Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy: Difference between revisions
→Updates on lawsuit: "retain" to "restrain"; other minor edit~~~~ |
→Updates on lawsuit: additional corrections and clarifying edits regarding update |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
On January 3, 2023, federal district court Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled that "the Court will hear this case only on the bases of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. It will not hear the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction." |
On January 3, 2023, federal district court Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled that "the Court will hear this case only on the bases of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. It will not hear the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction." |
||
This is a significant ruling because the jurisdictional power of federal courts is limited by the U.S. Constitution and is also limited by statutes. The two main federal jurisdictional grounds authorize federal courts to hear and decide (1) controversies involving federal issues and (2) controversies involving citizens of different states. If at least one jurisdictional basis exists, then a court may exercise additional jurisdictional authority to adjudicate related "pendent" or "supplemental" claims under state law. However, if diversity jurisdiction has been ruled out (which it has), then, if the federal question claims (based on antitrust law) are at some point dismissed, then the entire case would have to dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
This is a significant ruling because the jurisdictional power of federal courts is limited by the U.S. Constitution and is also limited by statutes. The two main federal jurisdictional grounds authorize federal courts to hear and decide (1) controversies involving federal issues and (2) controversies involving citizens of different states. If at least one jurisdictional basis exists, then a court may exercise additional jurisdictional authority to adjudicate related "pendent" or "supplemental" claims under state law. However, if diversity jurisdiction has been ruled out (which it has), then, if the federal question claims (based on antitrust law) are at some point dismissed, then the plaintiff's entire case (including the defamation claims) would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is not clear whether, if the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed, the court would retain jurisdiction over defendants' state law "anti-SLAPP" allegations under state law, which could be considered in the nature of counterclaims. |
||
An antitrust claim requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the defendants |
An antitrust claim (the central federal question pleaded by Niemann) requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the defendants entered into an agreement to restrain competition in a specific market. Some legal commentators consider it likely that the court will eventually determine that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case. A possible basis for dismissing the federal question claims is that dis-invition of a player from a competitive tournament because of concerns the player has violated the fair play rules is not equivalent to entering an unlawful agreement to restrain economic competition. In other sports contexts, suspension by an athletic conference of a team from participating in athletic competitions because of cheating or other breaking other rules has been held not to implicate antitust laws. |
||
On March 1, 2023, Hans Niemann's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, from the order not to allow diversity jurisdiction. On March 6, 2003, the Eighth Circuit entered a judgment dismissing Niemann's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Normally a party may take an appeal only from a so-called "final order" and the judgment of January 3, 2023, was not a "final, appealable order" but was merely an "interlocutory order" not subject to appeal.[[Special:Contributions/100.15.136.71|100.15.136.71]] ([[User talk:100.15.136.71|talk]]) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
On March 1, 2023, Hans Niemann's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, from the order not to allow diversity jurisdiction. On March 6, 2003, the Eighth Circuit entered a judgment dismissing Niemann's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Normally a party may take an appeal only from a so-called "final order" and the judgment of January 3, 2023, was not a "final, appealable order" but was merely an "interlocutory order" not subject to appeal.[[Special:Contributions/100.15.136.71|100.15.136.71]] ([[User talk:100.15.136.71|talk]]) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:54, 10 March 2023
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2022. The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep. |
 | Chess C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from Carlsen–Niemann controversy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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) 01:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bump to keep from archiving as the deletion discussion is still open -M.nelson (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
are we gonna include the wesley so - magnus carlsen game that was not in the 2018 london chess classic?
1:30 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeJrItfQqw&t=90s Niemann: Magnus Must Be Embarrassed to Lose to Me | Round 3
it appears to be...this?
https://www.chess.com/games/view/14459045 Thewriter006 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Thewriter006 You'd have to start by explaining the relevance, providing an WP:RS, or both. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- this game is a counter-argument to leaked prep!?!??! oh wait...(checks article)...is leaked prep excluded actually?
- ah i see...there's no need to include the wesley so thing because in the 1st place the article so far doesn't cover the leaked prep stuff? Thewriter006 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Leaked prep was a reddit/Twitch theory that, AFAIK, was never commented on in the media. (The theory was that Hans had friends in Magnus's organization, they leaked the super secret opening Magnus was going to play, and that's how Hans beat him.) But Magnus has made it clear that's not what his accusation/claim is. --B (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- ah ok ok thanks. as for the last part 'But Magnus has made it clear that's not what his accusation/claim is' source please? Thewriter006 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Leaked prep was a reddit/Twitch theory that, AFAIK, was never commented on in the media. (The theory was that Hans had friends in Magnus's organization, they leaked the super secret opening Magnus was going to play, and that's how Hans beat him.) But Magnus has made it clear that's not what his accusation/claim is. --B (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
English variation
Since September, this article has been marked with EngvarB, indicating that British English ought to be used. By MOS:ENGVAR, I'm not really sure why. Of the main figures involved, one is American and the other is Norwegian. Secondary figures (Rensch and Nakamura) are also American. The inciting incident took place in Missouri and the lawsuit is located there as well. By MOS:TIES, should this article instead be in American English? Tkbrett (✉) 12:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- I too raised an eyebrow at EngvarB. But I do not think the ties you have mentioned to the United States would be conclusive. Tournament participants were from many countries, including Norway, and one tournament was online. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Does it really need to be conclusive to make the switch? There are numerous American connections to the subject of this article, but there are no British connections at all. It may as well be in Canadian English. The only rationale I can see for retaining Brit English is MOS:RETAIN, which I don't think is a strong argument for an article that is only two-months old. Tkbrett (✉) 11:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like EngvarB was first added on October 7 but back-dated to September. At that time, the article actually contained American English spellings like "criticized". Between this (MOS:RETAIN) and the (slight) national ties above, it seems like American English would suit the article best. -M.nelson (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding this. The IP address that added "EngvarB" did not make any other edits to the article.
- Reading the documentation for EngvarB, I see that it is not for British English specifically, but for "non-specific but not North American spelling". I wonder what that is supposed to mean. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've only ever seen it used to refer to British English, but as you point out the documentation does seem somewhat vague. Tkbrett (✉) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
No one else has weighed in, so I changed it to American English in the meantime. Tkbrett (✉) 17:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
motion to dismiss
not that i find it noteworthy but why aren't we mentioning the recent motions to dismiss? Thewriter006 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I added mention of the motions. If something isn't there, it's probably just because other editors haven't gotten around to it. You can always add sourced info yourself. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Updates on lawsuit
On January 3, 2023, federal district court Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled that "the Court will hear this case only on the bases of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. It will not hear the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction."
This is a significant ruling because the jurisdictional power of federal courts is limited by the U.S. Constitution and is also limited by statutes. The two main federal jurisdictional grounds authorize federal courts to hear and decide (1) controversies involving federal issues and (2) controversies involving citizens of different states. If at least one jurisdictional basis exists, then a court may exercise additional jurisdictional authority to adjudicate related "pendent" or "supplemental" claims under state law. However, if diversity jurisdiction has been ruled out (which it has), then, if the federal question claims (based on antitrust law) are at some point dismissed, then the plaintiff's entire case (including the defamation claims) would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is not clear whether, if the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed, the court would retain jurisdiction over defendants' state law "anti-SLAPP" allegations under state law, which could be considered in the nature of counterclaims.
An antitrust claim (the central federal question pleaded by Niemann) requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the defendants entered into an agreement to restrain competition in a specific market. Some legal commentators consider it likely that the court will eventually determine that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case. A possible basis for dismissing the federal question claims is that dis-invition of a player from a competitive tournament because of concerns the player has violated the fair play rules is not equivalent to entering an unlawful agreement to restrain economic competition. In other sports contexts, suspension by an athletic conference of a team from participating in athletic competitions because of cheating or other breaking other rules has been held not to implicate antitust laws.
On March 1, 2023, Hans Niemann's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, from the order not to allow diversity jurisdiction. On March 6, 2003, the Eighth Circuit entered a judgment dismissing Niemann's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Normally a party may take an appeal only from a so-called "final order" and the judgment of January 3, 2023, was not a "final, appealable order" but was merely an "interlocutory order" not subject to appeal.100.15.136.71 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65592749/niemann-v-carlsen/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 100.15.136.71 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)