Talk:The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians/Archive 1

Notability and systemic bias

I have no problem with the ACS as a notable body but individual members per se are not notable. I have returned the article to its original context as a description of the ACS, its purpose, its achievements, its present and future. I believe that someone on the ACS committee was trying to turn the ACS article into a rollcall of his chums instead of an objective account of the society as a whole. In my view this is systemic bias which breaches Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I have therefore bundled several of these articles under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter for review by the members and I will abide by the membership consensus.

Please note that I have not included these articles in the bundle as I believe they have notability in their own right:

All the others are members of the group who are only on here because they are members of the group. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page to take out personal opinion and leave in factual material —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueJohnMine (talk • contribs)

Research

The suggestion that the ACS relies on secondary sources may be true for a few members sending in articles for publication, for example tables of leading players, statistical curiosities, but all - repeat all - match scores appearing in the Match Score Books, either first class or Minor County, have been checked with primary documents such as extanct scoreboards or cross checked with other examples of the score such as local newspapers. In the new Minor County books these references are supplied. Some are supplied in the Match Score series. In the famous cricketers series, I know many were taken entirely from the original scorebook. - a primary source. All of the statistics in Douglas Miller's book on Buckinghamshire came from scorebooks where available. The ICC and ECB inset corrects a slight anomaly. Richard Daft (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading. The ACS like all modern cricket writers relies very heavily on the key secondary sources like Ashley-Cooper, Bowen, Buckley, Haygarth, Lillywhite, Waghorn, Webber and, of course, Wisden. It is true that primary sources are and have been consulted but the lead has always come from the secondaries. The above reads as if the ACS ignored them and went out to do its own original research: it did not. --JamesJJames (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Woodcock

There is little doubt that Mr Woodcock was not a scholar of the games history when he made his remarks. An article was pulled about this time which discussed the early (ie 1860's-90's) version of the Championship. (Written by Peter Wynne Thomas) It was to have been one of the feature articles though I cannot remember whether it was in 84 or 85. Nowdadays the list of County Champions has been wholly revised. It is also fair to say that amongdt the ACS were people with very firmly entrenched views but it is reasonable to say that Wisden, for a short time, was not even open to emendations based on errors in transcribing the official scorebooks. We are faced now with the embarrasment of the Super Test and Lara's record achieved during it. Frindall in Playfair refuses to accept this match. he is 'wrong' because it is an 'official' test. I would agree with his principle however.JimBakken (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an insult to Mr Woodcock who most certainly was a scholar of the game's history and a most distinguished cricket writer. The above post makes no sense in terms of the ACS and I cannot imagine what the writer is trying to put across. If he is trying to denigrate Wisden he is wasting his time. --JamesJJames (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of article

As a long-term member of the ACS myself, I have amended the article to make it concise and to focus on what the ACS is and what it does.

So-called controversies about first-class match status do not belong here especially when the topic is covered objectively and reasonably in Variations in first-class cricket statistics. Equally, attempts to trump up the ACS and certain of its members are out of order because when all is said and done, the ACS is only marginally notable in WP terms. I note that its rating above is "low importance", which is accurate enough.

I do not dispute the fact that we were consulted by the ECB about ListA but an independent source must be given for the information, not the Cricket Statistician.

I hope the article will now settle down and that those people with an agenda will keep away in future. --JamesJJames (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
apart from adding the odd word here and there, it hadn't been touched for nearly a year!

I agree. The article now is quite good, apart from the independent citation you've correctly requested. Given the points you make in your second paragraph, I think all the preceding posts on this talk page should be archived. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECB

Those who take the trouble to access the reference in the CS will see that it refers to a reprinting of the official ECB press release. I think in fact the ECB sees ACS as the official body on List A though the current chairman would have details as I believe he works for ECB.Fieldgoalunit

Do you have a precise ECB source for the press release? Thanks. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for this is on the ACS own site and, by the way, it was the ICC not the ECB which has given official sanction to ListA. Have removed tag and supplied reference. --72.37.171.100 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Webber

The ACS was NOT founded with the intention of proving Roy Webber wrong. Its purpose was and is as stated in the article as it stands: to compile details of first-class (and other) cricket matches. Furthermore, it is wrong to start extolling some members and not others: breaches WP:notability policy too. As for Webber, he was a notable author and researcher who was widely respected. Were Bowen and the others always right? Hardly.

Leave the article alone as several ACS members have said they are happy with it following the last edit on 14 May above. We have all had enough of these political machinations and dubious accusations. 81.131.49.71 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webber.

I was involved in ACS from the late seventies and am well apprised of the reasons for starting it. Incidentally, unsigned edits of this nature are not allowed. There is no criticism of Webber - read the article, I refer to a criticism of him which was afforded 4 pages in the Cricketer and led to many letters. Discussion of that nature were part of the genesis of acs. There was no POV. I was detailing an article. I might add that this and the Kaye Book of Cricket records had a lot to do with ACS starting. I wonder - where you there. I have rescinded your edit. If you wish to make one - give some provenace for your remarks. I have made no particular point of selecting two names other than the fact they were associated with CQ and are ACS members. Fieldgoalunit (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

Fieldgoalunit is right that the article should say something about the origin of the ACS but it needs to be in its own section, not in the lead. I've retracted my comment above that the article is "as good as it ever could be". I don't know why I used that wording. Obviously any article can and should be subject to further improvement.

Demanding that the article should be left alone is out of order. It mustn't be vandalised or used to make a WP:POINT, true enough, but it cannot be "left alone" if someone has a genuine addition to make to it, such as the origin of the subject!

By the way, FGU, unsigned edits are allowed. The basic principle of Wikipedia is that "anyone can edit" and anyone can express an opinion on a talk page. You are right about provenance but you must be careful about how you respond (voice of experience). BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories