Talk:George H. D. Gossip

Why not B Class?
Why doesn't this article qualify for B Class? Apart from an image of Gossip, I can't imagine what it lacks. Krakatoa (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.
 * "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary." No problem on this side.
 * "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." No problem on this side. Of course we could muse about an "Influence" section, but I just guess Gossip was too weak a player to have any notable influence on the chess world.
 * "The article has a defined structure." No problem on this side.
 * "The article is reasonably well written." No problem on this side.
 * "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." No problem on this side. Of course a picture of Gossip would be welcome, but if there is none available, let it be.
 * "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way." No problem on this side, as far as it is possible to present a chess article in an accessible way.


 * So I think the article is worthy of B-class, and I will raise it as such. SyG (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams
I agree with the decision to present 2 diagrams side-by-side for each game. However in a window with 4:3 aspect ratio ("traditional" screen proportions, not widescreen) they severely cramp the text. I'm therefore changing them to the "small" format. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Whingeing Pom"
I put a on that phrase. I don't understand the connection to Anglophobia. Could someone explain with a well-placed ? Not essential, just hoping someone knows this. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The wiki-link was set to go to the "Australia" section of Anglophobia. Since then, someone has evidently renamed the section "Australia and New Zealand". (I've now changed the link accordingly.) That section explains:

"'Pom' is a common Australasian slang word for Britons, often combined with 'whing[e]ing' (complaining) to make the expression 'whingeing Pom' - a British immigrant who stereotypically complains about everything in Australia." Presumably that answers your question? Hoping that it does, I've removed the tag. Krakatoa (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Gossip's house
There is a photo of Gossip's house in Ipswich here. Apparently the house is still standing and the photograph was taken in the last few years. Two questions: (1) Is the photo worth adding to the article? (2) Would use of it in the article be deemed fair use? I can also try to get permission to use the photo, but this might be a little tricky since Edward Winter, on whose site it appears, was not the one who took the photo. Krakatoa (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of his house, so not worth adding. SunCreator (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor thing
"His family apparently remained in Australia, where Alicia died of cancer in October 1888.[7] In 1894, Gossip's children Helen and Harold both married, in Victoria and Melbourne, respectively"

Victoria is a state, and Melbourne is a city in that state. So could someone with the book change the "Victoria" to whatever town it was in Victoria that Helen got married, or else they were both married in Victoria, or something. --118.208.154.140 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I went back and looked at the source, and it says that Helen married in Victoria. Maybe it was an unincorporated part of Victoria not in any specific city or town. Krakatoa (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable games section
The Notable games section seems like gibberish to me. Does this section make sense to anyone? I imagine that it uses a mixture of chess notation and prose, but it still seems entirely unreadable. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A note at the top of the page says that algebraic chess notation is used to describe moves. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad, thanks for the reply. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Better section title?
Can we find a better title for the "Non-chess adult life" section? It sounds a little contrived... – ukexpat (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
What a fascinating fellow! It's great to see such a well developed article on such an obscure figure. Congratulations to Krakatoa and the other contributors for such a fine effort. Skomorokh  06:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a failed anti-semetic chess player as today's FA? Has the computer games industry reduced its subscription? 90.221.229.82 (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah i am mildy amused by this. the front page blurb lists him as a "noted" writer, but immediately after that we learn how his chess books were harshly criticized, let alone the anti-semitic one. i have to admit though, the article is well written and looks great. (if only those energies were directed toward(s) someone who deserved it, say, Judit Polgar.

Congratulations indeed - this article is wonderful. I love when Wikipedia takes a minor (if not forgettable) figure such as Gossip and turns in a mind blowing article like this. Kudos to the editors for featuring it! Featuring a Nazi fighter pilot a few weeks ago was also interesting, as far as bringing attention to anti-Semites goes. Too often figures are overlooked for their shortcomings, and Wikipedia continues to open my mind. And btw I'm no where near an anti-Semite, just a curious reader. Zenzizenzizenzic (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My respect for wikipedia fell by yet an other notch. Pokemon, star wars, star treck articles are nuked, because they aren't "notable" enough. But an overspecialized article on an extremely obscure, unimportant chess player 100 years ago get featured status and promoted to the main page. In all fairness, it should be deleted, this is not chess-pedia, its a general purpose encyclopedia, right? Wikipedia is losing editors for a reason, for this kind of shity double standards.--Deweirdifier (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done for, in a certain person's words, writing an "overspecialized article on an extremely obscure, unimportant chess player 100 years". I think these are exactly the kind of articles WP needs, keep up the good work and the excellent research. Ignore the critics, it's wonderful work. Waygugin (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This means that you would support an article on Bulbasaur? --Deweirdifier (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like reading a well thought out article on Bulbasaur. I don't know if you noticed but sit-com characters occasionally get featured status. The erudition there may be a bit humorous, but nonetheless a part of what makes Wikipedia great. Zenzizenzizenzic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Lock article while on main page
There is already vandalism - someone added a link to the very beginning of the article. 212.10.52.48 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the joy of getting an article on the Main Page - people add witty things like "He was born with a vagina.", "He was convicted of dick sucking." and such. Thanks to everyone who diligently reverted this and other vandalism. Krakatoa (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"history may have judged him unfairly"
There may not be an issue with writing detailed biographies on forgettable individuals (writing in wikipedia is just a hobby after all and eventually most people that did have some impact will get their due bio), but I do take issue with the introduction ending in "history may have judged him unfairly". The article describes Hatfeild Dingley Gossip as a whining, self-possessed person, who made enemies of anyone he met. Indeed, it appears he left 4 children age 8 to 17 and his wife, dying of cancer, behind in Australia to further his "career" as a chess player in America, and felt it necessary to write an entire book on his considered opinion that Jews "almost invariably escape punishment owing to improper occult influences". It seems history has treated him more than fairly by focussing on his mediocre chess activities, rather than on the rest. Perhaps I got the wrong impression, in which case the text needs some work. Otherwise I suggest to change the last words in the intro to something like "as a chess player he may not have been quite as weak as generally held". Afasmit (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question is about his strength or lack thereof as a chessplayer. In context, it's obvious that the "history may have judged him unfairly" refers to that, not his other attributes - which, as you say, were less than admirable in many ways. Krakatoa (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that it's the final and seperate sentence of the lead I didn't read it that way at first. SunCreator (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "may have underestimated him"? Krakatoa (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Altering that wording wouldn't solve the problem of the final sentence. I know that Ken Whyld is a chess writer and hence the final sentence refers to Gossip's chess history but the current wording could leave some doubt to other readers. The current wording is acceptable, but I feel we should strive to make it as clear as possible for all readers. SunCreator (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The first sentence of the final paragraph of the lede begins "Chess writers have often mocked Gossip's play", and the second sentence continues discussing Gossip's chess strength. Since the first two sentences do not address anything other than chess strength, what could anyone possibly think the third and final sentence in that paragraph ("may have been judged unfairly") is referring to?  Sure, there's a lot of poorly written crap in wikipedia and elsewhere, but this is a logical and coherent paragraph.  This is an opportunity to improve the comprehension skills of our readers.  If they think at all about what they are reading the meaning is clear.  If they don't think, they're a lost cause anyway.  Quale (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion to 'improve the comprehension skills of our readers'. Wikipedia however has WP:PCR - 'People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible'. SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Over eight years late, but in the interest of clarity I've altered it to "history may have judged his strength unfairly". Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
Are we 100% sure it's "Hatfeild", not "Hatfield"? DS (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Krakatoa (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note this footnote: "Winter August 6, 2007, discusses the unusual "Hatfeild" spelling." Krakatoa (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George H. D. Gossip. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206133529/http://correspondencechess.com:80/campbell/articles/a051107.htm to http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Indirect reference to theaerodrome.com
Endnote #12 cites a small section to an author who is in turn referencing the website theaerodrome.com. The current consensus is that theaerodrome.com is generally unreliable (see archived discussion on WP:RSN). Could someone with access to "Whyld July 2001" check whether that contains the same information, preferably cited to a more reliable source? -Ljleppan (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)