Talk:Ferret-legging/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This is not a good article according to the criteria at Wikipedia:WIAGA.

• Is is not factually accurate and verifiable. Most of the citations are to print sources which are not available. One could take them in good faith, but given the controversial (see Talk:Ferret_legging) veracity of the subject it is inadequate. Furthermore, the entire premise of the article is that it is describing a "sport" when this is clearly not a sport. A sport is an activity based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity. This is a stunt.
• It does not contain pictures backing it up.

--Cornellier (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those are reasons to delist an article. If you don't think a source represents the article accurately then you can ask someone to verify it for you. If you can't access the source then you do need to accept it on good faith. Pictures are not required for a good srticle. In fact if no free ones exist then it is better to have none. AIRcorn (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the Good_article_criteria a good article is "illustrated, if possible, by images" the topic Ferret legging is not illustrated by the images in the article. --Cornellier (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a free picture of ferret legging then by all means go ahead and add it. Theleftorium ^(talk) 00:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sources are not required to be online. The term sport is quite acceptable here as the competitive element makes stunt less suitable as a term. The article contains a picture. The article should retain its GA status. Warden (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say sources are "required to be online". I said "most of the citations are to print sources ... given the controversial (see Talk:Ferret_legging) veracity of the subject it is inadequate". Re. "sport", You're saying it's a sport in the sense that chess or bridges are sports? Well then where is the governing set of rules or customs? The article asserts that there is (or was) a world champion and there is a world record. What governing body is declaring this? Regarding the picture, it does not illustrate "ferret legging". If you look up Horse racing you expect, and do see pictures of horse racing, not just horses. --Cornellier (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pictures are supposed to be "relevant" and the current picture seems adequate in this regard. As for the status of the sport, the article states that it is just occasional now and so we should not expect an elaborate bureaucracy. The article seems to accurately describe the status of the sport by saying, for example, 'ferret legging has been described as a "dying sport"'. Warden (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Completely ridiculous reasons for de-listing this article. The sources can be found using NewsBank, Highbeam, etc. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The first five refs in the article are to "Fox, James G. (1998). Biology and Diseases of the Ferret (2 ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins." It is not found in NewsBank or Highbeam. I haven't checked the others yet. --Cornellier (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered checking a library? You know, one of those buildings full of books? Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Only the "The Cambridge Guide to Theatre" (in a different edition) is available. The other four books mentioned in the bibliography and used as references are not there. The various regional newspapers referenced are not there either. --Cornellier (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So what? From memory there's an earlier edition of Fox available somewhere on the Internet, but you appear to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources. If that's your position then we might as well cut to the chase and address that issue. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your first statement "so what?", I was replying to your suggestion that I check "one of those buildings full of books". In answer to your second statement, no one is questioning whether the printed references exist. I'm stating that given the comments on the talk page, the article should have more recent references. That is what I said in the first bullet point above. The whole pretext of the article is that there is a "sport" called ferret legging that has a standing "world record" and a "national ferret legging event". Who's organizing this? Who's practising this? Where's the governing body? How many actual "athletes" can be named? I think there are two in the article. The article is misrepresenting the current situation. For there to be a "world record" there has to be a world championship or some kind. For there to be a "national" event, it has to have participants from across the country. The article needs references to back that up. --Cornellier (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we come full circle. That you find yourself unable to check the sources is your problem, not mine or anyone else's, and your obsession with this "sport" tag" is simply idiotic. To which I would add that your repeated attacks on the veracity of this article are grossly insulting. I would offer to forward on to you any source that you doubt, but clearly you would simply go on to accuse me of fabricating it, so there would be little point. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No Malleaus Fatuuoruam, we do not come full circle. Let's take each of your points one by one. "That you find yourself unable to check the sources is your problem, not mine or anyone else's". Please see above. The problem with the article is its disjoint with current reality. Please address the problem as related above. Your next remark "...is simply idiotic" needs no further comment here. Then you say "your repeated attacks on the veracity of this article are grossly insulting". I'm sorry if you take it personally. I am simply trying to improve wikipedia, using agreed procedures. You then go on to say that you "would offer to forward on to you any source that you doubt, but clearly you would simply go on to accuse me of fabricating it". Where did I say anything was fabricated? What I said was that more recent references were needed. Please reframe this remark in a way that relates to the way things are done at Wikipedia. Your next remark is that you're insulted. Sorry about that. --Cornellier (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say on Wikipedia. Theleftorium ^(talk) 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate your statement so I may respond to it. Which "thing" is the most "idiotic"? --Cornellier (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You said the book Biology and Diseases of the Ferret wasn't available on Newsbank or Highbeam, and of course it isn't - it's a book not a news article. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cornellier does not understand GA criteria, and the nomination is meritless. I would not object to an administrator closing this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• T'nom sh'u'd geeoer flumoxing t'article 'nd use gumption 'stead o' blethering. Happen WP:RX for The Times Wednesday, Dec 31, 1980; pg. 2; Issue 60814; col G or happen WP:RX for The Times, Thursday, Mar 31, 1983; pg. 12; Issue 61495; col A? --Senra (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comment Senra. I'm not sure if this is a joke or obfuscation but I don't find it immediately helpful to the discussion here. Perhaps you could make your remarks in the language of this wikipedia? --Cornellier (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome Cornellier. It was not a joke though it was my light hearted attempt to make you see sense using a perfectly valid dialect of English. In any case, I had provided a translation. I find the apparent unwillingness of editors to broaden their outlook on this encyclopaedia rather sad. Ferret legging is no more weirder than dyke jumping, cheese rolling, bog snorkelling, cow racing, purring or rabbit show jumping --Senra (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the obsession with "civility" here I'm amazed that Cornellier has been allowed to get away with this attack on my integrity. Maybe it's just payback time for something or other. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cornellier, I am not sure if you just live in one of those countries that doesn't have access to this stuff, but I managed to garner plenty of credible free online sources in a brief search: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Now then, scoot along.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, thanks for searching Google for me. However, it's something I could have done myself, as I do not, as you suppose "live in one of those countries that doesn't have access to this stuff". As for the links provided, please read my comments above, which I will copy and paste since they have not yet had a response: " no one is questioning whether the printed references exist. I'm stating that given the comments on the talk page, the article should have more recent references. That is what I said in the first bullet point above. The whole pretext of the article is that there is a "sport" called ferret legging that has a standing "world record" and a "national ferret legging event". Who's organizing this? Who's practising this? Where's the governing body? How many actual "athletes" can be named? I think there are two in the article. The article is misrepresenting the current situation. For there to be a "world record" there has to be a world championship or some kind. For there to be a "national" event, it has to have participants from across the country. The article needs references to back that up. " If you could provide any information regarding the above, the wikipedia would be a better place. --Cornellier (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Is is not factually accurate and verifiable." - please present sources that verify your claim this article isn't factually accurate.
• "Most of the citations are to print sources which are not available." - since someone read them and included them here, they clearly are available.
• "Furthermore, the entire premise of the article is that it is describing a "sport" when this is clearly not a sport. A sport is an activity based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity." - so Chess isn't a sport? Parrot of Doom 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• From what I've been drawn to see, it is clear to me that this reassessment is way out of process. So much so that I don't even want to start writing; it would definitely be tl;dr. Cornellier, regardless of how you mistakenly thought your conduct was wiki-appropriate, you should see yourself that you are mistaken about your rationale for this reassessment; and you should withdraw it. I hope you are reasonable enough to see this; --My76Strat (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• This needs a speedy close or something like it. In summary: a. there is no requirement that sources (any sources) be available online; plenty of print sources are available and it appears (see Devil's Advocate's comments) that online sources actually are available; moreover, the objection that more "recent" sources should be required for an apparently controversial subject holds no water since sources are plenty recent and the topic plenty non-controversial. b. there is no requirement that the article have an image illustrating the subject. c. whether this is or isn't a sport is an irrelevant question. Why wouldn't it be a sport? Chess boxing is called a sport, as is American football, and arm wrestling. In some circles, masturbation is a sport, and competitive eating. One questions the good faith of the editor in listing this: what venues are offered to improve the article, which is the primary objective of WP:GAR? Drmies (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the recap, although I will disagree slightly on the last point, the prime objective of GAR is to assess whether the article still meets the criteria. Improvements are just a byproduct of that. In this case, where the article clearly meets the requirements then no improvement is necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." Drmies (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cornellier, I think it is obvious that there is no support for your delisting. Drmies has accurately summed up the GA position regarding the three reasons with which you are suggesting that this should be delisted. Either way it is safe to say that the changes you are asking for are not going to happen through this process. As the person who opened the reassessment it is your job to close it. You can either keep it or delist it. I should warn you that if you do decide to delist it then I will be starting a community GAR, which will then be closed by consensus. The consensus here is obvious so I have no doubt how that one will be closed. It would save everyone a lot of time and reflect better on you if you just closed this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello aircorn, thanks for your remarks and advice. You're right, there is not a consensus here, and Wikipedia is consensus-based. I respect that. But the core problem with the article is not actually being addressed by anyone on this page. The problem? The whole pretext of the article is that there is a "sport" called ferret legging that has a standing "world record" and a "national ferret legging event". Who's organizing this? Who's practising this? Where's the governing body? Where's the website? Where are the rules published? When is the next scheduled event? How many actual "athletes" can be named? Two? For there to be a "world record" there has to be a world championship or some kind. For there to be a "national" event, it has to have participants from across the country. Someone mentioned comparing it to bog snorkelling. OK fair enough, let's compare. Following are what make bog snorkelling a legitimate current event or sport: it has regular scheduled events, it has a long list of named participants, it has lists of results, BBC is reporting on it, www.irishbogsnorkelling.com exists. Ferret legging has none of these. Pretty much the same can be said about cheese rolling. It has a link to the official event website. Ferret legging has none of this. If I Google "ferret legging" I see that the very top link on the page is to a UK Daily Telegraph article which begins with "A retired headmaster has come up with a novel idea for fund-raising by resurrecting a sport in which ferrets are placed down competitors' trousers." It says resurrecting, people! You can't resurrect something that's not dead. Compared to bog snorkelling and cheese rolling, ferret legging is not a current "sport", but the article says it is. At a minimum the whole article should be changed to the past tense. I would request that editors try to keep the tone civil and actually respond to what is in this paragraph. Let's just try to stick to the facts please. --Cornellier (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cornellier: "Let's just try to stick to the facts please"? Please check your facts before making wild comparisons. Cheese rolling may not be a "current sport" as you assert --Senra (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your contentions are valid. I just believe you skipped too many basic editing techniques that would be more appropriate, and likely more fruitful. Placing a {{cn}} tag and discussing your position on the article talk page for an obvious example. Withdraw the wp:gar and let's discuss the merits of your contention on the article talk page. --My76Strat (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass Cornellier. Time for a bit of honesty from you, not all this shifting your ground. Do you remember what honesty is? Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Frogportion (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cornellier, are you completely ignoring the following part of the article?

"According to a 2005 report published in the English Northern Echo newspaper, whether due to a "lack of brave contestants or complaining wives", ferret legging is now "a dying sport" that is being replaced by ferret racing, in which the animals race through a plastic pipe.[8] Although the sport is now uncommon,[11] annual competitions have been held at the Richmond Highland Games & Celtic Festival in Richmond, Virginia since 2003.[13][39][40][41][42][dead link] In 2007, the Manitoba Ferret Association held a ferret legging competition in St. Vital Park, Winnipeg, to raise money in support of the organization's shelter for homeless ferrets.[43]"

Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting. If the nom has a problem with the term 'sport' a separate thread on the talk page can address the concern. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the article, kudos to the editors who wrote it. J04n(talk page) 15:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting; pictures are not a requirement for GA and the sourcing looks fine. --John (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. Cornellier, just because the competitions are not very organised and there is no governing national body does not mean that the practise does not qualify for the term "sport". There's plenty of sports that aren't very organised; skateboarding springs to mind; there's competitions and national-level events but I was unable to find any evidence of a national organisation or governing body here in Canada. Not surprising, as trying to organise skateboarders would be like trying to herd cats, ha ha. Regardless, if the sources call ferret legging a "sport", then the article can and should as well (spot checks reveal that at least some of them use the term). It's not our own opinion of the activity that should be reflected in the article, but what the sources have to say. - Dianna (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. There is a disconnect between the assertions being made by the nominator that this is not a sport and what I see in the article where multiple reliable sources conclusively and clearly call this a sport. I don't think we can second-guess reliable sources. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.