A fact from Emery ball appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments2 people in discussion
The reason a scuffed baseball moves differently has nothing to do with spin rate. The opening paragraph of the article is not accurate. Amf07 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Produce reliable sources that say so. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2015: The spitball — equally infamous and mysterious in the annals of baseball — allows pitchers who master it an advantage on the mound. Every scuff, cut, or glob of Vaseline, every topspin curveball and wobbling knuckleball: each alters the physical forces that control the ball's fate to fool the batter. From legal pitches to illegal "foreign substances" and natural scuff marks, pitchers win or lose based on their ability to rule the baseball's 60-foot flight path from pitching rubber to home plate principally by controlling one crucial condition: spin.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I did update the wording of the edit to say that there was “new information” rather than the first paragraph not being accurate. Amf07 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
A news paper article is not a scientific source. The one I provided to you is. Amf07 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I added the link to what I inserted. I’m not sure if that’s the documentation you are looking for? Amf07 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Amf07, we use reliable sources, which include newspapers. Even though they are not scientific sources. I do not know what baseballaero.com is, or if what it includes is reliable. Please read WP:RS, including WP:SCHOLARSHIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
You obviously are more concerned with protecting your contribution than with presenting the most accurate information. I gave you the link. I don’t care who adds the info to Wikipedia. I’m just interested in reducing misinformation, which is what is currently being displayed. Amf07 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, from WP:SCHOLARSHIP, “…a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.” Read the article I provided. Amf07 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article from the Milwaukee Journal is nothing more than a statement of the writer’s opinion. It does not cite or refer to any research. The article from baseballsero.com does. Amf07 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me, that should have been, baseballaero.com. Amf07 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
