[WikiEN-l] An alternative to "critics"

[Steve Bennett]

On 7/31/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Potentially libelous statement?  Check.  Unsourced?  Check.

Lol. Here's the original quote (actually from [[Underarm bowling]], I
was confused):

*The match had earlier controversy: in the Australian innings, Martin
Snedden took a spectacular low outfield catch off the batting of Greg
Chappell. It was disallowed by the umpires, although TV replays
clearly showed it was a clean catch. Some commentators believed
Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good.

Arguing that a player should have accepted another's word is
definitely not libellous. In cricket, it's a question of honour or
moral or whatever you want to call it: refusing to take a player's
word for a catch and letting the umpire decide is perfectly legal and
the most common situation.

> No, "better" is not better than "best", when you're talking about an
> unsourced statement like that.  The proper solution is deletion unless
> and until a source can be attributed with the statement.

That's going too far. For a genuinely "libellous" statement, sure. But
not that one.

Steve