Changes

I'm sorry if some of this is covered above, but I haven't read through all of the comments, as there's an awful lot of them. I have a question about what constitues an expert, especially in the sports section. Don Larsen, a starting pitcher for the Yankees in the World Series, seems like as much of an expert as one can get in that field. Sure, he's not as well known as Sandy Koufax or Cy Young, but he's hardly an amateur. Likewise Tom Brady. Yeah, he was second string, as most quarterbacks are in their early careers, and if experts "undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts" then I can't see how playing football for a major college team doesn't qualify. Just because he wasn't a star from the get-go like Peyton Manning was, I don't see how his training and career in the NFL make him much different than any other player, except that his talents weren't recognized early on. If they had been, would that have somehow made him an expert? Above Einstein was dismissed because it was "potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"" I think the same could be said for Tom Brady today. The Dallas Mavericks too. They may not have had as well known players as the Lakers, but these are guys who had been playing professional basketball for years, earning millions of dollars doing so, and surely basketball had been the focus of most of their efforts in college. I'm not sure simply being an underdog can necessarily make one the best of the public rather than an expert, especially when their backgrounds are nearly identical. The musician section is also somewhat confusing. I don't see what sets some of these one hit wonders apart from other musicians in their expertise. If they had no formal musical training then I guess that would qualify them, but that's true of many (perhaps most) contemporary popular musicians. Lennon and McCartney had little, if any, formal training, they just had the basic talent to write and perform popular music. The only bands or musicians that would seem to fit the article's definition of "expert" would be ones who attended Julliard or something, or at least studied music performance or composition at some higher level. Outside of classical music, that's probably very few in this day and age, and I don't see what warrants a mention of someone like Johnny Nash over just about any other more successful musicians. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:08, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I'm sorry if some of this is covered above, but I haven't read through all of the comments, as there's an awful lot of them. I have a question about what constitues an expert, especially in the sports section. Don Larsen, a starting pitcher for the Yankees in the World Series, seems like as much of an expert as one can get in that field. Sure, he's not as well known as Sandy Koufax or Cy Young, but he's hardly an amateur. Likewise Tom Brady. Yeah, he was second string, as most quarterbacks are in their early careers, and if experts "undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts" then I can't see how playing football for a major college team doesn't qualify. Just because he wasn't a star from the get-go like Peyton Manning was, I don't see how his training and career in the NFL make him much different than any other player, except that his talents weren't recognized early on. If they had been, would that have somehow made him an expert? Above Einstein was dismissed because it was "potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"" I think the same could be said for Tom Brady today. The Dallas Mavericks too. They may not have had as well known players as the Lakers, but these are guys who had been playing professional basketball for years, earning millions of dollars doing so, and surely basketball had been the focus of most of their efforts in college. I'm not sure simply being an underdog can necessarily make one the best of the public rather than an expert, especially when their backgrounds are nearly identical. The musician section is also somewhat confusing. I don't see what sets some of these one hit wonders apart from other musicians in their expertise. If they had no formal musical training then I guess that would qualify them, but that's true of many (perhaps most) contemporary popular musicians. Lennon and McCartney had little, if any, formal training, they just had the basic talent to write and perform popular music. The only bands or musicians that would seem to fit the article's definition of "expert" would be ones who attended Julliard or something, or at least studied music performance or composition at some higher level. Outside of classical music, that's probably very few in this day and age, and I don't see what warrants a mention of someone like Johnny Nash over just about any other more successful musicians. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:08, 3 March 2012 (EST)