Talk:Court of Master Sommeliers

I am just starting this page and it is a stub, any contributions are welcome User:Firebuild (talk)

Naming the proctor in the cheating scandal
We can't name the proctor yet. The one article which names him from winesearcher.com is not credible, it is rumor. The Houston Chronicle source takes their info from the Wine Searcher article. First, CMS has not made any official announcement. Until they make the announcement, it isn't official. Second, Wine Searcher is not a credible, journalistic source. Third and most important, Wine Searcher says they are basing this rumor on the "fact" that the proctor's name has been removed from the CMS website. This is false. Look at the website. The proctor in question is still listed as both a member and on the Board of Directors.

Once the name is confirmed by a credible source which is not based on Wine Searcher's rumor, it is not fit to be posted. DFS (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the user who edited this article has already deleted the user account. Very fishy. DFS (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You may want to double check your facts. Reggie Narito's name has been stricken from the Court's website: http://www.courtofmastersommeliers.org/members/#2005


 * Thanks. His name was there when I posted these comments three days ago. Since then, the website has undergone a complete redesign, which has included removing his name. Regardless, until CMS makes an official announcement, any sources who name him as the expelled member are based upon rumor and conjecture. DFS (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting off the cheating scandal section
It was pointed out to me by an otherwise appreciative fellow editor earlier this week that my recent expansion of the section on the cheating scandal now gives it undue weight within the article, since it is now by far the largest section. He suggested that I either comment most of it out until such time as other sections of the article can be commensurately expanded, or actually undertake such expansion myself.

Both are, of course, perfectly adequate ways of dealing with the problem; I generally prefer to expand as the idea of commenting out a section, especially one that goes into the level of detail this one does about such a controversial episode, is rather a Procrustean bed solution in my estimation. But in this case I really don't have the time or inclination to research the other sections of the article enough to expand them equivalently ... I mean, I could see adding some of the criticisms of the exam and how to improve it that have come out of the cheating scandal to that section, but I still don't think that would really satisfy policy.

Instead, I counterproposed to this editor that we split this section of the article off on its own. I believe this is justified in that:


 * there are more than enough sources to sustain the cheating scandal as having stand-alone notability, and
 * it has proven a subject of continuing interest, as evidenced most recently by the Vice article a few weeks ago, which had brought this whole thing to my attention (you don't usually see "wine", "cheating" and "mysterious" together in a headline, let me just say), and disclosed that there might indeed have been an earlier cheating incident the Court may have been trying to keep the public from knowing about.

Any further thoughts? If there are no objections, I will split this off in a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK ... I think we're good. Will start the split soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, very thoughtful. Somehow missed this post until now. Unfortunate not to receive more input in general - tt's apparent there isn't much activity on wine articles these days... ɱ  (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also been meaning to reply on my talk page, sometimes dozens of tabs open means things get lost (!) ɱ  (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"President Emeritus" title invalid?
George Basset is dead, so should his "emeritus" title be removed? On the wiki page for the title of "emeritus," it is noted that such a title is not to be used for the deceased. Sidotl (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)