Jump to content

Talk:Sam Sloan

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 14 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- no need for disambiguating qualifier. JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan (chess player) → Sam Sloan – No need for disambiguation in the title. There are no other articles on WP with "Sam Sloan" in the title, and there is a hatnote at the top of the page that links to the Samuel Sloan dab page. Currently, pages cannot be manually moved to Sam Sloan, as it redirects to the aforementioned dab page.JayJasper (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautious support As the other 2 people this might possibly refer to appear to be normally known as "Samuel Sloan". We should of course retain some sort of hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as standard procedure for use of parenthetical qualifiers. If there is a sole "Billy", "Charlie" or "Johnny" on a disambiguation page listing those named "William", "Charles" or "John", there no need for a qualifier and a redirect to the dab page unless the articles describing the other individuals stated that one or more of them was also well-known and publicly referenced by the diminutive form of his given name.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support No other article named Sam Sloan, no need for disambiguation. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 06:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Support - Rachitrali (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very Odd Edit on 04:43, 28 January 2018‎

[edit]

User 101.50.82.135, who appears to have been previously cited for vandalism (101.50.82.135 talk) of the page Chitral (princely state), added the following rather odd paragraph:

On January 17, 2018 Sloan was detained by the Superintendent of Police in Chitral Pakistan. He was held by an officer wearing a jacket saying COMMANDO ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD. He is believed to have been detained for attempting to take Family Tree DNA Genealogy DNA tests of Kalash people in Bumburet. He is still being held and his belongings are being held by the FIA, the Federal Investigation Agency, or by the ISI in Islamabad. Sloan contacted the Embassy of the United States, Islamabad but they did not offer any help at all, stating that US Citizens have been advised by the State Department not to travel to Pakistan [3] and thus any who come are on their own.

There are no citations regarding this purported incident (footnote three is a link to the US State Department's travel information page for Pakistan) nor have I been able to find any news reports of it.

What's going on?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sam Sloan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

[edit]

Uh.. I'm just driving by - I'm amazed there are no templates on this page warning about it! Most of the sources seem to be Sloan's own websites! There's pretty much an air of lunacy about it, as with everything he seems to be involved with. I was going to delete everything linking only to his own accounts, but that would be the whole page gone mostly. There's a load of far-fetched stories, which seem to come from Sloan himself and nowhere else. How is that wikipedia-appropriate. Wow. Anyway.. I just looked into one claim, that he was world chinese chess champion in 1988. Which sounds absurd on the face of it. It seems he didnt even play in it, but in the section for foreigners. I was going to delete, but I notice it, like most of the page, says "he claimed on such-an-such an occasion that' etc. Most of the page should be moved into a "Crazy Claims" section or something. For me, the most notable/amazing thing he's been involved in (I'm no expert) is the Truong online messages matter/scandal, where it seems Truong (Susan Polgar's husband and I believe on the board of the USCF then) wrote hundreds/thousands of fake messages pretending to be Sloan (and other people I think. I looked into it a few years ago, because it sounded soo incredibly bizarre.) Truong and Polgar were thrown out of the USCF because of that. I hadnt heard of the Sloan-winning-in-the-supreme-court thing, but the Truong affair seems to me the most notable chess thing he's been involved in. It was super-bizarre, and, from what I can tell, actually happened. Anyway, what a crazy life. Not surprised Fischer apparently felt on his level. Would make a great movie. But as a wikipedia page, wow. I guess no-one cares enough to clean it up. Probably most of it should just be deleted. I read the 2 2005 failed moves to delete. I'm not sure about that, but this page is nowhere near as 'good' as even the worst wikipedia page I'd seen before this one. I'm no wikpedia expert, but "Your own website" really is not a credible source, I think I'm pretty safe in saying. But I must go, am feeling less sane after even 20 minutes on this page. Good luck to who cleans it up, and thanks. (I'm not from the USA, have never met the guy) 110.20.175.168 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I'll leave a link to something more insane.. check out the last couple of years of this newsgroup. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rec.games.chess.politics Mostly Sloan's messages or people claiming to be him, or claiming not to be the people calling him a p.... r... etc etc. Wow hehe. He really spends his life mucking around in crap like that. Why?! (The abusive newsgroups, I mean) p.s. "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed" Gee. What is unconstructive is allowing so many bots on here. 110.20.175.168 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sam Sloan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

[edit]

I removed the entire section "Political positions" with this edit since it seems overly promotional in nature and not really encyclopedically relevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It looks like this was first boldly added here, but it might be time to take a closer look at this per WP:CONTENTAGE.

While I think it is acceptable to mention Sloan's attempts at obtaining public office, listing his poistion's on various issues in a separate subsection seems a bit excessive. If there was a particular issue Sloan associated with for a particluar campaign which was significantly covered in reliable sources covering the campaign, then that possibly could be mentioned with the relevant content about the camplaign in the "Political campaigns" section, but he sources cited were primary sources which seem problematic to me per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Wikipedia articles about politicians are not venues for the politicians to promote their campaign or their pet issues. If there are secondary sources providing critical commentary of the various positions that Sloan has taken, then that can be included; however, listing issues in a manifesto like manner is not very encyclopedic at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can perhaps restore this section someday. Other candidates have such sections. I will take my time.--Sa57arc (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More children?

[edit]

Sloan says that he is now finding more biological children through GEDmatch searches. Should we add them to the infobox?--Sa57arc (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such content would seem to be possibly a problem per WP:OR, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAMES. Unless any of these new found children (who may be adults at this time) are Wikipedia notable in their own right and this recent discovery is something which seems to have received some coverage in secondary and independent reliable sources, then there's doesn't seem to be any real encyclopedic need to mention them. If someone is doing their own research to find out how many children they might have and it personally helps them find some closure, then that's good for them; however, that's not necessarily relevant to Wikipedia and it's not Wikipedia's role to try and set the record straight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding any more children’s names, it would be best to try and find proper sourcing and discuss the encyclopedic importance of the nine someone had already added. I just removed (technically hid) them because they were sitting unsourced in the infobox unsupported by reliable sources and corresponding content into body of the article. Such information probably should’ve been removed a long time ago per WP:BLPNAMES and WP:BLPSOURCES; moreover, infoboxes should summarize key article content and not be the only place something is mentioned per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about Familypedia?--Sa57arc (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the name that would seem to be something not going to be considered reliable per WP:UGC. You are aware that Wikipedia doesn't even consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose, aren't you? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought Shamema back. I guess the others will stay hidden.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have settled on no children names at all.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You seem to have tried to bring more back. Again, I don't think you should be adding content such as this per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPNAMES without some really strong secondary sources cited in support. The cause of someone's death or whether someone identifies as transgender are not things which should be added to articles without some really strong sourcing as well as there being a really strong contextual reason for doing so. A much stronger source is needed that citing someone's FIDE profile page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The details about Shamena and her kidnapping that could only be supported by court records or some DVD on Amazon should have never beein this article in the first place per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the point. No secondary sources mention any of Sloan's children except for Shamema and her only briefly.--Sa57arc (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most anusha.com citations

[edit]

I removed most of the Anusha.com citations. I left two that are presented as archives of documents authored by other people where there is no other copy on the web available. I also removed some of the warnings at the top of the article. I think that we can trust Sloan to have honest copies of news articles and legal documents on his personal site.--Sa57arc (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with WP:CONVENIENCE. If the archived copies of articles, for example, show an entire scan of the article show that the name of the publication, the date of publication, the name of any authors, etc. can be seen, then it might be OK to cite it as a source if the original publication is considered reliable per WP:SAYWHERE even if the original article can't be easily found online. Even in that case though, the uploading of the scan by Sloan might be considered a WP:COPYLINK violation for Wikipedia purposes and it might simply be best to cite the original source without any link to anusha. If, on the other hand, the archived version is basically Sloan just copying and pasting or re-entering a transcript of the article onto his website, then it might be wise not to cite it. With a scan you can at least see if it's been manipulated a bit, but there's no way to verify a manually entered version of the article without actually seeing the original version of the article. So, I don't think Sam Sloan#cite_note-Mauro-10 (i.e. http://www.anusha.com/amlawyer.htm) and Sam Sloan#cite_note-Duffy-12 (i.e. http://www.anusha.com/duffy.htm) should be linked to since they aren't really archived links or the original source per se, but rather "archived versions" re-created by Sloan. In addition, they might also not really be needed per WP:CITETRIM since both are used to cite the same content which is also supported by five other citations. This also something technically odd about those two archived links in that they try to download some type of audio file onto my computer when I click on them; that could just be me, but there should really be no reason to download a file for it to be verified. Anyway, I'll ask about it at WP:RSN to see what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sloan added midi audio files to his pages back when he authored them around the year 2000. On many browsers then, they would play the audio in the background. Times have changed but Sloan and Anusha.com have not.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what Sloan did back in 2000? Have you been in contact with him or was this posted somewhere on his website? That would explain the audio files, but again not sure how you know such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He has updated his giant home page with 2016 info but all the other pages that I have seen are old stuff.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wives

[edit]

Are there any secondary sources for his wives? His first and third wives are mentioned by name in the infobox, but they're not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Even the bit about his second wife seems to rely heavily on WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB types of sources, but at least there's something in the article about her. Unsourced content only mentioned in the infobox probably needs to be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES or incorporated (with supporting citations) somewhere in the body of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Sam Sloan#cite_note-Hallman-2. Search for "wives".--Sa57arc (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did that before I started this thread. That source doesn't mention any of his wives by name or anything about when Sloan married them of when he divorced them. It also says he Sloan claims to have five wives (not three). That source completely fails WP:RSCONTEXT for anything other than what it actually says, such as his first wife was a Kalesh woman, not that his first wife was Anda Baumanis. We can't take what's written in that source to support anything other than what's actually written in that source per WP:SYN; moreover, some parts of that article (particularly the parts about Sloan's personal life), have an interview feel to it in which the writer is asking Sloan to talk about himself and it doesn't appear that the writer did anything more than take the claims made at face value. That might make for interesting reading, but it's not really the solid source needed per BLPSOURCES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USENET postings incident

[edit]

Most of the content in this section seems to be only supported by some online news group posts which is not allowed per WP:BLPSPS. The second source cited is basically just for the "law" Sloan is supposed to have broken, but has nothing to do with Sloan or anything about the particular incident. What are needed are secondary reliable sources which discuss the content, not citations to online news groups. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that section name to "Domain name seizures".--Sa57arc (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the name doesn't really change the fact that the section is pretty much unsourced per Wikipedia's standards; moreover, adding further unsourced content to it only exacerbates the problem. How do you know that Sloan regained his domain names? What source are you "citing" for that information? Do you have personal knowledge of the details you're adding to the article about this and other stuff to the article or are you finding it somewhere in reliable sources? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "your" to "you're" and strike through the unnecessary "to the article". -- 00:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]
The domain names http://www.samsloan.com http://www.shamema.com http://www.ishipress.com now work. Those are the ones that the posting said were seized. I hope you do not consider that to be WP:OR.--Sa57arc (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. No BLP-quality sources and the incident is non-notable. I removed the section.--Sa57arc (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi driver stories

[edit]

​@Sa57arc: I'd imagine that many persons who have worked as a NY cab driver probably have a story or two about some well-known person who was a passenger in their cab; however, this is pretty trivial type of content that probably should not be mentioned even if supported by a reliable source. If there is an incident between Sloan and someone well-know that for some reason received coverage in reliable sources, then perhaps something like that could be mentioned.

You sincerely seem to be trying to improve this article though it's not clear why that's suddenly the case. Prior to November 15, you don't seem to have edited this article at all; since then, though, quite of lot of your editing has been focused on this article or content somehow related to Sloan in other articles. I've asked this before, but it's still not clear where you're getting this type of information. Are you reading it somewhere online? Do you have some connection to Sloan and thus know things like this? There's nothing wrong with either per se, but some care needs to be taken with WP:BLP content in particular to make sure it's properly supported by reliable secondary sources and encyclopedically relevant to a general understanding of the subject of the article. Many of the changes you're making seem OK at first glance, but you still keep adding unsourced and somewhat trivial blubs like this.

So, maybe instead of adding more unsourced content, it might be best to start removing already existing unsourced content from the article if a proper secondary source can't be found and cited in support. Articles can also be improved (at least from a Wikipedia standpoint) by trimming them down to only information that can be reliably supported by proper citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got annoyed with the use of perennial candidate in the first sentence. I kept adding more things he did to the first sentence. He is a PC but it makes him sound like a dumb fool. He is a smart fool. I got carried away but by working together we have a good first sentence now. One thing that Sloan does that many notable chess players know from personal experience is that he walks around at international chess tournaments and hobnobs with the players. When he does so, he is a charming gentleman. He does not disrupt the players concentration. If he did that then they would throw him out but he does not. The Hallman article is new and very helpful but Hallman characterizes Sloan as "not likable". I think that Sloan is a Gadfly (philosophy and social science) but likable. Some of his partners and wives must have thought he was likable for a while at least. Some on the Internet have suggested that he caused his daughter Jessica's death. Sloan gets a bad rap IMHO. Youngsters hate him for talking in detail about his love life. Well pooh on them. In the end, I really did not change much content. I added some year dates and stuff. I gather some stuff into new little sections. Not much.--Sa57arc (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a major copyedit of the article, and while I did not know that "perennial candidate" had previously been in the lead sentence, but it seemed clearly the most notable aspect about him in the sources as I went through them. If you look at MOS:OPENPARABIO, it explains some of the guidelines for leads in BLPs, including why the subject is notable and their noteworthy activities based on due weight. I could understand possibly adding "chess player" back (although even that seems puffed up in the article already), but him continually running for office seems to be central to his notability. I also think it is inappropriate to add unsourced labels into the article such as "gadfly" and "memorizer". We have to go by what is in reliable independent sources, regardless of whether we agree with their sentiments. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gotta say that I'm enjoying just how much work is going into improving this article lately: when I first stumbled across it a few months ago, it was, well, in need of a major copy-edit (which I couldn't do at the time). So thank you all for your work. And, yes, RS, RS, RS. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I didn't check every statement for accurate sourcing, which is why I added the more footnotes template at the top of the article. I tried to connect sources to the specific sentences as much as possible, and hopefully going forward it will be easier to remove unsourced fluff if it get put into the article without a citation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sloan is probably "notable" is some sense for lots of reasons, but his Wikipedia notability seem primarily due to his arguing a case before SCOTUS and being a political candidate at various times (even though he's never seems to have ever been elected). It might be argued that his accomplishments as an author/publisher also help establish notability, but I'm not really seeing anything that clearly would meet WP:NAUTHOR. His accomplishments in chess and xiangqi are also somewhat impressive, but I don't they rise to the level in establishing Wikipedia notability. They seem OK to mention if properly sourced, but they shouldn't be given WP:UNDUE importance and care should be taken to make sure they don't seem more significant then they are by WP:NAMEDROPing famous people he might have as contemporaries or might have interacted with over the years as a player of either game. Too much of the such content as well as much of the personal life stuff, however, seems to be sourced back to Sloan himself which needs to be treated carefully per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. As I posted above, one way of improving an article is to remove unsourced or otherwise inappropriate content when proper sourcing can't be found for it, and try to stick to reflecting what those reliable sources that can be found are actually saying. This might make the article less exciting to read in a sense, but I think care has to be taken to try and adhere to WP:BLP as best as we can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

chessprogramming.org

[edit]

Is https://www.chessprogramming.org/Sam_Sloan an OK source for a BLP?--Sa57arc (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a reliable source for any purpose on Wikipedia. See WP:UGC. You may also want to spend some time reading WP:RS and WP:V as they provide a lot of information about proper sourcing policies. There are apparently multiple threads on this talk page from the past few weeks where others have had to spend their time explaining basic sourcing policies to you, and you have continued to add unsourced information into the article even today. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sa57arc, could you also respond to the question by Marchjuly about whether you have a connection to Sam Sloan? Given that you are adding information that is not in sources, I think it would be appropriate if you would say whether you are Sam Sloan or whether you are getting that information from him, as that would be a conflict of interest. You could also participate in the noticeboard discussion about your apparent COI here. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Sam Sloan.--Sa57arc (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any personal or off-wiki relationship with him that would pose a COI? Thank you in advance as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot of pages on Anusha.com. I hope the article can someday mention that he claims to have visited 78 counties. Maybe I will email him and suggest that he mention that in his next interview someday. I bet that the reporter will find that newsworthy.--Sa57arc (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that even if something is newsworthy, it may not be appropriate for inclusion. For example, if a single reliable source simply mentions that Sloan "claimed to have visited 78 countries", that may not be particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic enough include, but if a reliable source discusses how Sloan has visited numerous countries as part of his chess career, then that would probably be much more relevant. However, we would need to be careful the information is from reliable sources and would need to avoid WP:SYNTH between what reliable sources show as noteworthy and any self-promotional material sourced to the article subject.
Also, Sa57arc, when you talk about emailing Sloan about what he should mention in interviews, does that mean that you know him personally or have some sort of connection or relationship outside of Wikipedia? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add that WP:INTERVIEWs are tricky to deal with because they are WP:PRIMARY sources for the most part. This is especially true when it comes to BLPs per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. So much depends on the format, etc. of the interview and whether there's any real editorial control taking place, If the interview is bascially nothing but the subject talking uninterupted about themselves without anything they say being vetted, then reliability is going to be a concern due to a lack of editorial control. An interview which is really nothing more than a puff piece in which the subject can say whatever they want without the interviewer challenging any of the claims being made isn't going to be very useful. I also want to add that I'm a bit concerned what Sa57arc posted above about emailing Sloan to suggest he start mentioning stuff in interviews, apparently just so as to be able to add it to this article. That, at least in my opinion, kind of indicates a misunderstanding about some fundamental things about not only WP:BLP, but also about WP:NOT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, not since you changed your named you're not. 2603:7081:4F06:2869:51F9:291A:F0DB:FEE0 (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICGA source check

[edit]

How about

https://www.game-ai-forum.org/icga-tournaments/person.php?id=443

This shows that SS was involved with the Rex chess software program.--Sa57arc (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not reliable because it is an online forum. Please the review the policies that have been provided to you in previous sections, such as WP:UGC and WP:RS. If you are having trouble with the policies, then you may want to avoid working on BLPs since the policies are stricter, especially if you have strong feelings about the article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may have forum in the domain name, but it is a sizeable database that is not publicly edited. See https://www.game-ai-forum.org/icga-tournaments/ for a full index. I admit that it is not http://icga.org/ , but I think that they were careful to maintain the database as accurate.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what is going on now. The icga.org site has a "Tournaments" link to http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/event.php?idT=44 but if you go to archive.org for that link and choose 2019, you get forwarded to http://web.archive.org/web/20190418094525/https://www.game-ai-forum.org/icga-tournaments/ So icga.org has simply not updated it's web site yet. That is the official database of icga.org. That is International Computer Games Association.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) How does any of this content reflect what's in this source even if the consensus is that this database is a WP:RS? I look at the source you've cited and see Sam Sloan mentioned by name and also the program REX mentioned by name, but none of the other stuff you added which means it's near impossible to verify. Content is supposed to reflect what's written in reliable sources as closely as possible. We as editors read what's being written in reliable sources about a subject and they try to summarize what we've read in our own words while remaining true to the source. How did you go from what's written on that website to what you added to the article? Were you also incorporating information from other sources or perhaps stuff you personally know? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop adding inappropriate information and sources, as this wastes other editors' time. That source is not a reliable source, regardless of your personal opinions or WP:OR. Even if the content was clearly hosted on a website under the direct control and oversight of the International Computer Games Association website, there would still be no reliable sources to suggest that the content is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. It is not our place to puff up articles with trivial or poorly sourced content just because we do not like how the article subject has been reported on by independent reliable sources. I am also concerned that you have still not responded to repeated questions of whether you have a personal or other type of relationship with the article subject off of Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?11115292 is also unacceptable?--Sa57arc (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably a WP:PRIMARY source at best in that it basically just is a record of chess tournaments that Sloan has played in without any critical commentary or editorial content. So, if perhaps you wanted to cite content such as "According to the US Chess Federation, Sloan has participated in 152 tournament since 1991" or "Sloan played in the 14th Bernardo Smith Memorial Tournament in August 2018 and finished with 0.5 pts", then perhaps it might be considered OK to cite as a corroborating source for a WP:SECONDARY source; however, that's pretty trivial content whose encyclopedic value to the general reader of this article is questionable. What you can't use that source for would be in support of any kind of interpretation or commentary about Sloan or his ability as a chess player. In other words, adding some commentary or prose about Sloan and chess and just tacking the source on at the end even though it might not support any such thing. We might look at his results and come to our own personal conclusions about such things, but we can't add that to a Wikipedia article about Sloan per WP:NOR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is already cited in the article and is the actual site for the United States Chess Federation, which is also a well-known organization that is the governing body of chess in the U.S. However, as a primary source, that page provides no support for content to be considered noteworthy or WP:DUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on the Rex link on that page, you will get to https://www.game-ai-forum.org/icga-tournaments/program.php?id=360 . It shows that Sloan had "some" role but they leave that field blank for Sloan. Maybe the database does have a row for "adviser". It shows that a copy of Rex (not nesessarilly Sloan) competed at Cologne in 1986. I do not mind wording that way. I guess I still miss the "lable" of world traveler for Sloan. Maybe he kept his old passports and can provide evidence at his next interview to support his claim that he has traveled to a very large number of different countries. The reporter can just review the visas on the passports if they are available and then report the claim as fact.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is reliably sourced and the article subject's descriptions of himself are largely irrelevant. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that International Computer Games Association is less well-known than United States Chess Federation but both are notable. For the purposes of easy conflict resolution, should not both be treated the same? The hard work of excluding the non-notable organizations has already been done. Maybe this question should be continued over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a {{Please see}} template to WT:CHESS or even to WP:RSN if you like as long as you're careful about WP:CANVAS. I don't think the question is really about the notability of either organization, but rather about whether such content is relevant to an encyclopedic article about Sam Sloan. You haven't really clarified how the ICGA source supports any of the content you cited it in support of; the page bascially contains nothing more that the names of Sloan and REX. How does that support the content you added? Same goes for the USCF page you asked about. How would that be used (i.e. what type of content) as a source? Do you want to simply show that Sloan played in some USCF tournaments or is there some other way you think it could be used? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think International Computer Games Association is notable, and I nominated them for deletion earlier today when I came across them along with the journal they publish. Regardless, Sa57arc, you have not provided any sources from that organization anyway, and an unverifiable online forum is not a substitute. Considering you have not provided any suggested content with reliable sources here, I think this is probably a waste of time here and would just waste more editors' time elsewhere. If you have a concern about the notability of the ICGA, then you may want to find some sources for that article and weigh in on the deletion discussion that is linked at the top of its page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait for the AfD to resolve.--Sa57arc (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the outcome of the AfD has no relevance to this discussion. Notability, reliability, and due weight are all separate issues. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me admit that I did read http://www.anusha.com/awit-rex.htm years ago. Maybe I used that memory with realizing it. I will do better on limiting myself to just what the acceptable sources say.--Sa57arc (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan claimed

[edit]

Donald Trump has in the lead the following sentence: "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, ..." in reference to the 2020 presidential election. You guys reverted me with this edit . How are these two notable living people any different as far as the rules go? Ackman reported that Sloan made a claim. I put that in the article with "Sloan claimed..." and I even quoted the Ackman article directly. Should we remove that claim from the Trump article?!? Is the problem that I did not use the word "unsubstantiated"? What gives?--Sa57arc (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not comparable situations. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Trumps false claims have been widely covered. You need to stop putting in inappropriate puffery that has already been removed when multiple other editors are objecting to this continued behavior by you. This is starting to become disruptive. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and PUFFERY are essays. If we followed every essay, an AfD for this article might succeed. At least now the first paragraph makes it clear to the reader why Sloan is notable. I will try to keep PUFFERY in mind. Your disruption is just my idea of WP:TEAMWORK. We are figuring it out.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Brady quote

[edit]

What was wrong with the Brady quote? The one where he says that Sloan has an eidetic memory. Is it WP:DUE or something? Sa57arc (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably put in that Brady says he has an eidetic memory, but nothing more than that would be due, and none of the quote needs to be included. This is clearly more of the continued name-dropping that has already been removed from the article by several editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUFFERY

[edit]

Some stuff got removed in this edit because of WP:PUFFERY. I am not sure what I feel about that. PUFFERY is just an essay. I admit that Sloan is a self-promoter. Let us talk about this.--Sa57arc (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me admit that I had the lead sentence as something like "Sam Sloan is an American chess player, publisher, author, autodidact, memorizer, polyglot, world traveler, college dropout, former hitchhiker, social and legal gadfly, chess journalist, former broker-dealer, polygamist, ex-con, computer programmer, former taxicab driver and perennial candidate based in New York City." My intention was to give the reader a table of contents for the article. It was not really to make him notable because his Supreme Court case alone is his lock on notability. I just wanted to give the reader a preface of what was in store if they read the whole article. I think of Sloan as a modern day polymath. There are not many around. Most modem day people with his talents focus on a money-making career and specialize in something like Wall Street or something. Sloan is an underachiever for his talents. He invested a lot of resources into being a modern day Don Juan. I am still looking forward to that next interview.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ackman quote I am interested in is: "Sloan claimed that he "dabbles in 15 languages, wrote the dictionary for a Pakistani dialect, can program a computer, and is a tournament-level chess player." ref name="Ackman" . That is four claims, two of which are already in the article. Sloan is a polyglot. I thought I remember a YouTube video of him demonstrating his polyglot talents but I cannot find it now. I know, I know, YT is not an acceptable cite but as I mention in the previous section, Ackman published that Sloan claims it. We are going to talk some more about the Ackman quote. And if you do not talk about it, I am going to put it back into the article. This is what WP:TEAMWORK is all about. I am willing to compromise. Come on, we found a compromise for the Brady quote.-Sa57arc (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also my new essay at WP:STP.--Sa57arc (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A difficult subject for a Wikipedia article

[edit]

It seems to me - and of course I could be mistaken - that Sam Sloan is chiefly notable for propagating misleading information about himself and his activities. If so, this makes it extremely difficult to compile an objective article about him.

You can see an example of his efforts if you look for books by Reuben Fine on Amazon. Reuben Fine was one of the top two or three chessplayers in the world in about 1938. He died in 1994, but he was so good that his chess books are still worth reading. But on Amazon, several are listed as "by Reuben Fine and Sam Sloan", or even as "by Sam Sloan and Reuben Fine", as though Sloan were somehow comparable in significance to Reuben Fine. In fact, these books are just reprints of books by Fine, with an "introduction" by Sloan added. Nobody buys them for the introductions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longitude2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Krabbe described him as "the Sam Sloan of chess". He's certainly not notable as a player, he's only about 2100 rated. Nobody heard of him before the internet, before he started what might be described as a "blog" (before the term existed) in the 90s. MaxBrowne2 (talk)

Jalalabad Defense

[edit]

On his website Sloan claims he invented an opening called the Jalalabad Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 c5) and mentions it being talked about in Chess Life. It would be great if someone could track that down, or find another reliable source so this could be added to this page and potentially that of Jalalabad itself. Crockett623 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overly Aggressive Edit Reverting

[edit]

If you look at the article history almost everything recently has been reverted by Wallyfromdilbert. I'm not going to claim every edit was a masterpiece but this kind of response isn't appropriate. I don't believe Wallyfromdilbert is doing anything in bad faith, but I do feel that some of the reversions have been unnecessary.

I'd direct everyone to the guidelines for reverting. Wikipedia is collaborative and reverting is discouraging to contributors, and usually does not make an article better. If something is blatantly false or misleading then perhaps revert it, otherwise please come to the talk page and discuss your thoughts or opinions on it.

Cooper Moss Hart (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other accounts have you used and what is your relationship with the article subject? Your editing looks very similar to the globally banned account Sa57arc as well as other banned sockpuppets that were operated by the article subject, including these types of baseless accusations against other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When did he become president of Ishi Press?

[edit]

The article says he became president of Ishi Press in the 1980s. The source is an article inThe New Republic, as stored in a web archive. But, sometimes, even a reliable source can make a typo that isn't caught. Can someone look into this? I think it had to be in 1995 or later. SlowJog (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Sloan's USSC Case

[edit]

This article was previously proposed to be deleted, however it was kept because it was determined that Sloan arguing a case before the USSC and winning was notable. If this is the reason that the article is determined to be notable then it obviously should be included in the lede, and noting the case in the lede but not the unanimous outcome does not properly present the facts of the matter. User Wallyfromdilbert may personally believe that Sloan's "participation was not particularly relevant to the case outcome", however the fact remains that Sloan won his case 9-0 and this information should be properly stated.

Furthermore, leaping right off the bat to asking whether I have COI after I made a single edit (and a fairly innocuous one at that) to this article that I had never heard of before is very odd behaviour and seems unnecessarily antagonistic. This is an edit I have made in good faith that betters the article, and there is no reason to leave out the outcome of the case that Sam Sloan is notable for. Chukulem (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content was first removed in November by another editor before you repeatedly attempted to restore it today. If you read the sources, the arguments by the article subject were not important to the case outcome. He may be notable partly because of the case, but not because the court eventually ruled in his favor. That context is addressed in the main body, where it is more appropriate. If you do not have a conflict of interest, then I find it suspicious that you spontaneously found a unfrequently viewed article that is not related to any of the prior topics you have edited, especially when your editing history is incredibly similar to sockpuppets operated by the article subject in the past. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed once in November as part of a larger edit removing a bunch of labels from the lede (though the editor felt that chess player and author were relevant labels) and no reason was given for removing the case outcome. You say the sources conclude the arguments by Sloan were not important to the case outcome, and yet despite that the New Republic seems to laud Sloan’s work in the case. Here are a couple quotes from it: “Suddenly, everyone in the room realized that Sam Sloan—an embodiment of the absence of “moral character”—understood the law better than anyone present” “The SEC had violated the law, not just in this single case, but hundreds of times over. Like it or not, Sam Sloan was right.” “The scheme had come to light only because Sloan had noticed that on the first day of argument, Chief Justice Burger botched his attempt to pose a hypothetical question to Harvey Pitt.” and lastly “A former clerk told me that when the justices gathered in conference, Justice Brennan proclaimed that Sloan had performed splendidly. Burger scowled. The Brennan narrative concluded that “all but the Chief agreed [that Sloan’s argument] was among the best of the Term.”” These all quite clearly state that Sloan’s performance was well done, and it seems as though you’re inputting your own opinion by claiming his arguments were irrelevant.
That’s not even the point here however, as even if Sloan’s performance was irrelevant what matters is whether the sources consider the outcome of the case to be relevant. The sub-heading of the New Republic article states “Sam Sloan is a college dropout, an ex-con, and a polygamist. He is also the last non-lawyer to win a case at the Supreme Court.” and near the beginning of the article it prominently states “Here’s the thing: Sam Sloan won his case, 9–0.” as a single line paragraph, drawing attention to it, and mentions multiple other times throughout that Sloan won his case. Your removal of the information is baseless as it is obviously deemed important information, so your breaking 3RR to get rid of it and referring to it as disruptive editing is an unfair accusation to make. Do you have a COI regarding the subject that you would like to declare? Chukulem (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article makes it clear that the case outcome did not depend on Sloan's arguments, either in oral arguments or in his written submissions, with even the attorney representing the SEC calling it an "unwinnable case". I don't think that one former clerk and one anonymous writing about the oral argument are particularly useful for determining why the particular number of justices supporting the court opinion should be added to the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in synthesis and original research that is directly refuted by the quotations I gave. The source states that Sloan understood the law better than anyone present, that Sloan was right and the SEC wrong, that the scheme came to light solely due to Sloan’s work, and that everyone (excluding the biased Chief) agreed Sloan’s argument was the best of the term. You can’t just claim all these numerous quotes from the source are irrelevant because you don’t like them. Furthermore you’ve ignored the main point that the efficacy of Sloan’s arguing is irrelevant and that the source clearly considers the outcome of the case to be a highly relevant factor. Further beyond that, you dodge the question of whether you have a COI that you need to declare despite what appears to be strong bias on your part. You have not demonstrated any valid reason that we should not include the information, so I will reinstate what was cut off from the subheading of “He is also the last non-lawyer to win a case at the Supreme Court” Chukulem (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to reach a consensus to include disputed content per WP:ONUS. Feel free to ask for a third opinion or ping the editor who removed it from November. I already answered your COI question when you also posted to my talk page, and I am not going to continue answering multiple times. At a certain point, that becomes harassment, and so please do not post on my user talk page anymore. – wallyfromdilbert (talk)

Care to weigh in on this User:Alison? Wally has reverted my good faith edit 3 times, and it doesn't seem like he is very interested in addressing the points I raise on why I feel it should be included. Chukulem (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removing of useful information

[edit]

AlsoWukai has repeatedly attempted to remove information about the outcome of Sloan's unsuccessful attempts to be nominated for president [1] [2] [3] [4]. They have made several different claims about the article information being "evident" and then falsely claiming that it was already in the article based on their own misreading. They have made no attempt to reword the information or present it in a different way, but instead repeatedly insist on removing it entirely. The information has been in the article for over two years (after a major rewrite of the article to remove unsourced content and other inappropriate content put into it by the article subject). Wikipedia is meant to be written for a global audience and with content that will make sense to people many years from now, and I do not see any reason why taking out helpful content would benefit the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste our time litigating this issue. The revision of the sentence Sloan unsuccessfully attempted to gain the nomination for US president in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries to Sloan ran for US president in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries is appropriate and fairly trivial. As the other editor has explained, it is clear in context that Sloan was not successful in winning the nomination, and it is unnecessary and verbose to state it at the beginning of the paragraph. General Ization Talk 20:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources, it appears Sloan paid $1,000 to enter the Democratic primary in New Hampshire and was allowed in a single "lesser known candidates" debate there, and never "ran" in multiple state "primaries". I cannot find any information that his candidacy consisted of anything other than paying the fee to appear on the ballot and participating in that single debate. For someone who doesn't know about U.S. elections, especially someone 20 years from now from a different part of the world, I don't see how his unsuccessful attempt is "clear in context", or how adding additional information harms the article. To me, simply writing that a person "ran for US president in the 2016 Democratic primaries", especially using the unsupported word "primaries" to suggest he had primary campaigns in multiple states (as opposed to paying $1,000 to qualify for ballot access in a single state), is misleading at best and possibly inaccurate. The outcome of every other political race in that section is included. Why would we be removing the outcome from just two of them and replacing it with potentially inaccurate information? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like the sentence should read In 2016, Sloan paid $1,000 to enter the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire but was not nominated." Can we agree on that wording? Since he was not nominated, I consider his participation in a single debate in that state during his campaign to be extraneous information. General Ization Talk 21:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good improvement to me. The New Republic article may be useful as an additional cite for that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AlsoWukai: Inviting your input. General Ization Talk 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I'll back out and leave it to either of you to implement the change, or to wait if you like for comments from any other editor. General Ization Talk 23:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Sloan&oldid=1207489249"