Talk:Raymond Keene

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

Zombie diaries?[edit]

UPDATE JAN 25 2010

I have added the following info:


In addition to educational TV work, Keene and his co-author, Julian Simpole, were both voice over artists in the UK independent film, The Zombie Diaries. Keene played a reporter, and Simpole a member of the UK Government.

Can someone please add the imdb link to Keene's imdb page? I am not sure how to add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.181.50 (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on shamelessly adding in this mundane information. Keene's significant work is on TV. 5s voiceover in a non notable film is hardly an important feature in his life. Please stop trying to use wikipedia to advertise your film. If you want to add in something then write about his role in TimeShift on BBC 4.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to support this at the IMDB page for zombie diaries, and every reference to his alledged voice over work appears to have been copied from this article. Additionally, the user who added it, Mike Bartlett, appears to have added credible sounding but unverifiable and possibly fabricated information to the article on Schrodinger's cat. The zombie diaries contribution appears to be in the same vein.

Also, "Michael Bartlett" is listed as the producer of "the zombie diaries" at IMDB.

Hello - I am in indeed the writer, director of The Zombie Diaries. The information on Raymond Keene and Julian's voice-over has been sent to IMDb and will appear in 2-3 weeks. This is not malicious information!!!

Please contact Raymond on RDKOBE at aol dot com if you require proof until the imdb info goes live. When it does I will be putting the reference into the Wikipedia page. Raymond and Julian agreed to help out on the film after I helped them technically with the DVD remaster of "12 best games of chess" MikeBartlett (Keene's email obscured from spam bots by Rocksong 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Guys - can you put The Zombie Diaries info back in - it is correct and is reflected on IMDB. Ray did voice-over work with his friend, Julian Simpole, who co-authored the book 'petrosian v the elite' with him. They are both good friends of mine. - Michael Bartlett. Director of The Zombie Diaries and Timeless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.181.50 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - there are scandals involving fraud and ghost-written books[edit]

This is true, Raymond Keene is known to have defrauded his brother-in-law and several partners of tens of thousands of dollars and sabotaging their business.

As a chess second he has also failed to perform on a number of occassions.

Finally some of his books have been ghostwritten by others.

This issues need to be covered (with references) by someone who has through knowledge of Raymond Keene, although there are articles in chess magazines I believe.

Currently the article reads like a thinly veiled attempt at self-promotion.

--I 14:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For petes sake, who wrote this, Keene himself! Readers desiring an insight into the real Raymond Keene should take a look at the following http://www.chesscenter.com/kingpin/Kingpin/raylevy.htm I agree, that the truth would lay somewhere in between these two accounts, but a little more research would show that the latter article is much closer than this waffle that Wikipedia has been duped into as allowing as a factual account of Raymond Keene. Wikipedia is much better than this! Please fix this gross error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.203.244 (talk • contribs)


A person asserts that Raymond Keene is universally despised but provides no evidence. And, by looking at the activity of chessgames.com, the opposite seems to be the case.

There are accusations concerning fraud but no one here has given an example where Mr. Keene has been convicted of said offense.

No evidence provided of the allegation that some of his books are ghost written; and even if some were, so what?

No evidence provided how Mr. Keene "failed" as a chess second.

A highly respected grandmaster and chess writer, Larry Evans, seems not to have a problem with Mr. Keene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.205.230 (talk • contribs)

Oh that is rich, Larry Evans is highly respected? By whom? If anything, his Wikipedia entry seems to suffer from the same problem as this one. See for instance The facts about Larry Evans. I just added a reference there, wonder how long it will survive. This entry about Keene needs a lot of work. --KarlFrei 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it astonishing that more effort is put into his controversial life, and extremely little in done on the page for listing all his 100 plus chess works.
I'd like to see a chronological list of all his chess books 69.31.165.138 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor[edit]

Hmm, there's been a lot of edits by an anonymous editor lately, who seems to know a lot of detail about Keene's career... Rocksong 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Fraud[edit]

Guys,

Someone keeps posting nonsense about 'allegations of fraud' which link to articles which themselves are opinions only. I can't allow this libelous material to keep appearing. I have been contacted by Mr Keene who has expressed his concern over this, and I will not allow Wikipedia to be subject to any more libelous material. Anyone who continues to do so will have their material deleted.

-Mike Bartltt MikeBartlett 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the allegations have been made publicly, haven't they, and published in respected chess publications? Rocksong 10:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I (the "someone" above) don't see a problem with referring to Kingpin. Additional references would of course be welcome. Some other magazines or newspapers must have written something about these allegations? By the way, do you have a reference for claiming that Keene is "respected", as you added in your last entry? --KarlFrei 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is employed as a columnist by The Times (that in itself shows respect for his chess knowledge), was recently interviewed by Garry Kasparov for his new book "Revolution in the 70s" on Opening Theory (respect for his chess analysis from the greatest world champion ever), and is widely respected throughout the chess community which can be seen on the website chessgames.com where he regularly contributes to games and answers questions from the general public. MikeBartlett 00:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the allegations, I'd rather see a response from Keene, somewhere on the web other than Wikipedia where other people can't edit it (such as his home page or one of his columns). Then the article could say something like (taking the Levy issue as an example):

"David Levy alleges that he was defrauded by Keene (then link to Levy's allegations). But Keene responds that he has done nothing wrong and remains widely respected in the chess community (then a link to Keenes' response)."

That I think would be balanced. Honestly I have no idea of the truth or otherwise of the allegations and I certainly have nothing against Keene. But he does arouse a lot of strong opinions in the chess community and the article cannot simply ignore the controversies he's been involved in (not just the Levy issue). Rocksong 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will speak to Wikipedia and Mr Keene about this, to see if this is suitable. MikeBartlett 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would wish Ray Keene to be unjustly accused of wrong doing. Some of the allegations made are certainly noteworthy, and with referencing, and careful maintained neutrality, they seem to have a place in this article. If a balanced picture is maintained this does not reduce to slagging off Ray.Threatening to delete users material is not appropriate behaviour on wikipedia MikeBartlett, and I would ask you to refrain from that.--ZincBelief 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue should not be taken further, except in the event of reporting any definite conclusion. That there was a dispute is generally agreed. Let's stop there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:Undue[edit]

This article is now grossly unbalanced, with all sorts of rumor and hearsay being passed off as encyclopedic. Let me just add my name to those on the chess wikiproject who make the same argument. Academic38 (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you direct our attention to exactly what you consider to be "rumor and hearsay"? --Fewwords (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything in "Other controversies" is so-and-so "alleges" with non-reliable sources such as "Free the Henderson 1" the only source. Academic38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is one of the most ridiculously biased pages I have ever read on Wikipedia. Since when are articles approached from the point of view that the person is a criminal and the biography should convict him? The critical point here is not whether or not these allegations are true. Maybe they are all true (but I doubt it). Don't you realize that you can take anybody and make a big list of controversy after controversy, and allegations, and hear-say, and criticisms? My point is, that somebody who honestly does not know who Ray Keene is and came to this page to learn would end up thinking that GM Keene is the most scurrilous villain that the chess world has ever seen, which is false. Daniel Freeman (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so who is/was more "scurrilous"? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. He really is a slimy toad. To read about these episodes in detail is to be nauseated.

What strikes me about this page is that everything which on every other wikipedia page would be 'fact with footnote', is here presented as mere 'allegation', even the most evident facts, e.g. the vast plagiarism. It's not a matter of one or two cases, or allegations of a few. These things are as much fact as anything on wikipedia. Easily checkable by anyone who cares to. It's not opinion. Or is Keene's lawyer allowed to threaten the truth out of this page also? The positive tone on Keene's chessgames page (from which he deletes critical comments) is apparently a useful fact about Keene, but evident facts are reduced to mere accusations by enemies. The whole thing is entirely devoid of reality. In the Keene universe, no critic can state an 'undeniable fact' - Keene just bald-facedly denies it, in the face of all the evidence. (Nice work if you can get it.) As has also been repeatedly documented. I'm not sure how he's been able to get away with so much for so long. By being so extravagant about it, I suppose - people who don't know the story - like the unfortunate lawyer above - wouldn't even suspect the scale of lying, cheating, plagiarism etc 110.20.197.87 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

There has been some question about whether some of the sources that have been to justify recent additions of negative claims qualify as reliable sources for a biography of a living person. I'm soliciting other editors' opinions, especially in three cases that are under scutiny:

  1. blogs, including Mig Greengard's "The Daily Dirt Chess Blog"
  2. Private Eye, a satirical British magazine
  3. Kingpin, an intermittently published British chess magazine

In my opinion, blogs are almost never suitable for critical use in a BLP, and this includes Greengard. I don't know anything more about Private Eye than is in the wikipedia article. My inclination from this is that Private Eye is not a suitable source for a wikipedia BLP. I also don't know anything more about Kingpin than what is in the wikipedia article. It may be a reliable source, or that determination might need to be made based on the specific claim that is made in the source. What do you think? Quale (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye is a respectable source of information, if it was in error it would have been sued already.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to our wikipedia article, Private Eye has been sued already many times. Even if it hadn't, I don't agree that "hasn't been sued" is an indicator of reliability or respectability. Wikipedia claims "The Eye will often print a story when hard evidence is lacking but there is an overwhelming consensus that the story is true." I'm not sure that this is sufficient to meet the requirements of WP:BLP. It's certainly much lower than the standards that most reputable newspapers apply (or claim to apply). Quale (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many media publications have been sued - so what? Private Eye is a reputable publication. None of what is written about Ray Keene on this page has ever been seriously contested, not even by Ray Keene himself.

Mig Greengard is or was head of some important chess publications, so I think his blog is quite reliable myself. Kingpin, a good solid magazine, with good solid writing. Never been sued as far as I know. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put all these sources in much the same basket - Kingpin has been described as the Private Eye of the chess world and often mixes fact and fiction within an article for comedic effect. I would say all three place an emphasis on entertainment and satire, rather than attempting to remain entirely factual or neutral. This of course makes them more fun to read and they may conceivably remain reliable sources for the standard fodder that makes up 95% of our chess articles. However, when it comes to a contentious or controversial context concerning living persons, I find I'm struggling to condone their use. It is a pity WP:RS and WP:BLP fall a long way short of being fully prescriptive, because the corollary is often a 'fine line' judgement for editors, who I believe should err on the side of caution, i.e. respecting the reputation of the living person, first and foremost. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Private Eye does good, investigative journalism (eg. Paul Foot) but also a lot of trivial stuff, which I believe is the case here. I agree with Brittle Heaven that as we are dealing with a BLP, we should err on the side of caution.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the page again. In its current state I can't honestly see anything that could be described as untrue or contestable. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the policy of wikipedia is not truth, but rather verifiability. I'm pretty sure you've heard that before. In a biography of a living person, there is no burden to demonstrate that a negative claim is false. The burden instead requires that the negative claim is verifiable, using reliable sources. Truth is in the same place here as your proposed "hasn't been sued" standard—it is not wikipedia policy. (You let the cat out of the bag when you correctly admitted that the fact that a publication has been sued is not an indicator of unreliability. If so, then the opposite can surely not be an indicator of reliability, despite your claim.) The article is still a mess and has unreliable sourcing, undue weight and biography of living persons problems. I expect that it will be fixed up eventually, although certainly not as fast as it should be. Quale (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response would be that everything written in the article is from what I consider respectable sources. When I read them, I certainly believe them. No suggestion of untruth has been made against any of the claims written here. The article may feel a little unbalanced right now, we can certainly try to rectify that. I would worry about removal of existing accurate material from an encyclopedia.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question of "respectable" sources, or of whether you personally believe them. I just spent time searching premium Nexis for the Mohammed Amin quote that Kingpin says was in the Sunday Times in March 1990. There is nothing like "18,000 on taxis" or "agreement with GLC" or "World Championship match was a complete shambles" in any English language news source from March 1986 through December 1991, nor any article *about* Keene (certainly plenty by him) in March 1990. Therefore I deleted that claim in the article and am certain that Kingpin is not a reliable source. Academic38 (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just how reliable is Nexis? The problem with online sources of information is people tend to believe they are complete. Quite often they are far from it. I would prefer microfiche evidence of the copies available from that month. The idea that Kingpin would publish an article claiming to come from a very widely read source when it infact had no such thing seems outrageouly incroyable--ZincBelief (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The Other reference to Nick Pitt's work in the Sunday Times comes via the magazine, so I wonder if you would perhaps view that article there?--ZincBelief (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subscription database, not a website, so it is chock full of publications that meet the reliable sources criteria, and it is very easy to search newspapers and other content in its database. I did check to make sure the Sunday Times was indexed in Nexis that far back, and it is. If Kingpin got the quotes wrong (and I used three different ones) or was far off on the date, then Nexis wouldn't pick up the article, but then the error is in Kingpin, not Nexis. I will check for the other article you mention. Academic38 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched both Nexis and Times Online (and its archive) and couldn't find "Keene's Gambit." I did find a decent NPOV, undue compliant, statement about Korchnoi's complaint about Keene in an article by Robert Byrne in the NYT. That would be a lot better than the long unbalanced allegations there now. Academic38 (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find articles in the Sunday Times Magazine? I am still deeply sceptical that Kingpin would get away with quoting imaginary news articles, paticularly from such a popular medium and indeed from such a professional journalist.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having made enquiries the Kingpin article used material written by Nick of the Sunday Times for the article in the Sunday Times magazine, but not published in the Sunday Times. As such I would propose resinstating the source and it's claim.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was never published, it's most definitely not a reliable source. You have gone off into original research ("Having made enquiries"), and that's not allowed. I will have to revert, sorry. Academic38 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I verified the source with the author. It was a published source as you well know, it was published in Kingpin. Nick Pitt wrote an article on Ray Keene, which you have not been able to find in Nexus, but it was published as indicated in the sunday ties magazine. For this article, this professional journalist did research, the article in Kingpin uses that research in full. This is entirely allowed. Not all of that research may have been published in the Sunday Times, but it was published in Kingpin.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that as far as I see, we haven't established that Kingpin is a reliable source for BLPs yet. An earlier comment was "Kingpin has been described as the Private Eye of the chess world and often mixes fact and fiction within an article for comedic effect." You're familiar with Kingpin—do you think this is an accurate statement? If it is accurate, is Kingpin still suitable for sourcing a BLP? The comments above from two editors who I believe are familiar with the magazine suggest that it is not. There's nothing wrong with a satirical or comedic magazine, but it might not be an appropriate source for a BLP. Despite this I actually think that some of the material related to the negative claims actually should be expanded, although perhaps not entirely within this article. I think Brain Games should have its own article, which could do a more thorough job of explaining the timeline of events and the somewhat involved series of controversies surrounding the company. Currently I think the discussion of Brain Games and the controversies is confusing as it's hard to understand what happened. Quale (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read either of Private Eye or Kingping, judging their reputation by a quote from wikipedia is dubious! I really don't believe you are in the majority there - they are perfectly valid sources. Moreover, the article in question here is basically sourced by a Sunday Times reporter - the Sunday Times obviously being a reliable publication. It is a matter of common knowledge amongst British Chess players that Bailiffs turned up on the doorstep of the BCF demanding money relating to the overspend incurred from the World Chess Championship. I don't know how others feel, but I would strongly believe the statement is adequately sourced and should be reinstated.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reliable source purposes, it makes a big difference whether it was published in Kingpin or the Sunday Times. Reading the linked Kingpin articles, it does not sound reliable to me. It is one-sided innuendo. "Raymundo contra mundum" gives no indication that part of it was written by "Nick of the Sunday Times," as you put it above. Common knowledge is only useful in Wikipedia if it is published in a reliable source. And I must say, if you consulted with the author, you are too close to this subject. My only connection with Keene is that I own a copy of Flank Openings. Academic38 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have a right to your opinion, but I find very strange the suggestion that writing an email to the Editor of Kingpin should make me "close to him". All I did was to verify the nature of the article. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) An addition for clarity, the article uses the phrase In 1990 Amin gave the Sunday Times a disturbing account of the fiasco:'The World Championship match was a complete shambles financially.. Now the question was asked, if so why didn't this appear in print in the S.T. The implication presumably being that the magazine had made up this interview for the article and that Kingpin (not to put too fine a point on it) was a load of toss. The matter was partly answered in that the/an article, written by Nick Pitt, on Keene appeared in the Sunday Times magazine in 1991. I then checked with Kingpin's editor, who quite clearly said that the article uses Mo Amin's quotes as taken from notes of the Sunday Times reporter, Nick Pitt. I have not produced original research here. I have merely verified a source. Specifically, I verified what was meant when it said that Amin talked to the Sunday Times. It would be possible for me to ask Mo Amin about this as well, he is easily found through the internet. Now whether or not this changes the belief that Kingpin is a reliable enough source I don't know. However it is certainly not original research. As a suggested compromise, one could simply place this reference beside the note that the organised championship was a financial failure (that led to the bailiffs turning up on the doorstep of the BCF).--ZincBelief (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that whatever you might learn from sending an email to an editor is simply not usable in a wikipedia article, as it does not meet WP:RS or WP:V. You may not understand that, you may not agree with that, or you may consider the policy silly, but that does not matter. Wikipedia's policies on orginal research are pretty clear on this point. Quale (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has been learnt from the email has not been included in the article. Identifying and clarifying sources of evidence is simply correct practice. To classify it as original research is absurd. It would be more accurate to label as original research the statement that Kingpin is "not a reliable source of information". Why a chess magazine would not be a reliable source of information concerning a chess player is not clear at all. Almost one year on, nobody has managed to produce more positive material to add to the article on Mr Keene. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure precisely what version of this article is being discussed. But there would certainly appear to be sufficient sources to meet WP:V in the current links and Private Eye would seem to meet wikipedia guidelines on WP:RS. The MSO Worldwide limited contraversy can be confirmed to exist in this article [1] in The Independent. It might provide the option to produce Keene's reponse, although, it is notable in its failure to quote Levy.90.198.254.28 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources - self claim[edit]

Academic removed the John Henderson source, I can't understand that having read it. His claims are quite blantantly triplicated on that article by professional accredited journalists. (Perhaps the article should be reworded to reflect that) If a controversy is supported only by the complainant then it is surely the final one on the list, by Lars from Sweden, that we should remove. --ZincBelief (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you reflect some independent sources, I would not be opposed to leaving the Henderson bit in the article (or in the proposed Braingames article). But you can't just assert the sources exist; you've got to produce them. Academic38 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're there on the site for all to see :) but for Lars I don't know if there are such independents...--ZincBelief (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was going to suggest that that claim be removed also, but I'm trying to take this one step at a time. There are two problems with the claim: weak sourcing and relevance/undue weight. Academic38 has talked about the sourcing which is a concern I share, but beyond that, even if the claim is true, I'm not sure that it falls into the high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable offences. In other words, it may just be too minor to be worth mentioning in this article. A better place for it might be Classical World Chess Championship 2000, since if verifiable, it would certainly be on point there. The insistence on including the alleged incident here calls to question the motivation for including it in wikipedia. It suggests that the real point is not to inform the reader (which could be done well in the appropriate article), but rather to smear Keene. Quale (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion is of course against wikipedia policy, tut tut... Anyway I snipped it out already--ZincBelief (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't against wikipedia policy. This discussion suggests that you have an incomplete understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you haven't read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, I think you should. If you have read them, then I suggest you read them again. Quale (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is against the assume good faith policy to suggest that its insistence on inclusion is a deliberate attempt to smear Ray Keene. There is no doubt about that, but I do have some doubt as to whom you direct that barb at. Anyway, I got confused as to which part you were talking about. John Henderson being thrown out was sourced by 3 reliable journalists, so I cannot believe this could be construed as weak sourcing. Minor point, quite possibly yes. As minor as Ray Keene's role in a film? possibly less minor. It could be moved into the proceeding section or indeed into a new article.--ZincBelief (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you've "tut tutted" someone here saying that their suggestion was violating wikipedia policy, and in both cases I haven't agreed with your assessment. In the specific instance of the Henderson claim, initially there was only sourcing from Henderson himself, and that was the basis of my "I was going to suggest" language which reflected my opinion of the claim as it stood after I had looked at it in my revision as of 04:36, 6 September 2009 cleaning up the inappropriate use of bullets and blockquotes in the section. In particular, the source looked very much like it might fall under the policy for self-published sources, which says that self-published sources may be used as long as "the material is not unduly self-serving; [and] it does not involve claims about third parties". The other sources you added subsequently may be sufficient to meet those concerns, but those sources may also be only semi-independent as they are published on the same website. Aside from this, my personal feeling is that the incident is too minor for an article that includes serious allegations of major financial malfeasance involving hundreds of thousands of pounds. I understand that others will disagree with my view of the importance of the incident, but it gives me the impression of being a laundry list of all the dirt that can be dug up about Keene in order to discredit him in his biography. I can't think of a new article that would be appropriate to create for a minor claim like this one, but perhaps you can explain why you did not put it in the existing article Classical World Chess Championship 2000 (created in Junee 2006) where it clearly would belong? That is the sort of thing gives me the impression that the intent is to show what a bad person Keene is rather to inform in an encyclopedic manner, and I say that while still assuming good faith. Quale (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an odd response, I reinstated the claim since it was quite clearly sourced by 3 journalists all linked in the same mini site. (Note: I didn't put it in there in the first place!) I suppose Academic just hadn't read the whole site, but it was quite easy to find if you were minded. Replacing the mention with additional sources as requested seems to me to have been entirely the correct thing to do. Yes, they were lacking as it stood if you didn't read the whole site. Any suggestion that this is an attempt to smear Ray Keene by myself seems rather odd to me, paticularly after I removed the claim made by the Swedish Photographer. It was nothing more than a proper sourcing of information on the page. To answer your remark about why did I not move it to another article... Well in reviewing that suggested article one can see that it makes no mention of the organisational background behind the match. It only focuses on the competitors. Now, perhaps an article on Brain Games (Network) PLC or MSO Worldwide might be a better place for this suggestion. Equally superior might simply be at the end of the paragraph on the Brain Games contraversy? Why is this claim here, well given that Ray Keene is himself a Journalist, this episode against a fellow journalist becomes more noteworthy. (Indeed, exactly how often do you see a journalist expelled or barred from a Press Conference in Western Society owing to an opinion they have expressed!?) For Comparison, the claim to have authored 140 books (which should be co authored/authored/forwarded) gives great merit to the allegations of plagarism and copying of errors from book to book. As an unbiased contributor I must suggest we not only look at the negatives on the man, we must also question the positives. How much trivial and non notable information is displayed on this page? Does Ray Keene's appearance as a voice over artist in a straight to DVD film warrant any mention? At present I believe this sentence ought to be placed at the bottom of the BG section in the absence of any BG article. Since Ray is a journalist himself, and the incident itself is pretty much unheard of (see protest letters) it is fairly notable.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your long response, are you actually claiming that you think that this allegation has a greater affinity for this article rather than the article devoted specifically to the event in which it occurred? I can fully understand believing that it belongs both places, but the claim that it belongs in Keene's bio and not the article on the event itself strikes me as entirely incredible. That's the sort of thing that leads me to believe that the intent is to smear Keene. Quale (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, given that the article you suggest contains no information about Brain Games at all. Why would you want to place it there? There is in that article only information about the chess. Now an article on Brain Games PLC - well yes it could go in there. If the article on the match was majorly rewritten, possible. As it is, you've got to be joking me. Get real.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in question read: "During the course of the 2000 Braingames World Championship Keene was accused of heavy-handed behaviour in having journalist John Henderson removed from the press room with the assistance of bouncers.[21]". You are saying that because "Braingames" appears once in the title of event in the claim, that it would require a "major rewrite" to mention this in Classical World Chess Championship 2000? You also claim that "the article you suggest contains no information about Brain Games at all"? What the hell? The first sentence of that article, "The Classical World Chess Championship 2000, known at the time as the Braingames World Chess Championships", contains just as much information about Brain Games as the claim in question. Your argument is pathetic. I'm afraid you've lost any credibility you had with me, and I'm not joking and I'm very real. Quale (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page Classical World Chess Championship 2000 is composed as follows 1. The lead 2. TOC 3. Background: detailing what happened to the world title during that 1993-96. 4. Qualifaction: concerning negotiations/qualification events for the title match 5. The games, mainly a Table of results with a short summary 6. Aftermath, a single sentence saying that the title was later reunified. Overall, Braingames is mentioned 4 times. No discussion of what Braingames is takes place. I.E. no discussion of the organisation who raised funding for this match, who arranged the venue and playing conditions takes place. Only the chess and the players are discussed. With a brief allude to failed negotiations for a title match with both Anand and Shirov. NO MENTION is made of the complaints against Susan Martin(?whatever her name was?), of the tirade against the BBC by Ray Keene at the opening press conference, of the interesting/dubious financial history of braingames, of the reasons behind the resignation of the respected player and journalist Malcolm Pein from the management team and the 'gagging order' attached, of the withholding of prizemoney, or of the demands that Kramnik desist in sending comments on his games to external organisations. NOT A SINGLE CONTRAVERSY IS MENTIONED! NOT ONE. This is exactly why it feels rather peculiar to move, into this chess-centric article, a note to one particular incident only. I'm sorry that you don't understand that.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost entirely unsourced[edit]

Some have complained about the negative material added to the article, it is time also to look at the existing material. A brief inspection by myself led me to notice that the greater part of it was unsourced and quite possibly POV. This of course means that most of it could be deleted. However, most of it probably just needs sourcing, although I rather expect some adjectives will have to go. A lot of work here for those who want to do it.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting 'citation required' on just about every statement, even non-controversial ones, just strikes me as silly and for the average visitor, probably makes the article pretty unreadable. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well wikipedia policies are generally silly. Obviously I could just delete vast swathes of the material there, but I think it's more constructive to point out what needs to be sourced. If people are serious about making this a respectable article then I think fact tags are a good way to motivate them. If people don't give a damn, the fact tags will remain on that page. That's my thinking anyway.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take care. There has been some concern over this article, but I have thought up to now that the issue was largely an honest difference of opinion over what is appropriate in a biography of a living person. You are starting to tread very close to disruptive, pointy behavior, and this will make things less pleasant for everyone involved. Normally citation tags are added to controversial claims or those likely to be challenged. See WP:V. Deleting vast swathes of uncontroversial claims would be likely to cause trouble, so you are wise to have not done that. I agree that all of the article needs better citation, but some of the tags you added do not seem necessary. If large parts of an article need improved references then the article or section(s) can also be tagged with Template:refimprove, and this is often considered better than tagging many individual sentences. Quale (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like signing every minor twist and turn on a highway with "Bend Ahead" warning signs - they cease to have any impact where they are needed most and consequently amount to nothing more than a proliferation of useless clutter. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since the material is not sourced, we're not talking about a highway, we're talking about a swamp. Lets go through them one by one. FIRST Keene rose to prominence on the British chess scene in the early seventies. FACT OR FICTION? Well, yes Keene won the british championship in the summer of 1971. So he was unheard of in 69? Well we also know that His tournament victories include Hastings Challengers 1966, Slater Challenge Southend 1968, and Keene won the 1971 British championship and shared second place on three occasions, in 1968, My conclusion is that this is crap and point one is FICTION.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you fail to recognise that there's a big difference between 'being heard of' and 'rising to prominence'. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I? How mysterious. If Keene's rise to prominence was not down to tournament success what was it down to? I haven't the faintest idea, there is nothing to hint at this on the page. The man presumably had a book out in the 60s? Did he become significantly fatter in the early 70s leading him to being not just heard of but easily noticeable? You're being facetious. This statement needs a citation.--ZincBelief (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By becoming an IM? - possibly by registering England's first ever GM norm? - maybe by challenging Miles to become the country's first GM? I'd say these things could lead to a rise in prominence, wouldn't you? Brittle heaven (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the chess world, what makes a man noticed are his results. If the man was up there at the top of British Chess in 1968, finishing 2nd in the British Championship then are we to somehow believe he was ignored until gaining one extra place in 1971 (Which gave him the IM title) - is that so much more noticeable?! We're talking about a rise in prominence. The man was rising in the late 60s. He was off to student olympiads, winning junior titles. That's the clear impression the article seems to give. So why is it saying nobody even started noticing him until the early 70s? This statement is totally POV at best. Without a citation it can just be removed off the bat.--ZincBelief (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're making fictional assertions - "So why is it saying nobody even started noticing him until the early 70s?" It's NOT saying that at all, as you well know. You just made that up. The article simply acknowledges that you don't start your career in chess from a position of prominence, but achieve it after a run of truly notable results; like winning the national championship, acquiring titles etc. Even if neither of us can accept the other's point of view, then we just have differing opinions on what constitutes the subjective term 'prominence', big deal - it hardly merits a citation tag. Brittle heaven (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Any statement that within an article that can be reasonably construed as being contradicted later in the article needs either to be clarified, sourced or better explained. It is at the moment a shoddy and suspect POV statement. To say that somebody when a man became prominent requires, in true wikipedia style, a source--ZincBelief (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This argument is tendentious nonsense. Academic38 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If factual accuracy is tendentious nonsense then you are perfectly correct. However being on the Olympiad team at the age of 18 in 1966 and scoring a bronze medal with the performance, finishing second in the british championship, these are results which brings one to prominence in (and lets face it) what was a relatively weak chess nation at the time. It is not enough to simply say "Oh that looks like it might be correct, we'll just keep that in and won't worry about it. If you want a decent article you have to fix these things.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous claim in article[edit]

The article contains this nugget:

Keene's achievement of his first Grandmaster norm, at the Nice Olympiad of 1974, was controversial: having arrived with five rounds to go at a position where a draw in the final round (against his friend Ulf Andersson) would secure the norm, he secretly agreed with his team captain that he would not play any more games until the last. Naturally this disadvantaged the team, since Keene was the strongest player but also adversely affected his teammate William Hartston personally, since Hartston, the number two, had to play a succession of strong opponents in Keene's place. This effectively cost Hartston any chance of obtaining a Grandmaster norm himself.

The source given for this claim is the "Raymundo Contra Mundum" article in Kingpin. I question whether that publication is a reliable source. This article seems particularly suspect, since as far as I can see it doesn't list its author. (Fear of a defamation lawsuit, perhaps?) Moreover, the statement is ridiculous. In the first place, it is not terribly shocking for someone, having achieved a grandmaster norm in an Olympiad, to sit out the remaining games. Keene is by no means the first person to do this. Second, how did playing a series of strong players "effectively cost Hartston any chance of obtaining a Grandmaster norm"? It didn't. To state the obvious, if one does well in a series of games against grandmasters (the kind of people you are apt to encounter on first board at an Olympiad), one may well obtain a grandmaster norm (as Keene himself had just done playing first board). I wouldn't be surprised if playing on Board 1 increased Hartston's chances of obtaining a GM norm; it surely didn't make it impossible for him to do so. Krakatoa (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above-quoted claim for the reasons I've stated. Krakatoa (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a ridiculous claim. If you read the source in full you will see why. The agreement Keene had with Anderton to sit out and then come back for a draw with Andersson (confirmed by teammate Michael Stean in the source) was thrown into disarray by Hartston unsxpectedly beating Portisch, which meant he could get a norm himself if he drew with Timman and then had two wins in the final two rounds. But if this happened both Keene and Hartston would need to play Anderssen to get norms - obviously a impossibility! As the article states, "Hartston was very annoyed before the game with Timman began, realising that only his losing could solve Anderton’s problem." Thus, the Keene agreement cost him his chance of a norm. Sure it was only a chance, but Keene and Anderton DID make it impossible.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the claim is quite valid. However the degree of scandal it caused is not so obvious. It is presumably not uncommon for a player with a norm chance to pick his games. Was there any whisper of this at the time?--ZincBelief (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way before my time, so I wouldn't know. Anyone have a large number of British chess periodicals from the mid 70s lying around?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK, sorry, I stand corrected. However, the way the text was written wasn't clear - playing strong opponents wasn't what hurt Hartston, but rather playing strong opponents but not getting to play Andersson in the last round. This strikes me as unfortunate but not particularly scandalous. There is no hint of scandal in the July 1974 CHESS, page 294: "Ray Keene qualified for the grand master norm to edge ahead of his rival and friend Bill Hartston who himself had an outside chance toward the end with a splendid top-board score." Krakatoa (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is pertinent to ask exactly who wrote said article.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is unspecified, unlike some of the other articles, so I assume it is the "Editor, Printer, Publisher: B. H. Wood" (p. 287). That is also supported by the text on p. 297 of the article on the Olympiad: "Some of these details appeared in one of our Editor's regular Saturday articles in the Daily Telegraph." Krakatoa (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations that Ray Keene has created[edit]

Yet another omission in this article is the large number of organisations that Ray Keene has created. The list should contain some of the following as I understand it: The English Chess Association, The Commonwealth Chess (Womens) Association, The Brain Trust, The World Memory Council, The World Mind Mapping Council, The World Speed Reading Council, The World Creativity Council, Memory Sports UK, The World IQ Council. MSO and Braingames are mentioned already - not sure about Einstein Group.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how many of this organisations are notable, and how many are just vanity projects?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The commonwealth organisation organised a big chess tournament in london, a commonwealth championship I believe. The others all have their own respective championships--ZincBelief (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Memory Championship is a very big deal, and I noticed that page makes no mention of Mr. Keene nor does this article mention the World Memory Championship. I would fix it myself but I am unclear on the relationships between Keene and the World Memory Council and the World Memory Championship, but I do know that Keene is currently the organizer and front-man to the memory championship. Daniel Freeman (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entire sections for inadequate reasons[edit]

Two sections of this entry have been removed by a user without prior discussion, including one on self-plagiarism removed on the grounds "an author cannot plagiarise himself as a matter of law, so those complaints aren't noteworthy in a WP:BLP".

As the section didn't claim it was a matter of law, this is an irrelevant consideration, and certainly not one which should have necessitated the section's abrupt removal.

What is clear is that Mr Keene's reuse of old work is a matter of controversy in the chess world, and has been for a long time: it's also incontrovertibly true that he does this and has done for a very long time. It is material to Mr Keene's history as a writer and journalist.

I have reinstated the section in slightly altered form and moved it to "Controversies". I have also deleted the term "self-plagiarism".

I would appreciate it if that section was not removed again without prior discussion: it's precipitate action like that which causes resentment and unpleasantness in Wikipedia editing.

I have also reinstated the section dealing with the non-response of editors. I can imagine no good reason why this was removed, and none, good or otherwise, has been presented. The matter is wholly factual and entirely relevant. Again, please do not remove it again without prior discussion.

I have no desire to get into a controversy with anyone over this entry, but the way to avoid such a controversy is to discuss it before removing material upon which other people may have expended considerable time and effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP and WP:BB. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disturbing that the author of the recent ‘plagiarism’ edits appears not to contribute to chess or any other subject on Wikipedia, except to write in a negative way about Raymond Keene. It is therefore hard to imagine that these entries amount to anything other than a personal vendetta. To add insult to injury, the editor is condescending enough to tell us how we should all conduct ourselves on Wikipedia so as to avoid ‘resentment and unpleasantness’. And while we shouldn’t remove anything until there’s a discussion, it appears the same principle didn’t hold for adding it in the first place. All a bit rich coming from an editor who hasn’t yet learned how to sign his name. WP:BLP expressly states that living person articles should not contain attacks on individuals and should remain sensitive, conservative, non-tabloid and non-sensationalist. However, by expanding the various parts of the Keene controversies section using selective quotes from the Winter article that contain terms like “particularly sordid” and “eye-popping”, it can be seen that the opposite approach has been taken here, in order to vilify Keene in an unreasonable way. Plagiarism can of course take many forms. Clearly, the unauthorized lifting of commercially sensitive material may result in legal action, but I am not aware that this has occurred in the context of these new allegations, whilst lesser forms of copying/recycling material may represent a neat ‘recap’ for some people and ‘lazy journalism’ for others; either way, it is hardly relevant material for an encyclopedia article. Keene himself has indicated that he has given credits in accordance with publishers’ wishes. Now I can’t verify that he has, but for as long as that stance remains untested and/or Keene’s Editors remain silent/content, I fail to see how any of this can be justified for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Similarly, stating that Keene has “misappropriated” material from one publication to another is to put an unnecessary spin on the word ‘replicated’, which is contrary to keeping a neutral point of view, also a requirement of WP:BLP. I would also raise issues of balance and undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE) in respect of the plagiarism allegations, as they have now grown out of all proportion. Somewhat antagonistic to the article’s subject and probably intentionally so, is the mention of Justin Horton, a known opponent of Keene. As for the reference to a blog, it should be obvious that this is not an appropriate source for matters that are controversial. In case anyone thinks I am being overly defensive here, I would just say that I have no objection at all to the previous mention of plagiarism and furthermore, would recognize that reference to the recent article in Chessbase News would be fine for inclusion in a non-expansive, non-sensationalist manner. I welcome the views of other editors. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is therefore hard to imagine that these entries amount to anything other than a personal vendetta.

Well, it could just as easily be that this is one subject on which I am well-informed. I am not aware that I am obliged to edit more than one page on Wikipedia (though in the past I have in fact done so). Would it be all right if I questioned your motives?

And while we shouldn’t remove anything until there’s a discussion, it appears the same principle didn’t hold for adding it in the first place.

Removing isn't equivalent to adding: it doesn't involve destroying other people's work. You can remove things without notice, but it causes conflict and should be avoided if possible.

In your posting you make some very strange claims.

using selective quotes from the Winter article that contain terms like “particularly sordid” and “eye-popping”

In what was is it selective? Which other quotes from that article would you like to include for balance?

Plagiarism can of course take many forms. Clearly, the unauthorized lifting of commercially sensitive material may result in legal action

Plagiarism exists regardless of whether legal action is subsequently taken and it has notning especially to do with whether the material is commercially sensitive. It's the passing-off of other people's work as your own which consistutes plagiarism, and that is what Keene is accused of, on quite a scale.

lesser forms of copying/recycling material may represent a neat ‘recap’ for some people and ‘lazy journalism’ for others

Do you really think so? When material has appeared elsewhere, a publication will normally say so, for good reasons. If you think the practice is uncontroversial, I would invite you to produce a reputable source that says so.

But even if you still, think so, it's clear that it is controversial. Because people take different views of a controversy, it doesn't cease to be a controversy. So let people see it, and decide. There is no reason for it to be hidden from Wikipedia readers. If you think that the practice is OK with you personally, then say so. That is very different from deciding that nobody else should consider it controversial.

Keene himself has indicated that he has given credits in accordance with publishers’ wishes.

Really? Could you show where he has done so, please? I think you may find that claim has been deleted. Even if it had not been, it is entirely unverified and unsourced and also absurd, since it wouldn't even be a defence against plagarism to say that you had the publisher's connivance in doing so.

So what you're doing here is relying on a deleted, unsourced and irrelevant claim as a defence against the publication of material that is rigorous in evidence and presentation and copiously sourced.

in respect of the plagiarism allegations, as they have now grown out of all proportion.

As the extent of the plagiarism alleged against Keene is of such proportions that Keene would consitute one of the most extensive plagiarists in British journalistic history, it's hard to see how this can possibly be true. Plagiarism is extremely serious for a journalist: we may refer to the opinion of the Times columnist Mr Oliver Kamm that if he engaged in it, he would lose his job.

In short, what Keene is accused of is very serious, very extensive and very well documented. Hiding it from Wikipedia readers is increasingly unjustifiable.

Fewwords (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here a long time, and I assumed that you were familiar with core Wikipedia policies such as the one governing what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, and the policy that governs biographies of living persons. In fact you were pointed directly to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE four years ago on your talk page. But you probably aren't familiar with Wikipedia policy. Brittle heaven points at that you haven't edited that much in the several years you've been here (unless you have multiple accounts), and you've shown very narrow interests. It's essential that you digest those policies, particularly WP:BLP. In part it says "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, are you associated with the Streatham and Brixton Chess Blog? This would raise a conflict of interest concern, but in any case blogs are not reliable sources and generally cannot be used in biographies. There's lots more, but I think you should consider that several editors have expressed concern here and at WT:CHESS#Raymond Keene. Quale (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the material was in fact neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, which tends to take the point out of your point. Moreover the material is impeccably and authoritatively presented, has been referenced elsewhere and has been subject to no complaint or challenge.

Reviewing the discussion above, I find the following statement from yourself:

Deleting vast swathes of uncontroversial claims would be likely to cause trouble, so you are wise to have not done that.

This does at least recognise that "trouble" does result from deleting stuff wholesale, which is why I raised this section of the Talk. I think Wikipedia works best as a collaborative rather than a confrontational operation, which is why I would have appreciated some explanation as to why the section on the non-response of editors has been inexplicably deleted.

Similarly the section on Keene's prodigious unacknowledged recycling of his own work, a remarkable practice even if we were to ignore the issue of copyright theft which it raises. I find that this is unilaterally designated non-controversial and deleted, by somebody who similarly argues that the plagiarism issue is over-stated (despite its huge scale) and that deleted, incomprehensible defences to accusations are to be given some kind of weight. I also notice, above, that there is scarcely, if at all, a Keene-critical source which has not at one time or another had its legitimacy questioned. Oddly though Daniel Freeman can post on here without anybody asking whether he has a working relationship with Keene. Curiouser and curiouser. Fewwords (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. It's quite amazing to see people violently opposing the appearance of the unvarnished truth on Keene's wikipedia page - in the interest of accurate information! The Keene strategy itself - just deny the facts until they give up and go away. Then carry on doing it. It's a mystery to me how Keene finds such defenders. Unless they are him. Who knows. Maybe they just don't know about the scale of Keene's misdemeanours. It just doesn't sound likely, people saying such awful things about a Pillar of the Establishment. Who are you gonna believe, R Keene MBE, founder of dozens of organizations with extremely impressive names, or a whining nobody? Well, cheers to you, Fewwords - someone who knows truth when he sees it, and cares when someone spits on it, indeed makes a career out of spitting on it. 110.20.197.87 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raymond Keene. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Levy's criticisms on Brain Games controversy[edit]

A large chunk of the Brain Games controversy rests on statements and articles written by David Levy. I question the reliability of this person as a referenced source. Obviously there was a bitter fall-out between the two in-laws around the Mind Sports Organisation and Brain Games. I cautiously suggest that points/issues raised by Levy should be cross-checked and verified by an independent source (that meets Wikipedia's threshold for being a trusted resource), with the aim of removing those points that cannot be independently corroborated. I realise these statements have been publicly available online for 16 years, but I also realise there's a factor of "he said, she said" going on, but here it seems one-sided, as if Levy's comments on the operations of a company he wasn't directly involved in are gospel.

I raise this concern now, as someone who has been following the ZX Spectrum Vega+ fiasco for about 18 months, where David Levy is right at the heart of it as chairman of Retro Computers Limited. The similarities of Levy's criticism of Keene 16 years ago and his criticisms of Paul Andrews (Shareholder and ex-Director of Retro Computers Limited) are noticeable. Both are accused of using the funds of one company to start another (Brain Games Ltd / Retro Games Ltd), both with the argument that the company Levy runs should have a shareholding in this newly formed company (Mind Sports Organisation Ltd / Retro Computers Ltd). In my personal opinion the statements from David Levy regarding Retro Computers Ltd are fabrications and distortions of a kernel of truth. And so I question the validity of his criticism against Keene that cannot be validated or confirmed by independent third-party trusted sources. Isofarro (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, this is a problem. I probably won't attempt to fix it myself in the near future (due to a combination of lack of time and good sources, plus laziness), but I support an effort to improve this. Quale (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to list here trusted/reliable sources around Braingames, and it's organisation of the 2000 Braingames match. Isofarro (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to various reports GM Ray Keene has put together a consortium which looks likely to bring a match between Garry Kasparov and Viswanathan Anand for the "World Chess Championship" as claimed by Kasparov. Kasparov is reported to have already agreed to the deal. The problem is a challenger. According to Raymond Keene after a week's discussion a deadline of Monday noon was given to Anand. After that deadline passed the consortium is now to offer Vladimir Kramnik the opportunity of a match against Garry Kasparov. The consortium has withdrawn their offer to Viswanathan Anand and has moved to the next person in the rating list, Kramnik. According to Keene, negotiations [with Anand] floundered. It is hoped that negotiations [with Kramnik] will be concluded quickly enough to enable there to be an official launch at Simpson's in the Strand on April 5th.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raymond_Keene&oldid=1199598155"