER SAY I ASSUME
>should be available at Amazon next week. Those
>interested can also access www.mph.com.my
>
> TAN CHIN NAM: NEVER SAY I ASSUME!
> by Tan Chin Nam; Larry Parr
>
> The story of a Malaysian life. The author, Dato' Tan
>Chin Nam
> businessman, sportsman, raconteur, and writer --
>hopes that if
> he "does nothing else" it is to help readers "enjoy
>the same
> successes rather than make the same errors that I
>did."
>
> I'm afraid that I am very busy at the moment promoting
>the book
>in newspapers and magazines. It will be appearing also in Australia,
>London,
>Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc. I will try to post something soon,
>but I may
>again be disappearing from these precincts.
Great! I have just added your new book to my Wikipedia biography of
you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr#Books
Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-12, 11:33 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:18:00 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
<ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote:
quote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>
>
>Sam, Sam, lying again. First: I did not vandalize. Second: I did not
>delete "almost everything", only parts of articles. Third: My changes -
>with one exception - were limited to chess related topics, which means I
>left alone all your political and other articles. Last: the Winter
>article has shown, that others are doing this job now.
>
>Greetings,
>Ralf
As it turns out, this time it was not Ralf Callenberg who vandalized
the article, but rather Louis Blair, who posts as 137.216.208.82 ,
which is in Brookings, South Dakota.
Louis Blair was a bit more civilized about it, not bulldozing the
entire article as Ralf Callenberg does, but just deleting a few lines
of my Larry Parr article.
Louis Blair also deleted content from my Eric Schiller article,
deleting among other things the foillowing unquestionably true
statement:
"Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess
Champion Garry Kasparov."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schiller
Sam Sloan
| |
| Paul Rubin 2006-03-12, 11:33 pm |
| sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
quote:
> Louis Blair also deleted content from my Eric Schiller article,
> deleting among other things the foillowing unquestionably true
> statement:
>
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess
> Champion Garry Kasparov."
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>:
"Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view
that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may
seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,
not truth."
If Louis Blair removed an unverified claim, he did the right thing
according to Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether the claim is true.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-12, 11:33 pm |
| Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com)
wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:45:20 GMT):
quote:
> Louis Blair ... deleting among other things
> the foillowing unquestionably true statement:
>_
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand
> man of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov."
_
"It is an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true is
not enough, you have to show that reliable secondary
sources have reported it as such." - Just zis Guy you
know? (16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
| |
| help bot 2006-03-13, 2:32 am |
| > Louis Blair ... deleting among other things
quote:
> the foillowing unquestionably true statement:
>_
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand
> man of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov."
_
"It is an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true is
not enough, you have to show that reliable secondary
sources have reported it as such."
I think it would be more accurate to say that truth has little to do
with the matter; the policy, as stated, requires only that something
has been reported by reliable sources.
But what constitutes a reliable source? Apparently, many would regard
different authors who sometimes contradict each other to be reliable.
And some would even believe that authors who often times contradict
themselves to be reliable. Reliability is not always measured by
objective standards; it's more a consensus (of popular opinion).
Not long ago, I read about an animal which was long "thought to be
extinct" by all the "reliable" sources, by the scientists.
Unfortunately, someone dragged a recent kill into a small town to sell
at the local market, and the Reliables had to rethink their position.
A more "reliable" source might have classified the creature's status as
"unknown", but this would entail an admission of ignorance -- and
Reliables don't like doing that. 
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-13, 11:33 pm |
| Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com)
wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:45:20 GMT):
quote:
> Louis Blair ... deleting among other things
> the foillowing unquestionably true statement:
>_
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand
> man of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov."
_
I replied (12 Mar 2006 17:43:35 -0800) to this
by reproducing a comment from a Wikipedia
talk page:
quote:
> "It is an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
> works that simply knowing somethign to be true is
> not enough, you have to show that reliable secondary
> sources have reported it as such." - Just zis Guy you
> know? (16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
_
helpbot (nomorechess@hotmail.com)
wrote (12 Mar 2006 22:43:42 -0800):
quote:
> ... But what constitutes a reliable source? ...
_
I am not sure about how much help it would be,
but Wikipedia does have pages that discuss
this sort of issue:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...iginal_research
|
| |
|
|