Wikipedia

Talk:Men Nguyen

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Cheating allegations

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

I added a small section called "controversy" and tacked in a few links where some big name pros accuse Men of being a cheater. I think it's important to note these allegations, since they've been levied against him for years by some big names, not just a few burned former players. I'd like to see this information remain, or at least some discussion before it's arbitrarily wiped out by 2005. Wtbe7560 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:2005 was in his rights, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
  2. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
Additionally those same criteria apply to talk pages and other articles. Short of a very high quality source (CNN, LA Times, Times of London...) it is prohinited by policy to be included, even if perhaps most people think it should be. 2005 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would consider allegations by John Juanda and other famous poker pro's as a better source than CNN. You can't say that something needs to be on CNN if you are talking about poker, they don't cover poker. There are much better sources of reliable information than that in the poker world. He provided two relevant sources and Sirex called PartTimePoker a non-reliable source when it clearly is...and pro poker players posting on RGP is also very reliable. If somebody wants to edit this section I have no problem with that but it should not be removed entirely DegenFarang (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wtbe7560 maybe find a source for when Men was busted with a suitcase full of chips. Men has a clear and long cheating record and reputation, this is not defamation or slander...he is known in the poker world as a cheater. Saying that there is controversey surrounding him is not defamatory, it actually stops quite short of what could truthfully be said DegenFarang (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here is yet another souce: PokerWorks DegenFarang (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
That article is already a reference in the article and states "the allegations have never been proved", which means again that not only can this not be in the article, they can't be uninhibitedly discussed on the talk page. If you have any questions about this policy you should ask for clarification here: WT:BLP. 2005 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I put my edits back, I feel they are properly sourced. They are not inappropriate, these allegations were made by fellow players not gossip websites. I know 2005 likes to run the poker pages like his they are his personal works, but this is getting ridiculous. You wonder why Wiki keeps losing editors? It's because of idiotic reversions like this. Wtbe7560 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you keep ignoring Wikipedia policy you could be blocked. if you want to request other views go to WT:BLP. We are not even at the point of disccusing the merits of what you keep trying to add. The point only here is only Wikipedia policy WP:BLP does not allow such statements because the foundation does not want to be sued. 2005 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
While I often find 2005 a little heavy handed w/ the reverts as well, sirex and balloonman both concurred on them and balloonman told me i would be blocked if i reverted this again. in the form you are trying to include it, it is defamatory and not properly sourced (according to all three of them) and violates WP:BLP. i would very much support this being included if you can find a reliable source. so do some digging and see if you can find something DegenFarang (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Degen and Wtbe7560 I'm not a fan of Men and I'm not trying to give you a hard time or be your enemy and I can agree with you that CNN, Newsweek or any of the other mainstream media don't cover poker with perhaps the exception of the WSOP and just the Main Event at that or something like the AB/UB poker scandal, poker forums like 2+2 or newsgroups can not be used directly, however reliable sources might use them in their report then it is another matter like the 60 min report about online cheating as the burden falls on them, the publications may even be incorrect however WP:V mentions that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, other reliable sources that work well for sourcing what maybe contentious material are professional poker publications such as Pokernews, Cardplayer, Pokerlistings, AllIn Magazine have paid staff, professional writers who list their bylines, journalist that travel and conduct first hand interview with players at the events that are being played and not just reporting second hand information or pure gossip etc, the source that you added here afterward pokerworks.com which is a re-publication of laweekly.com article by Michael Kaplan if in use in the article and can be used to the extent of what is being reported and are not made with a pov which is that say that allegations are mention but not the denials or sourcing an allegation as fact when the source states that they have never been proved is a misuse of the source, if Justin Bonomo or John Juanda were to state allegations on a forum or newsgroup then that information couldn't be used due to verifiability concerns but if instead it was reported in an firsthand interview by them from them in source like cardplayer that would be another matter, if they do or have then it could be used but only to the extent of what they said. (e.g. in Mary tells "reliablepokersource" that Bob was going south with his chips, then the article could be sourced as in an interview of Mary she made the allegation that Bob took chips off the table before calling an all-in bet, however it can not and must not read that Bob is a confirmed cheat which is proven by an interview by Mary.) I hope we can work together and not against each other next time on better footing. cheers▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 03:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for that I thought you were just ignoring what I had to say on this. I think something just clicked now about why 2+2 or RGP should not be used. Who knows if one random poster is telling the truth or not. And we can assume that if PokerNews publishes something that they found on 2+2 that they did their own research and we trust them enough to include that information here. However with these old RGP posts, before the poker boom even happened, those were very tight knit communities, very small. Nothing like 2+2 today. I think those can be verified. We could even contact some pro poker players and ask, AndyBloch is a wikipedian for instance. A second matter is you are saying that PokerNews (for instance) could report what Justin Bonomo said, but why can't we use his own website? That was one of the things he sourced, justinbonomo.com which I can confirm is 100% Justin's website (i know him and have for a long time). I think this should be allowed...please explain why it is not DegenFarang (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The BLP guideline prevents even discussions of most of this stuff, but while it is obviously true that some people have made allegations, that can't be added here anymore that if they called him an alien or say he was on the grassy knoll. Then there is the secondary problem that some of the allegations are false on their face. The parttimepoker/bonomo is ridiculous as it quotes Bonomo talking about a Foxwoods incident where it has been plainly stated by the head of the Foxwoods cardroom, and that printed in Cardplayer, that the allegation is completely false. Now whatever the truth is about all of this, clearly it is against policy to post allegations, most obviously ones that were shown to be false seven years ago. There could be a way to bring this up in the article... saying there have been allegations, mentioning at least some have been proved false and referencing the cardplayer article... but that is the extent we can go. In other words, referencing him where he publicly denies allegations in a reliable source is okay, but it has to be worded carefully, and not with an agenda of accusing him of anything. 2005 (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
How about 'While persistent rumors and allegations have surfaced for years regarding Nguyen's possible involvement with cheating and chip dumping, nothing has ever been proven and Nguyen has consistently denied any such events ever occurred'...then there can be a few references with the allegations along with the cardplayer/other stuff refuting them. That work? DegenFarang (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
We have two reliable sources, so I could see:
"While allegations have been made regarding Nguyen's possible involvement with tournament cheating,(ref LA Weekly Kaplan) nothing has been proven and Nguyen has consistently denied any such actions.(ref cardplayer)"
Well thats a start and a lot better than nothing. I sign off on that and hope we can add it. If we find more sources we can tweak and play with that over time. It is a good start DegenFarang (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The reason why Justin Bonomo site can not be used is that it is a Self-published source. see WP:SELFPUB and WP:BURDEN on why. btw a good guide for for refs can be found at WP:REFB. I'm not sure as far as the wording so I can't give a definitive answer on it. I'll try to give some thought on it later or ask for help in seeing if it can be included in some fashion, thanks ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added this however I could not find the CardPlayer reference user:2005 mentioned regarding the allegations being refuted. I also used improper syntax to say 'ref needed' so if somebody can fix that please, as well as add the cardplayer reference. As this is a reference to show he deny's the claim, I think it is much less critical than the first reference. DegenFarang (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the link. It is the article linked a few inches above here. 2005 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Men Nguyen. 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) 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men Nguyen. 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) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_Nguyen&oldid=1223151659"