Talk:Ernesto Inarkiev

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
Wikipedia generally discourages the use of such sections. Specifically with this article, the "controversy" is given disproportionate significance within the article and the text itself isn't written in a neutral way. As I explained when I removed this section, this was a minor controversy that will be forgotten in a year's time. I fully understand why this has been added but I cannot agree with it. How do other editors feel on the issue of such sections? Jkmaskell (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe rewrite it to be more neutral? There isn't really a way to be more "neutral" without being overly apologetic for him though. Inarkiev's behavior was completely unsportsmanlike and borderline attempted cheating. It caused a significant outcry in the chess community, chess legends like Kasparov made posts calling it a disgrace, and the subreddits and forums are still making Inarkiev memes. This will probably continue to taint his name for a long time to come. So when his name is talked about in disdain, it may be useful for someone looking him up to know why that is. 47.37.166.88 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the section to fix the major issues like the title, use of the word "steal" and clarify the events. Reddit/Chess has 44th the latest mention of it. Only a few controversies genuinely deserve a section, like Topalov/Kramnik. The rest, its trivia, which only serves to make the subject look bad and unbalances the article. Wikipedia is not Google. Jkmaskell (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sort of an open blog, it must be based on reliable sources, not on Reddit or other forums which are heavily biased. I agree with User:Jkmaskell, I think the Kramnik-Topalov is the only controversy worth to be covered. Nakamura also had an unsportsmanlike behaviour in the Candidates 2016, a much more important tournament than the world rapid and blitz, but it's not mentioned at all in his entry. This is just another example of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia. I think the whole section should be just removed. Sophia91 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)