Talk:Frank Scoblete

External links

I would appreciate that if there are disagreements about the content of this article, that concerns be brought up at the talkpage. For example, what exactly are the issues about the external links? --Elonka 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, please review WP:AUTO. Self-written sources are allowable, in articles about the subject. --Elonka 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO does not apply here, unless you are Frank Scoblete, in which case you should stop editing the article now. However, since the claim of date of publishing is not contentious, yes the self-published source in this case would be okay. As for external links, the edit notes make the point clear, do not add link violating WP:EL (a blog), or that are just duplicates of each other (the sites with the same list of articles available on the official site). And in the future, before readding content that has been removed with an edit note, start a discussion here, don't just waste everybody's time by readding it. 2005 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance

There is a lack of balance in this article. Basically it is an advertisement. It gives the impression that he is is a respected authority in the field when in fact he is viewed with wide disdain for pushing flawed techniques and charging very large amounts for questionable seminars with claims that cannot withstand scrutiny. For example, the article states "is referred to by the Chicago Tribune as 'a widely published authority on casino games.'" The Chicago Tribune doesn't make this claim. A columnist at the Tribune that works with Scoblete made this claim. No experts that I have heard of refer to him as an authority or expert. Objective3000 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up what seemed promotional in the lead paragraph to me. Do you think that's an improvement? Rray (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That helps. The problem is that the article looks like it is about an expert in advantage play. The three books at the start of the article (Beat the Craps out of the Casinos, Golden Touch Blackjack Revolution, and Beat the One-Armed Bandits) are "voodoo" books. It's particularly disconcerting that the article may give Wiki's imprimatur to the Golden Touch scam. There is also mention of four Walter Thomason books. Thomason is a well-known author of voodoo progression systems. And there is a link to the Golden Touch Blackjack Revolution site that uses disproved sims to push a scam system. Fact is, Scoblete is just one of a thousand gambling authors that pushes easy gambling systems. Why would an encylopedia provide an enabling, uncritical article on a gambling system author and seminar operator? Objective3000 (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's notable, then he's eligible for an article, but the article should be written from a neutral point of view. Do you know of any reliable sources debunking Scoblete's stuff? Adding that information to the article would help, I think. (And if he's not notable, then we could nominate the article for deletion. I think there is probably enough third party coverage for Scoblete to be considered notable enough to have an article though.) Rray (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a problem finding articles that debunk specific voodoo systems. Experts rarely spend the time to make serious comments on such because there exist so many nonsensical gambling systems. As an Encyclopedia Brittanica article comments, every day another person invents Martingale. Rather, they just ignore such authors unless someone asks about them - in which case they just comment "junk" or some other concise comment that while accurate doesn't exactly make for a study.:) Besides that, debinking such systems commonly results in attacks against the the 'debunker.' Objective3000 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on Scoblete, but people can get articles if the meet WP:N and WP:V. In other words, we can have articles on crackpots. But such articles should state their fame and claims accurately, which is not to say debunk them, but just site reliable sources that discuss the person's notability. the head of the flat earth society could be notable, but we would not refer to him as a charlatan, nor state his views as fact. 2005 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the reasoning for removing the sourced information from this article? If a columnist in the Chicago Tribune called him an expert, then that's verifiable. I see also that someone removed Scoblete's documentary. But it's verifiable that Scoblete wrote and appeared in the "What Would You Do If" program. This information should go back into the article. If there's sourced criticism on him, then that should go in too, but it's not appropriate to remove properly sourced information, especially if it's clearly related to his notability. --Elonka 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the reference? I Googled Chicago Tribune and Scoblete and found nothing except the Wiki article itself. Well, I did find something on www.gamingfloor.com, the casino trade and industry site. It suggested that casinos send taxis for the readers of Golden Touch Blackjack.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everything is on Google. The source was properly cited, right on the page.[1] Multiple sources appear to have been removed, as well as legitimate biographical information, also properly sourced. I recommend adding all of it back, unless there is a legitimate challenge to any of it. --Elonka 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It read like promotional material. Just because there's a source doesn't mean we should include promotional language. Rray (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to remove promotional material, and another to remove a valid quote from a legitimate news source, especially when that quote is directly related to the subject's notability. If you don't like the way that things are worded, you can definitely change them, but simple wholesale removal of valid sources seems uncalled for. Your edits also removed simple biographical information such as where he grew up and attended school. Why do you feel that all this information is inappropriate? --Elonka 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re-edit it. Rray (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. I also added another source (the Travel Channel documentary). If you still feel that anything is too peacocky, feel free to edit further. And if you see something that you would like to challenge, which doesn't have a source, go ahead and add a {{fact}} tag next to it. Then if no one else can produce a reliable source within a reasonable amount of time, we can delete the information from the article. But I think everything there is pretty well-sourced at this point. --Elonka 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with the fact tag. Rray (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it's worse. The article makes it sound like you should run right out and pay $895 for a seminar and learn from an expert in counting when in fact his methodology is disproved. This is an advertisement for a scam. Objective3000 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bit overstating the case. Do you have any constructive advice? What would you like to see changed? You say his methodology is disproved, what are you basing this on? If there is published criticism in reliable sources, we can by all means include it. Our goal here is to provide a neutral description of Scoblete. We are trying to neither promote him nor denigrate him, we just want to cover the subject in a neutral manner. --Elonka 11:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not close to NPOV. I'd run out and pay for his seminars if this were my only source.:) I'm afraid I have never been able to understand what is considered a 'reliable source' here. You are using fluff pieces in newspapers by people that have zero background in the field as reliable sources. Since it is in an 'encyclopedia' the 'reliability' of these source are somehow given credence. It's circular referencing. Would an encyclopedia use as a reference in an article on quantum mechanics a fluff piece written by someone with no background in physics? The "Golden Touch Revolution" has been widely panned in the AP forums. But these do not make for good sources either. No one is going to bother writing an article on yet another of the thousands of gambling scams. Objective3000 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing the word 'advanced' helped slightly. I tried to remove it myself -- but it wasn't there.:) Objective3000 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reread this article and IMO it still looks like an advertisement -- not what you would like to see in an encyclopedia. For example, the entire section “Contributed Works” neglects to mention that he is the publisher of all of these works. Of course he “contributed,” by adding ‘salesy’ forewords, since he published them.

The “Winning Strategy series” is echoed without comment or disclaimer even though they are just one group of thousands of series of bad “gambling systems.”

The statement “was referred to by the Chicago Tribune as a widely published authority on casino games" is of little value. The Tribune did not make this statement. A columnist said this. Is the NYTimes responsible for the content of its op-ed articles?

Do what you wish. But I can see people reading his advertisements with wild claims of easy riches, looking to Wikipedia for confirmation, and finding it. Wiki is giving credence to scam seminars without any disclaimers, warnings or even slight critical examination. An article that only shows one side in an area that can cause financial harm can be dangerous. IMO Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have double-checked the Chicago Tribune article. It was not an opinion of a columnist, it was a legitimate news story that appeared in the "News" section of the Chicago Tribune, on page 1, May 3, 2003, in the context of an article about Ex-education Secretary William Bennett, who reportedly had a gambling problem: "Advocate of virtues is big-stakes gambler - Ex-Education Secretary William Bennett, who built a fortune off rectitude, reportedly has plugged millions into video poker and slot machines". The story was evidently written by David von Drehle, staff writer for the Washington Post, where the story appeared on page A4. If you can access NewsBank (like via your local library's website), feel free to check it yourself. If you search on "Frank Scoblete" + "authority" you can also find several other major newspapers that were covering the Bennett story, who also listed a quote from Scoblete and referred to him as an authority. I can provide detailed citations if needed.

Also, just a note of advice, Objective3000, in regards this source,[2] are you saying that you are xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx? If so, you might want to mention that on your userpage, as well as some information about yourself. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to disagree with you about whether or not Scoblete is a controversial figure, I am just saying that here on Wikipedia, we have to stick to what the sources actually say. You seem to be a writer, so, feel free to write an article "debunking" Scoblete and/or his systems, get it published, and then we may be able to use that article as a source to provide a counter-opinion here at the Wikipedia article. Or, find an article that someone else has written, and then we can source that. But we can't use message boards or blogs for this kind of material, we need something formally published, in a reliable source. Especially because it would be negative information about a living person. See our policy on biographies of living people. --Elonka 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is orifiginally a Post article, it should be cited as such. Offline sources are generally more dubious. The line looks like it should be deleted if this is the best cite, since whether itthey said it or not is not notable in itself. I don't have much to say about this article, except exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 2005 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the cite, and also did some other copyediting per the above comments, at least the ones that were verifiable. I can't see how a citation in the Washington Post article was "dubious", but you're welcome to bring it up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you would like to get more opinions. --Elonka 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An offline cite is obviously always questionable. One that is not cited itself anywhere else is also by definition a not very notable claim. Having to run down to the library to verify a claim of expertise is not exactly what we are looking for in cites in general. 2005 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting viewpoint about sources, and libraries. Care to link to a policy or guideline which says that, that print sources are not as valuable as online? My understanding is that per WP:V, that the most valued sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, of which the Washington Post would seem to be a very high-quality example. --Elonka 07:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't troll by being obtuse. It just lowers your credibility. 2005 (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up while I’m behind. This article now sounds like Frank is the greatest expert to have lived. When in fact he sells scams. The article tarnishes WP and will cost people money. As for writing an outside "debunking" article on the subject – you know not what you ask. Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have proof that he sells scams, please provide it. Otherwise some of the above comments should probably be deleted as they are unsourced negative comments about a living person, which are a violation of Wikipedia's policy. --Elonka 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I and several others have proved this in many posts to forums over years. Unfortunately, it appears that posts in expert forums are not considered reliable sources by WP; while newspaper articles written by people with no knowledge of the field are.:) Delete it if you wish. But this will leave the article praising as an expert someone that publishes progression systems bought by unwitting gamblers. Objective3000 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review these expert forums, if you could please provide a link? Was the "scam" proof made by someone notable? Most experts in the field also publish, it would seem a simple thing to be able to cite one of their books or articles. For example, we could add something to this article about how dice control was a controversial practice, and link it to something like this.[3] Would that help address your concerns? --Elonka 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, there’s the rub. I am trying hard to stay within the WP rules. And I understand their purpose. But what WP considers a ‘notable’ person does not make sense in niche areas. For example, John Patrick would be considered a ‘notable’ person by WP standards since he has published scores of books and CDs and has had at least two TV shows. But, his advice is considered laughable by everyone with any concept of probability. He is a gambler, not a mathematician. Has anyone written an article disproving his books? I doubt it. Why would a mathematician take the time to publish an article about one of the huge number of pushers of clearly absurd gambling strategies? Take Walter Thomason. He has written a few books and has been quoted as an expert in many articles, including the Chicago Sun-Times, as an expert. His books are mentioned in the Scoblete WP article. But his books are published by Frank and the columnist for the Sun-Times is a part of Frank’s organization and his books push an absurd progression system that Frank himself privately told me does not work and that he has told Walter doesn’t work. Anyone with a knowledge of probability would agree. Nonetheless, WP would consider him notable and he is mentioned several times in the Scoblete article as a supporting part of his credibility. I know a great deal of effort has gone into the construction of WP rules. But, they are not working in the gambling area since the vast number of WP-defined ‘notable’ people are less than good sources. But, thank you for the suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again don't confuse notability for an article with "expert" or even "sane". Crackpots can have articles, if they have achieved a level of notoriety. Scoblete has achieved notability, that doesn't mean his ideas are right. It does mean however that this article should not state things promotionaly or deceptively. For example the laundry list of books is extremely deceptive if they are all self-published. If they are (I don't know), the laundry list should be replaced with a sentence saying Scoblete has self-published more than a dozen books on gambling. 2005 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here's a link to an article on the strategy in one of the books mentioned in the Scoblete article: http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html. Objective3000 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a commercial site, not widely known, a reliable source? Bearian (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why are there dozens of cites from online casino affiliate sites in WP? As for BJ-scams, it is not now nor never will be a commercial site. Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a commercial site that isn't widely known a reliable source. The comment says nothing. Commerciality is 100% irrelevant to reliable soutcing. The Washington Post is as commercial as it gets, but it is considered a reliable source. How well known to the general public is also totally irrelevant. What is important with reliable sources is how they are cited by other reliable sources. I have not looked at the site mentioned above, but it's reliability is subject to WP:V, not either of the concepts you mentioned. 2005 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not suggesting that the link be added anyhow. In fact, I'd delete it if added. Objective3000 (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. Jimbo speaketh. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And? This article is currently a mess of BLP issues. No one has suggested addign derogatory material about Scoblete, so Jimbo's comment has nothing to do with the discussion. Let's stay focused, please. The issue is adding reliably sourced material that states some experts consider Scoblete's theories/ideas/systems to be mathematically and otherwise flawed. If such reliable sources exist, they can and should be added. If they don't, then of course they won't be. 2005 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A few years back, someone I’d never heard of asked me to analyze his new system for him. I did, for free, and told him the problems with the system. Over the next six or so months, he was abusive, threatening and libelous. I swore I’d never again analyze a stranger’s strategy. No one is going to write a paper on any of the thousands of phony gambling systems. It’s like debating a person’s religion. Which makes for a paucity of ‘reliably sourced material.’ Objective3000 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Referred to by papers such as...

The lead now seems vague and misleading where it says that he is referred to as a casino gambling expert by multiple papers. Which papers? Where's the citation? Even with sourcing included, it's promotional language, and it doesn't seem appropriate in the lead. Objective3000 is right - the article is worse now than before. (That clause is also written in the passive voice, which is just weak writing.) Rray (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frank Scoblete. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060827051858/http://info.detnews.com:80/casino/newdetails.cfm?column=grochowski&myrec=162 to http://info.detnews.com/casino/newdetails.cfm?column=grochowski&myrec=162

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)