Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Main page

Hi,

Sorry I didn't get to work further on the KP article. I notice the main page text didn't get changed - is it too late? There's a new edit higher up this page.

—MDCollins (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask Raul654 (talk · contribs), I think he's the one in charge of TFAs. Nev1 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked if the text can be updated on Raul's talk page and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. It doesn't look like Raul's online right now, but hopefully someone else will see the request and be able to help. Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. NB chaps - America starts waking up soon, so be alert for "poop" and friends of gays-type vandalism. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Test match

I have started a discussion about a particular aspect of this template at Template talk:Test match#Umpires. Comments are definitely welcome and encouraged. – PeeJay 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which commentator?

Who is it on the BBC/ABC combined radio broadcast with a Bumble-like accent who keeps on mocking the Australian spinners and saying that his daughter's hockey team could tonk McGain everywhere? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably Geoffrey Boycott. He's very opinionated that way... – PeeJay 16:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was Boycott. I'm astonished that anyone could fail to recognise him. :) JH (talk page) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Lancastrian I'm thoroughly insulted that anyone would think that Boycott had a similar accent to Bumble! Andrew nixon (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What Andrew nixon said, the Lancastrian and Yorkshire accents sound nothing alike, my nan could tell you that! :-P Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Very descriptive the bbc Commentators. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was Boycott; I should have known, although I don't listen to his cricinfo chat it's faster to read teh transcript. The BBC guys sometimes don't use full names when introducing the commentary changes and when Boycott first came on for the night I don't think the outgoing guy mentioned his name. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Ashes nominated for demotion

Hello team Cricket. After a reasonably equal Day One of this year's Ashes, I became aware of this list which, if we're all honest, isn't Wikipedia's finest work. There are a number of things we can do to improve the list, please re-read the latest criteria for a featured list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks nominated for demotion

Hello team Cricket. Another list which frankly doesn't cut the most recent mustard. Please re-read the latest criteria for a featured list. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Ebanks

Another first-class cricketer nominated for deletion. Help appreciated. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, is playing two games for the Cayman Islands really enough to qualify him for an article? The Cayman Islands aren't exactly a major cricket nation. – PeeJay 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Two first-class games, so yes. And he's actually played 15 games for them in total, all of which are classed as official internationals by the ICC. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm a bit new to the cricket side of Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure of the notability criteria over here. – PeeJay 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think Canada and Bermuda should have FC status. Bermuda got smashed for 420 odd runs in 50 overs by India at 2007 CWC and India was out of form in that WC and couldn't even score 220 against Bangladesh. Bermuda are worse than even a grade cricket team in Australia. Still they do and these guys get articles even though they wouldn't make the U-19 team of Australia, eg when Phil Hughes got deleted ages ago YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the bloke Andrew Nixon was accused of being? If so, he definitely needs to stay. --Roisterer (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is, looking at the talk page. I'm not him. Obviously. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose to expand Bradman FA

I know this is a long article already, but with Bradman's supremely giant status in the game, first as a player, and secondly as an administrator. There are actually articles about there that are FA with 30% more prose. I think it's needed to provide more information on the following things at least.

• Info about batting everyone out of the game. He was not much different from Ponting, even more extreme actually, in terms of setting extreme targets and not allowing enough time
• Undue weight of family to admin career, especially as he was regarded as the most important administrator of all time, long length of service
• Omission of Tallon in 1938; Miller for RSA 49/50; role in Cec Pepper never being selected for Australia after he made a rowdy lbw appeal against Bradman; Miller never being captain. Non selection of people who disagreed with him.
• Apartheid issue. Bradman was strongly against an apartheid boycott. It was only when a riot occurred at a rugby match that he agreed to call off, not because he opposed apartheid. Bradman estrangement with his son was in part due to this. His son was an anti-apartheid activist and protestor and Bradman viewed him as a punk. Other board members have alleged in the Haigh and Frith book that Bradman was a racist; although this is a bit obscure, the non-opposition to apartheid needs to be explained. Bradman also wanted the dark-skinned Grahame Thomas to not be selected for an Australian tour of South Africa.
• Witchhunt against Meckiff? Bradman called a meeting of state captains and then showed pictures of Meckiff throwing and then selected him anyway. Allegations that Bradman set-up Meckiff as a sacrificial goat. The Meckiff incident was the biggest thing in Bradman's time
• More info needed on WSC? Biggest upheaval of our times, and its genesis in Bill Lawry's sacking
• The 1930s infighting doesn't touch on the possibly religious nature of the problem, and doesn't name McCabe, Fingleton, O'Reilly etc specifically, and the infamous Catholic board meeting that turned into a cause celebre.
• Theory that Bradman was responsible for the Warner incident

There are probably more. I haven't read up on a Bradman biography, but from the Haigh and Frith book about cricket politics, there is a lot more that could be said. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you will need to tread very carefully with a lot of those topics, both to avoid including unsubstantiated rumours for which there is no hard evidence and to keep everything non-POV. JH (talk page) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

YM, did any of those humungous FAs pass FAC in, say, the last year? I think there's a danger here that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a book. And I think some of those issues even if magnificently sourced and unimpeachably NPOV would not be needed for an encyclopedia article. More about his time as an administrator is undeniably needed though. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They would be attributed. Military history of Australia during World War II and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal passed in the last 6 months I think. From my reading, the Meckiff incident was the biggest thing between the the Barnes libel case and the Lawry sacking/Apartheid ban. The things about Bradman not being strongly anti-apartheid are recorded in some declassified government documents because the government was consulted, and Bradman asked Thomas if he would mind abstaining, and asked the govt to check with RSA if they would be offended if Thomas went. Most books on the 1930s Catholic players always devote large parts to the infighting with Bradman; there was a big media hullaballoo in 36/37 when Australia went 0-2 down and the board called the Catholics in for a meeting and asked them whether they were undermining Bradman. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bradman article is brilliant, probably this project's best biography. However I was concerned then and remain a little concerned that the article is a little hagiographic in parts. While the Bradman of the 80s and 90s was venerated, the Bradman of earlier years was a divisive figure in many ways. The Catholic/Protestant split certainly needs fleshing out. By all means include Bradman's denial but O'Reilly and co certainly felt victimised and it affected sectarian relations in the team for years. Chappelli and other Aust. players of the 60s and 70s loathed him with a passion. Perhaps a spin-out article and a summary style section? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We could work on the text at a sandbox, section by section? --Dweller (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just plonk it in the controversies thing to begin with, tehn we can move it. Also, the controversy probably should be rearranged and deleted as a POV fork so that the controversies and criticisms are integrated in a subarticle about his administration, selectorial or captaincy style if need by. Most young people like Bradman but do not know much about him other than his stats and playing success. His outlook on life was like the long-serving Australian PM Robert Menzies and he is really lucky that while people criticise Menzies for being social conservative, White Australia Policy etc and think Menzies is crusty now that multiculturalism etc is policy, nobody ever thinks the same for Bradman's lack of action against apartheid, etc, and hagiographers have swamped us with stuff that blames his colleagues for everything that goes wrong and if things go well, they credit it to Bradman the wise giant who showed the light to the other backward admins. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that the only people that Bradman would talk to, ended up doing 100%hagiography about him? Roland Perry was not the only one. A lot of them even say that Bradman was the best tactician of all time, yet all he did was make massive scores and then bulldoze teams with Lindwall/Miller/Johnston the way Ponting and Steve Waugh did. A lot of the time he declared 450 ahead with one day left because he didn't want to give them a sniff and on some occasions it was not enough time to bowl them out (there is no way anyone can score 450 in a day against the 48 attack). They even say that Bradman won with weak teams in the late 1930s (He beat Eng 3-2 and 1-1 in 36/37 and 38)! McCabe, Fingleton, Bill Brown, Hassett, Fleetwood-Smith, O'Reilly were weak? Sure Grimmett wasn't there but that was Bradman's fault for purging him. The late 1930s Australian teams were not "weak".

Yet Bradman refused to talk to Parkinson EVER because Parkinson was on speaking terms with the Catholics. To me, aside from being the greatest of all time who would average 150+ if he played today, Bradman is also an ultra-smooth ultra-political politician who was bent on turning his legacy into god-like worship and myth, at least for the aspects regarding his non-batting activities. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Younis Khan

The articles name is called Younis Khan but in the text it is spelt Younus Khan. What do we go with? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He seems to call himself Younus and that spelling was used in the World T20 by Sky. --Jack | ^{talk page} 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Caught pocket, bowled..."

what's the chances of that happening?! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen a photo of it happening somewhere else, but I can't for the life of me remember where or when it was. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Video footage can be found here. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

Looks like the subject himself has popped by YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Or a relative? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, if a Wikipedia user looks up Playboy writer to use as a source to prove how good a certain cricket writer is, then the user is probably the subject himself who kept news/mag cuttings of praise of himself in a folder. Who else would look up playboy and porn magazines to find out information about cricket history? And if the original motive was an interest in pornography, I doubt it would suddenly motivate them to look up and write a 100k cricket history article. Personally I also wonder what inside knowledge they would need to know the subject's university results. Who else would use and search for an ancient playboy magazine as a source. The user must know that a certain playboy magazine praised Perry, so it is probably Perry himself who kept a cutting of Playboy praising him. What kind of a cricket researcher would look up playboy for info? I can't think of a single cricket publication that references playboy and I doubt any historian would go there looking for info for cricketing reasons. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Have struck out content prior to delete (next step). Haruspex101 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have not been able to strike out material. Haruspex101 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I am a novice Wikipedia user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced editor.

The content of the YellowMonkey post was a speculation that an internationally successful Australian author (22 published books and numerous awards) was posting some sort of vanity advertisement on a Wikipedia bio page without declaration. This was duly refuted by a declaration of identity of myself as the user posting this content in what I am learning will need to be a more Neutral-POV style as the bio of a living person.

See Talk:Roland_Perry

{extract} Haruspex101 Arrives:

o Is not Roland Perry

o Has worked with Tim Burstall and Roland Perry on film development projects

o Is a novice Wikipedia editor. Has never added Wikipedia content before, and would welcome assistance with the technical aspects of doing so.

o Collated factual sourced material on Roland Perry and posted this on Wikipedia in July 2009 using journalistic style to bridge the sourced material and some opinion. Material is not contested by Roland Perry, even though it includes a good deal of sourced criticism of Roland Perry along with the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career which includes journalism and 22 published books on US politics, British espionage and history (WW1), along with a variety of biography, fiction as well as cricket history.

{extract ends}

YellowMonkey's speculation was false -- and the persistence of that speculative material continuing to be published on Wikipedia imputes that the reviews of Roland Perry's works were only from Playboy magazine -- when this was only one example extracted in an unrepresentative way by YellowMonkey from a list of over 150 references.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=300578463

Further, the YellowMonkey content framed Playboy magazine in some kind of pejorative shadow when it is actually considered a premiere outlet for literary material for well over 50 years. See for instance this independent user comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=300719223&oldid=300718420

Playboy article was coverage of Roland Perry's first fictional thriller novel, Program for a Puppet. There was also a Penthouse article on Roland's inside interviews at the White House. Roland has had a broad literary career, including cricket commentary. All of this is covered in the material that I believe should be posted, edited and contested as required for balance.

So let's do that on the Roland Perry page.

Haruspex101 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Also strike out my own previous reply prior to delete (next step). Haruspex101 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have not been able to strike out material. Haruspex101 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are not entitled to strike out another editors comments in this circumstance Haruspex101--VS ^talk 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

False information on inside covers of books

I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, albeit selectively and POV, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006 for Miller's Luck. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society.

Now I was surprised that such learned people would not have noticed what David Frith and Ramachandra Guha noticed about the book, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not even in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Have struck out content prior to delete (next step). Haruspex101 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have not been able to strike out material. Haruspex101 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

After I attempted to remove the YellowMonkey content and direct discussion back to the Roland Perry dispute resolution page Talk:Roland Perry -- as best I could as a novice user -- I seemed to trip the edit-warring system (at least in form) and was then blocked for a 31 hour period.

Shortly after this, and so while I was blocked, YellowMonkey (a highly experienced editor) posted another provocative comment.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=301143585&oldid=301139712

The subtext of the YellowMonkey content is that Roland Perry, the internationally renowned author who has sold 100s of thousand of books, and/or his publishers, are somehow falsely claiming in bookcover sleeves, such as presumably Roland Perry's latest (22nd) book "Bradman's Invincibles", that Roland Perry has claimed to have won a major cricket writing award in 2006 for which he was not even shortlisted. This is an accusation by YellowMonkey. It is false. And it is quite outrageous. I am a novice user on Wikipedia. How can an error like this be corrected, which presently harms the reputation of the subject Roland Perry while it is posted up on Wikipedia?

Further, YellowMonkey then references the content back to the Roland Perry page where there is a frozen page of one-sided criticism -- at a time when YellowMonkey knows that the content of that Roland Perry page is in dispute and protected until 14 July. See Talk:Roland Perry

I would very much appreciate Administrator-level advice on how to more effectively communicate and see that the sorts of inappropriate material that the YellowMonkey user is posting in relation to Roland Perry is removed from Wikipedia.

See Roland_Perry#Dispute_resolution

Here is the Book Blurb from Roland Perry's latest (and 22nd) published book BRADMAN’S INVINCIBLES (2008):

"ROLAND PERRY is the author of 22 books---and Bradman’s Invincibles is his tenth on cricket.

His most recent cricket book, Miller’s Luck, was judged Biography of the Year by the UK Cricket Society. His three previous cricket books in connection with Sir Donald Bradman are The Don, Bradman’s Best and Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams.

Roland Perry is also the author of books on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from military and espionage to biographies of a range of notable characters. He received the Fellowship of Australian Writers national award for non-fiction for his biography Monash: The Outsider Who Won a War."

See Roland_Perry#Dispute_resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruspex101 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Haruspex101 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea, and I don't much care, what the rights and wrongs of this dispute are. But if you delete what someone else has written on a Talk page such as this without their consent, as you seem to be threatening, then you could land yourself in trouble. If you think you have a good reason for getting something here deleted (and a difference of opinion is not a sufficient reason, though libel or abuse would be), then ask an administrator. JH (talk page) 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Once again you are not entitled to strike out another editors comments in this circumstance Haruspex101--VS ^talk 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello JH, as a novice user I am finding the Wikipedia site quite frustrating to navigate and communicate basic concerns in good faith.

As I have posted (or attempted to post) on a number of occcasions now: I would very much appreciate Administrator-level advice on how to more effectively communicate and see that the sorts of inappropriate material that the YellowMonkey user is posting in relation to Roland Perry is removed from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=301529023&oldid=301517752

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301528998&oldid=301504774

Can you please help me with this or direct me to who could help me?

To date my experience has been that Wikipedia users (including Administrators who have been blocking me) are active and vigilant with regard to violations of the form of editing rules (deleting; blocking; third-reversions; strike thru; talk page dominance; etc); but not attentive, in my opinion, to the content that I am flagging should be removed because it is inappropriate for its reputational damage on Roland Perry. Clearly the removal of inappropriate material from Wikipedia is a priority over any contraventions of the mechanics of editing (which in themselves are unintentional editing rule breaches on my part as a novice user).

I would appreciate any assistance you or other users could please provide.

See also Roland_Perry#Dispute_resolution

Haruspex101 (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Roland Perry: Some YellowMonkey and Haruspex101 Dialogue

YellowMonkey ventures this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301695541&oldid=301680673

Haruspex101 replies and encourages YellowMonkey to come to Roland_Perry#Dispute_resolution to work together on the substantive material under dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301707722&oldid=301707329

Haruspex101 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Roland Perry: Whole Article Deletion by YellowMonkey User

Haruspex101 Posted NPOV revised-edits on content of Roland Perry (an internationally published author with 22 books). Content is balanced with appropriately sourced reviews (including criticism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=301966078

YellowMonkey deletes entire changes without comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=301966340&oldid=301966078

Dispute obviously requires independent intervention for resolution. I am a novice user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced user. Some help to bridge the technical-skill divide is required and would be greatly appreciated.

Investigation into YellowMonkey Conflicts of Interest (COI) are also required.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

The Way Forward:

o Revert to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=301966078

o YellowMonkey please fully declare any Conflicts of Interest.

o Replace outdated first bio intro paragraph with the following... as attempted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=301966803&oldid=301966340

Dispute Resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&oldid=301969811

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

ABC and SBS commentary

They left all the gooduns in Aus: Roebuck, Lawson and Kerry and instead we have Maxwell and Gillespie. Pity the lack of scholarly commentators, yes Skull is scholarly despite his style. Boycott's entertaining. We just need Bishen Bedi to complete the ideal sardonic and politically incorrect acerbic troupe. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought the choice of SBS hosts was ridiculous. Greg Matthews, too overpowering, and MacGill is trying too hard like and being unnatural like some instructional video or one of those news segments where the presenter stands next to a giant TV screen and explains some dot points. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when Skull is concentrating on cricket and not joke-telling he is probably the best commentator we have in Aust. Having to listen to Ian Chappell on the TMS feed on the ABC makes my teeth grate. His dislike of Ponting and Waugh is almost pathological and he expresses such dogmatic opinions in such a soporific voice—it's hard enough staying awake without having to listen to him drone on and on! Not sure what the Brits think but it seems clear to me that a little bit of Blowers goes a long way but the other Poms are all quite good IMO. As for the day's play, for me England are clearly on top. While Pietersen and Collingwood will be kicking themselves that they didn't go on with it, England have runs on the board and Australia have to bat last on a wicket tailor-made for their twin spin attack (funny, that). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

MacGill needs to stick to his wine shows. Fox Sports have Mark Waugh who isn't much better. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially how he tries to raise his eyebrows as though he is doing instruction. He looks like a comedy host like Anh Do or Julia Zemiro. This is not The Squiz YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blowers is pretty annoying, he always strikes me as someone who's working hard to create a humorous loveable character, instead of actually being a genuinely funny loveable character like Johnners. Aggers, CMJ and Vic Marks are top notch though. Nick mallory (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Aggers the best. Astute quaint and charming YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New West Indian Test players

There may a rash of new articles required for West Indian Test players as a result of the players strike. Kraigg Brathwaite, a 16 year old, will possibly make his debut. I know Hasan Raza was supposedly 14, but 16 is incredibly young for a non-Pakistani. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just when Windies cricket was getting back on track. Note this poor crowds in Jamaica and St Lucia for the 4 match ODI series against India after sold out crowds in the ODI's against England a while back. Kensington Oval seems to draw the biggest crowds. There won't be many spectators viewing the series against Bangladesh. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the Test going ahead. It devalues the game to send out a second XI at this level. If Bangladesh win it would devalue their first overseas Test win, and first against a team that isn't Zimbabwe, and if they lose it will strengthen the case that they don't belong at Test level. There are no winners in this situation. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Horrible. Most of these players aren't WI A standard. They might even be 4th choice players. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Any state team in Australia would be stronger. Bangladesh are strugging even with that being the case. Even though these are my second and third teams, it's a disgrace how poor these players are. The only class player playing is Shakib Al Hasan. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless victory for Bangladesh. Still no wins over a proper team. Joginder Sharma could have taken a 5WI against this mob. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

England resurrects bodyline tactic

In one of Sky's field plan graphics this morning while the lefthander Katich was batting, the words "off" and "leg" were mixed up and so there was a large semi-circle of fielders on the leg side and just a couple of men to off.

The ghost of Jardine at work among the techies, no doubt. --Jack | ^{talk page} 12:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear Gubby Allen refused to participate in the creation of Sky on-screen graphics. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the two guys behind square leg enforced for spinners. I could have sworn there were times when Harbhajan bowled in India with a leg slip and two outfielders behind square for the sweep in the 2001 series against Australia. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We have to do something. 630 for 5 at the moment and the England attack looking about as threatening as the Italian Air Force. I'm afraid the rain is letting us down badly. We should have picked Don Shepherd, he sounded sprightly enough chatting with Aggers at lunch. Nick mallory (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It was good to watch the lunchtime special today which was about the 1970-71 series. That was the last time England ever had a really good team. The rot set in when Illy was replaced by the awful Denness and we got worse as the years went by until Michael Vaughan revived us and we at least had a half decent team in the early 2000s. We were very lucky in the 1980s that Australia slumped after the Packer affair but our "performances" against West Indies in that period said it all about our lack of real quality. In the nineties, we were simply dreadful while Australia got it sorted and never looked back.

Now, I think that with the loss of Vaughan, Hoggard, Simon Jones, Harmison and Trescothick we are struggling to cope and don't have any good players coming through. It's especially disappointing that Ian Bell has fallen away. Meanwhile Australia just keep turning them out: Marcus North, for example; and I have every confidence that Phillip Hughes will make a lot of runs this summer. The one question about the new Aussie team is the bowling because clearly they will not find another Warne or McGrath for a long time, but what they have could be good enough to win a couple of Tests in this series at least. --Jack | ^{talk page} 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the 04-05 was the only acceptable team. Any of the 1950-61 teams would easily win this series. The 1956 team would win 5-0. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't bodyline we need, it's WG! --Jack | ^{talk page} 07:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Best performed Australian batsman in county cricket this year?

With the knowledge that the Australian squad doesn't have a spare batsman, can anyone tell me who is the best performed Oz batsman in the county circuit? They may yet get a call up. --Roisterer (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of average; David Hussey [1], in terms of runs scored, Michael Di Venuto or Adam Voges [2]. — AMBerry (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Diva's still going! Aaroncrick (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

David Warner

Hello. I am new to the cricket project, although I have been editing Wikipedia for a few months now (mainly military history articles). I have had a crack at making a few improvements to the David Warner (cricketer) article. I have a question, though. As I am new to the project I don't know what is the Cricket project's preferred format. Currently the Warner article has the Early life seciton below the Career section. I feel that it should be move to be at the start (first things first principle), however, I don't want to step on any toes. Can someone, or ideally a few people, provide their opinion on what the preferred format for the project is? I greatly appreciate any comments. Additionally, any assistance on improving the article would be great too. (I've left some thoughts on the article's talk page). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the FA list on the main project page has examples of recent FAs. There are also GAs to check but the early life goes first in all of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting the section on early life makes sense as it follows a chronological order. Some of the best articles follow this format, just look at Don Bradman. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the input. I have made the change. I will see what I can do to improve the article further. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It usually isn't necessary to do a review of small articles like this because the problems are usually plain to see for everyone, that the article (like most) just hasn't had any attention at all so almost everything is missing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. We don't have anything specific about sectional layout in our style guide and I've recently been pondering this re some of the articles I've been working on, particularly W G Grace which is now a very long article. I certainly always put an "early life" section at the top but I was wondering more about sections like "style and technique", "family and personal life", "honours and legacy", "controversy" (essential for WG!), etc. For the shorter articles, I've adopted what seemed to be a logical layout in Jem Broadbridge who needed career, technique, controversy and personal sections. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Philipjelley

More eyes needed. He adds valid info but keeps on autographing at the start and end of his addition, marking out his territory so to speak. He did this on about 12 articles yesterday English afternoon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

H'mmm. I've already pointed this out to him and I see you've reinforced my message on his talk page. I bet he doesn't read his talk page unless he keeps hitting the signature icon without realising what it does. I also had to point out to him that we capitalise "Test" after I had to take the article copy into TextPad: the result showed change to 82 instances of "test". I asked him to read WP:CRIC#STYLE but whether he will, I don't know. Pity, because he is certainly adding a lot of material that could eventually be moulded into a good quality article. --Jack | ^{talk page} 04:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

He has created an article called English cricket team streak of 27 Test matches without defeat. Is it notable? Jevansen (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not, IMO. The information is worth a short paragraph in England national cricket team so I would suggest a redirect or a speedy delete. Has anyone else noticed Mr Jelley's great admiration of John Snow, by the way? --Jack | ^{talk page} 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor Lou Rowan had no less than 10 PhilipJelleys signatures on his page!.Jevansen (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have AfD'd the 27-Test run to merge it into the article on the England Test team. He also made some changes to Geoffrey Boycott which had good content, but contained the usual prose problems that we find in many articles (i.e. more like a fansite or blog than an encyclopedic article). I trimmed that out, and kept the useful bits - though I found a lot of what was added was already in the article. SGGH ^ping! 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I thnk he's ignoring us and deliberately signing the start and end of his insertions YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what we can do about that apart from ask him to stop signing his edits when not on a talk page. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A block threat is an option, just like for people who make good edits but always uplaod copyvio pics YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there may be a deeper problem but I don't want to speculate about another editor on this page. If I am right then no amount of asking is going to fix the problem, unfortunately. Regardless, it is a problem and will need to be dealt with somehow. How, I am not sure. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor reminds me of my interactions with Costhiraius (talk · contribs) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been given "friendly advice" about it several times now and has even apologised but, as he is still doing it, a sterner word is needed. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Flintoff to retire from Test Cricket

In the wake of Vaughn, another widely anticipated announcement on cricinfo just now "Andrew Flintoff has called a press conference at 12.30pm today, in which he will announce his retirement from Test cricket at the end of this Ashes summer, although he still intends to make himself available for Twenty20 and ODI cricket." Nick mallory (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it might be possible to pencil in W. G. Grace or Wilfred Rhodes into this poll? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, given it's that newspaper. I'm amazed they've heard of Bailey. --Jack | ^{talk page} 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they seriously the only four they could think of? Honestly, the Guardian is rubbish sometimes... — AMBerry (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I'm about to sign up WP:Cricket to the Popular pages tool. The outcome will be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Popular_pages. Should be interesting to see who tops the rankings.The-Pope (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

George Fauquier

Notable? Played for Cambridge University, but not against fc-team, so is it really fc cricket? Also, can anyone fix the infobox age as I don't have a date of birth, only a year of birth? SGGH ^ping! 16:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to go against CricketArchive? Clicking on the CA link at the bottom of the article's infobox shows that they regard the four matches for Cambridge University against Cambridge Town as f-c. Of course, which matches (and which teams) are f-c circa 1820 is far less cut and dried than is the case in more recent times. Since CA don't have his precise date of birth, I doubt that it is available. JH (talk page) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just checking that we take all CA assertions re fc-team status as gospel. SGGH ^ping! 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether we take them as gospel, but I don't know of a good reason to go against them in this case. And CA I think base their list of f-c matches on that of the ACS, which is a pretty good source. (Though some authorities don't regard any matches this early as being f-c: see Variations in first-class cricket statistics.) JH (talk page) 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any general agreement about match status before 1825 (when loads of records were lost in the Lord's fire) but you can verify via CricketArchive and elsewhere that the old Cambridge Town Club (CTC) is regarded by most sources as a first-class/major team. CTC overlapped with Cambridgeshire CCC, which was unquestionably a first-class/major county team in the 19th century, and there are clear parallels with Nottingham/Notts, Sheffield/Yorkshire and Manchester/Lancashire in that a major town club was the basis of an eventual county club.

The key point here is that first-class or major status can be verified. Even if you find one source that says yes and another that says no, the one that says yes is your verification and it doesn't matter for WP purposes that the other one disagrees. As JH has inferred re his comment about the early start date, the only dissenters in this case are those sources (most specifically Roy Webber) who begin their first-class statistics in 1864. You have to remember that "first-class cricket" is essentially a statistical term: historically, a major player is a major player and that can be verified by reference to any non-statistical history work where the author makes clear that he is discussing a major player. That has to be so as otherwise we could not have articles about, say, the Hambledon players and that would be absurd. The whole concept of first-class cricket is seriously flawed and is completely unreliable as a guide to notability.

Fauquier has been one of the items in our Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/redlinks page so that's one we can cross off. He was definitely a major (aka first-class) player. --Jack | ^{talk page} 06:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking further about the above, it seems to me to present an issue around our notability criteria in WP:CRIN and I've made some changes there to try and direct editors away from so-called "first-class" cricket as a key criterion for notability. It is much more important to consider a subject in terms of major cricket generally. I'm getting the impression that an entry in CricketArchive, for example, is seen as vital to establishing a player's notability. This is utterly wrong. A non-statistical source should always be used in preference to a statistical one, so if this man Fauquier had been mentioned by Altham, Arlott, Birley or whoever, that should be the main source for verification. If you take the definitions of first-class cricket at all literally, then MCC does not recognise Grace as first-class until he was nearly fifty and the ICC does not recognise Bradman as first-class until he was forty. Lies, damned lies and statistics. --Jack | ^{talk page} 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in Scotland in 2009

People from the United Kingdom may have a better idea than I if the above article is necessary or can be safely merged in to Australian cricket team in England in 2009. Personally, to me it seems ridiculous to create a separate article for one match. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge to the England article, ridiculous seperate article. SGGH ^ping! 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect. I imagine the article was created by a proud Scot who objects to the title of the main article. JH (talk page) 10:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the merge now. I can't image any different consensus. SGGH ^ping! 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the old days of the full tours they always popped up north and there is never a need for it... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that SGGH never got round to doing the merge, so I've done it. Just been fixing a few links too. – PeeJay 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly/archive1

Could use eyes from editors who are familiar with the subject. Cheers! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No Boycs at Lords?

Pity. They should make him full time and get rid of Blowers! Tuffers is pretty amusing though... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He is there, he rang the bell this morning. SGGH ^ping! 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave Blowers alone, some of us prefer him to Jim Maxwell (and, to a lesser degree, Chappelli)... — AMBerry (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell is pretty bad too. We only need the "Expert" commentators really, they can describe it themselves. It's not difficult like calling a chaotic football match or pack sprint/horse race YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to be amused by Blowers till his unpleasant racist on-air comments during a Headingley Test some years ago. I can't believe he wasn't sacked for it. He was an outstanding schoolboy cricketer, for those who don't know - the schools sections of a few post-war Wisdens rave about him. I'll be at Lord's on Sunday and will try to take some photos. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do Jews normally prefer sitting at that end or living in that block of flats or did he say it because Trueman bowled from that end or some other thing? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was the typical ethnic slur about Jews being tight with their money; hence they would choose to watch cricket from the flats rather than pay an entry fee into the ground. See Stereotype#Jewish stereotypes. Poor form and lazy, casual racism (mind you if he had called in the "Scotsman's end" he may been excused). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He was excused. Cf Ron Atkinson - who was not. --Dweller (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Blowers really should retire, I fear age is really taking its toll, he hardly ever gets players names right now. Tuffers, on the other hand, has been hilarious during this test and the banter between him Gus Fraser and Aggers tremendous stuff. The only good thing about having Maxwell and Chappelli there will be Aggers or CMJ handing over to them as England (we hope and pray) complete their victory some time mid afternoon on Sunday. Come on boys! Nick mallory (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I enjoy Tuffers, I don't think that he should be paired with Agnew, as their joking together is overdone and becomes rather tiresome. An example yesterday was the Queen's menu business, which meant that at one point Agnew failed to describe what was going on on the field. I suspect that when Peter Baxter was producer it wouldn't have been allowed to get so out of hand. I think that Chappell is very good value. JH (talk page) 08:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to withdraw my previous comments about Chappelli – I've actually rather enjoyed his commentary this Test. Can't help but agree with JH re the Aggers/Tuffers partnership, found myself relying on cricinfo to find out what was actually happening, as funny as the conversation was.

On a slightly different note, are TMS sponsored by Twitter all of a sudden?! — AMBerry (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone remember the O'keefe/Aggers combo in Australia 2002/03? They were good, Aaroncrick (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Now open YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, but does this topic really merit an article at all? Obviously Doug Ring does, and the Australian team in England in 1948 does, but does the conjunction of the two really merit one, given that Ring was hardly a central figure on the tour? I've just seen that Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 has achieved Featured Article status. Well done to those involved, but Hamence was an even more peripheral figure on the tour than was Ring. For players like Bradman and Miller I can see the justification, but with players like Ring and Hamence we seem to be in danger of losing all sense of proportion. A comparable article from an English viewpoint would be "Les Ames on the Bodyline Tour of Australia". (I'm assuming that article does not actuallty exist!) --- User:jhall1 forgot to sign (slap on wrist!).

On the face of it, I might be inclined to agree but you have to remember the purpose of these articles which is to achieve featured topic status for The Invincibles. In such a situation, it is necessary, I think, to do somewhat more than have a good article per player and a good article about the tour and the season. I suppose it's like the old cliche of "running that extra mile" but to be a featured topic does need that extra something. Anyway, good luck with the review. --Jack | ^{talk page} 09:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the article and others of its kind. While it has sources it feels like content forking, but I can see an argument for having it. That said, I think pushing for a Featured Topic is a poor reason for an article, it's not one you'll find in the notability criteria. I'm not convinced about the worth of FTs anyway. I've nominated one, and been peripherally involved in a GA nomination (admittedly a very small sample) and there was no content checking; the only thing that was checked was that there was a link between the articles and that the article had been passed as a GA, FA, or FL. Regardless, it's a tremendous effort to write those Invincibles articles and not a task I envy. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My view about the FA and GA processes is that they are pointless unless you have a reviewer who has some knowledge of your subject: hence a cricket article should be reviewed by someone in this project who hasn't previously worked on that article. As Nev says, you get no content checking and in fact their quality checks are less stringent than those that we use for B-class. Even so, I support YM and the others who are prepared to put up with the review processes because every success they achieve raises the profile of cricket and this project. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, copyedit/presentation aside, the people in the best place to make the article better are the WikiProject people who are can know if the article is missing some info... So, if a WikiProject is cheap they can push any old rubbish and racist propaganda through as long as it is presented neated, just be cherry picking half the story and so forth. Some projects do do that. Those projects where their own people are softer than the outsiders are usually POV pushing projects (usually nation-state ones where they glorify their race fighting against nasty other racist races) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the prestige of the wikiproject it would be improved if the scholars among us with hundreds of books in their personal collection and a lot in their head would chip in to point out areas of imporvement in content that the outsider cannot. Some of the toughest WikiProjects like literature are so respected because they expect a lot of themselves. Yes, I should have made mroe noise about Bradman when it was on FAC YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire League professionals

I've added succession boxes to all the Nelson Cricket Club professionals that have articles on Wiki, such as Nathan Hauritz, Steve Waugh, Learie Constantine, etc.

Just checking that before I do this for all the Lancashire League teams that they won't get removed from the articles. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

With all respect to Nelson, this seems rather a minor thing to have a succession box for. If this was done for the professionals for all the Lancashire League clubs (and maybe the Bradford League and so forth as well), then articles could become rather overloaded with succession boxes. I'd prefer that categories be used for such things. JH (talk page) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with John on this one: If the Nelson CC article has a list of the club's professionals, that would surely do the job without creating more boxes. And categories are just for that purpose. Mind you, I wouldn't want to deter any improvement drive on the clubs themselves that you might think of doing. They seem to be fairly routine in some cases and there must be lots of material. Johnlp (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point you are making about categories but they don't provide a successive view which I think is BigDom's main purpose here. I don't believe the articles will become overloaded as most pros played for one club only and we won't have the problem that occurred a couple of years ago when someone started creating World Cup and Test squad templates. I think the information is valid and is of real interest. I would say to Dom that he should go ahead and see how it goes. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Jack, that's what I was trying to do; providing a successive view of an interesting topic - the Lancs League is well known for attracting the very best pros like the ones I named in the OP. Like you say, most pros will have played for one club or a maximum of two clubs and I don't see any harm in adding the boxes to the articles so I might do a couple more of the teams for now.

John and John, there's no reason why we can't have categories as well as the boxes. The main reason for putting the boxes on was that I checked the articles and most didn't even have a mention of playing as a pro for Nelson and I thought the info might be of real interest to some people, including myself. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lengthy section about league cricket in the Gary Sobers article because he paid a lot of attention to it in his autobiography and he gave a lot of information about means of remuneration and the lifestyle. --Jack | ^{talk page} 08:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See Dweller's law --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Five-for table

Batsmen often have tables at the bottom of their pages that list their centuries. Bowlers, with occasional exceptions, seldom have a chance to gain this accolade but their equivalent is the five-for. Shouldn't they have a table too? It'd be a bit odd, and there's some debate over what it would include but I think it's an impressive thing that should be recognised. Tony2Times (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a certain Mr Flintoff would deserve one. Magnificent performance. Nick mallory (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Flintoff would have more 5-fors if he attacked the stumps more, but yes I agree this would make a neat addition to any article. SGGH ^ping! 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well with Johnson it seems to be the opposite. Bowl lots of wides. Half of his wickets in the India tour were from wides, some leg side. Even the Bopara/Hauritz disputed catch was off a big wide. If I was Nehra or Pathan I would try and resuscitate my career by bowling a lot of wides YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added five-for tables for both Test and ODI cricket to Flintoff's article. – PeeJay 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion, it gets my support. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

Eyes needed on the talk page and agreement please. Every review of him on Wisden and Cricinfo by the experts is negative because all of the learned scholars like Haigh and Frith etc have read all the old classics and concluded that Perry just paraphrases the golden oldies. However he keeps on selectively swamping it with fluff by non cricket people, who aren't aware of this, and say how marvellous it is and what amazing new info it produces. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea -- many eyes and perspectives to Talk:Roland_Perry. Where the Wikipedia criteria for reliability of sources can be discussed and consensus reached.

I note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Haruspex101 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Maybe you should have quote the part about "hig-quality" sources. Haigh and Frith trumps the opinion of a chef any day. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)