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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling 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.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles
Most of the citations on this page come from Patterson's own books, and the tone of some of the passages seems to be almost an advertisement for what a great gambling expert he is. It doesn't sound very NPOV to me, in other words. Does anyone have better citations for this or ideas for how to rephrase the page to sound like less of a fan page and more like an encyclopedia article? Rray 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TARGET is considered a fraud by every BJ expert. I literally cannot think of any respected author that believes otherwise. It's just one of a thousand phony systems. In this case betting based on how full ashtrays and chip trays are. But how does one come up with references showing the problems with a strategy that most everyone thinks too laughable to discuss? I can point you to http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/card_clumping.html. But, I wrote it:-) There is a reference at http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/T.htm stating that it is controversial, not recommended and that two of Patterson's instructors sold their franchises rather than teach this method. I know this to be true. Basically, the article is just an ad for an unscientific gambling system. Objective3000 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could re-add the information above to the article using appropriate language and citations, you know. :) Rray 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be polite with a general statement as opposed to starting a flame war. I was aready threatended for the blackjack-scams article. TARGET is 24 years old. In all that time, the only independent source to lend it any credibility is this article.:-) An encyclopedia can't be the sole independent source. As is true with all gambling systems (or theories in general,) the proponents carry the burden of proof. That is, it seems odd that a citation is required to indicate a negative. There is no citation other than the author's own books that the system works. I'm also having trouble with the concept of a Wiki reference. For example, there's site blackjack-hero. It's just somebody that looked people up on the 'Net, copied commonly known info onto his site and then sprinkled links throughout Wikipedia to his online casino affiliate site. But his site has no authority. I pulled one reference as I thought it silly. It immediately was reinstated. I then saw in the "Blackjack" discussion that it had been pulled before and reinstated as a legitimate ref. But how is it any more a legitimate ref than an idle comment in someone's diary:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that easy to find sources that say that TARGET has no credibility, then why would it be a problem for you to include a reference in your statement? I'm not being confrontational or rude; I just don't understand why it would be a problem for you to include a citation for such a thing. You obviously have the citations because you linked to them from the talk page here. Including a legitimate citation for a change you made to an article is one of the easiest ways to avoid a flame war.
Whether a statement indicates a negative or a positive doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a reference should be included. A statement that discredits someone else's work as being bogus certainly demands a citation, because it's an attempt to discredit someone's work and comes close to being an expression of a point of view or original research.
Also, can we agree to keep discussions of references in the "Blackjack" article on the discussion page for the blackjack article? I also don't know what you're talking about when you say that you were "threatened" for the blackjack-scams article", but it doesn't really seem to have any relevance to whether or not you should include an appropriate citation in your addition to this article.Rray 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you seem to have misunderstood my 1st entry on this talk page. I think it's *bad* that most of the references in this article come directly from Patterson's own books, and I was hoping that someone more familiar with the subject (like you seem to be) might help clean it up. Rray 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. It's easy for me to include a reference to blackjack-scams. But, that doesn't avoid a flame war since I am the author of blackjack-scams:) And the "threat" was for writing the blackjack-scams article. I also don't want to get into the habit of linking to my own sites as I see what I believe are some large abuses of this practice on various BJ related pages.
I may have misunderstood your comment. It looked as though you were asking for a citation for my statement and said it would be removed.
I'm not trying to be snide; but it's hard to see how one would "clean up" an article which is realy just an ad.
I appreciate your comments and efforts. This is a sticky wicket. Or sticky wiki. Objective3000 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I did say that your particular addition to the article should have a citation, but I can add citations as easily as you can, I guess. :) Rray 18:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
