Talk:List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Snooker Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of unreliable tabloid source MoS for statements about living people

The MoS cite is a very controversial claim about living people. Even if it were not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and the most recent WP:RSN discussion seems to indicate that it is, until there is an RFC otherwise - the MoS is an unreliable tabloid that I'm pretty sure cannot be used as a source for controversial claims about living people. If this is in an RS, then we should put the claim back only when there is an RS, which the MoS absolutely is not - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan, you are blindly reverting and ignoring the talk page, to edit-war in an unreliable source making claims about living people - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to enact a blanket ban that applies to The Daily Mail on a separate publication. The Daily Mail ban simply does not apply to Mail on Sunday. Your underlying reasoning is flawed. Multiple discussions discussing this very issue have come to the conclusion that the ban does not apply to the Mail on Sunday. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have queried how the DM ban applies to the MoS: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_we_please_adapt_the_Daily_Mail_consensus_to_reflect_a_position_on_Mail_on_Sunday?. If the consensus is that ban does include the MoS then I would appreciate a few days to locate a new source. Betty Logan (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:DAILYMAIL does not apply to MoS, it's still an unreliable tabloid that is unsuitable for controversial claims about living people, and this should be obvious. WP:DAILYMAIL is not actually the issue here - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The match-fixing allegations and investigation are fully documented in the table below, and sourced to the BBC Sport and World Snooker. As for the arson attempt there will probably be alternative sources available. There is nothing here that warrants immediate removal. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if you have the good sources, why are you edit-warring in the unreliable tabloid source that you admit is superfluous? - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the interests of improving the encyclopedia, could we have a scratch around for additional citations for this? Regardless of the reliability of the source, it can't be the best one out there. I searched online but didn't see much. BennyOnTheLoose - any idea if this was covered in snooker scene or cue world or whatever? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The match-fixing allegations were reported by World Snooker themselves in a press release. The arson story was broken by Nick Harris of Mail on Sunday so other sources generally just regurgitate the story and credit MoS (it is reproduced in the Sport & Law journal). However, I see no credible reason for not using the Mail on Sunday source. The publication has editorial oversight, which is independent of The Daily Mail; the DM ban does not apply to it, as confirmed by two of the closers at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_we_please_adapt_the_Daily_Mail_consensus_to_reflect_a_position_on_Mail_on_Sunday?. It also has a functional error-checking process as evidenced by the complaints stats at IPSO. It received more complaints than The Sunday Times but fewer were upheld. Its reliability is objectively on par with The Sunday Times. No empirical evidence has been presented that it is not reliable, or at least more unreliable than its rivals. This is just an unsubstantiated opinion advanced by David Gerard as part of his agenda to purge Wikipedia of anything and everything related to The Daily Mail. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any coverage of the arson/firebomb attack in NewsBank or The Times Digital Archive. If it was in Snooker Scene it would probably have a "Mail on Sunday reported ..." caveat. Looks like there may be something on Times online but I can't be bothered to subscribe to that. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a link for The Times? I will take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure I know what the deal is with a source quoting another source... But we deem the BBC to be a reliable source, but they get a lot of their stats from cuetracker, which is blacklisted. IMO, this is backed up enough here to warrant inclusion, it's certainly a thing that happened, and aside from being a BLP, it's not a super contentious point being made. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan for me, googling '"Passakorn Suwannawat" arson the times' brings it in as the fourth result. Snippet says "of their Rotherham houses was set on fire in an arson attack. Matches involving Thanawat Tirapongpaiboon and Passakorn Suwannawat are". Headline is "Shanghai Masters winner Ding Junhui warns that Chinese are set to dominate". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benny. The Times story is behind a paywall at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shanghai-masters-winner-ding-junhui-warns-that-chinese-are-set-to-dominate-5cglzw30kjs. It is written by Hector Nunns, probably the most high profile snooker journalist after Clive Everton. This is what he writes about the arson attack:

Meanwhile, two Thai players under investigation for possible match-fixing have not been back in Britain since one of their Rotherham houses was set on fire in an arson attack. Matches involving Thanawat Tirapongpaiboon and Passakorn Suwannawat are being probed by the WPBSA after suspicious betting patterns in early August. But later that month the front door of the Star Academy house used by Thanawat was set on fire, though police have not established clear links to the investigation. There is speculation that Passakorn is considering staying in Thailand – and giving up on his snooker career. The players’ manager Keith Warren said: “The two players are expected back in the country towards the end of the week, with qualifiers for the International Championship in Barnsley from October 1. “They have not been back since the arson attack. One of them didn’t live there, as was reported. Thanawat Tirapongpaiboon lived there, but Passakorn Suwannawat did not.” Warren also confirmed that the tour’s youngest professional China’s Lyu Haotian, 15, was living in the house next door but that he had not been unduly distressed by the incident.

So the Mail on Sunday article (which incidentally does not come under the Daily Mail sanctions) was a truthful account with a minor inaccuracy (only one of the players lived at the house). Do either you or Lee have any objections to me restoring the incident to the article and adding this Times source. I appreciate it is behind a paywall but I believe it is consistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalls make no difference to the reliability of a source - so it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included: it seems significant and The Times is a reliable source. I'm a frequent user of paywalled sources myself, but I'm pretty sure I used up my Times online freebie access quite a while ago. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]