Talk:Card sharp

message: The link to the movie "Shazame" goes to the conventional defintion of "shade", not the movie.
:No need to be one with stuff like this, just fix it. It is fixed now, so I'm marking this with . — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad link

message: Merriam-Webster,Yahoo's dictionary, and Dictionary.com all have this listed as one word, not two. I think it should be changed. Anybody disagree? The previous unsigned comment was posted by , 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two words Word Reference, Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, the Yahoo dictionary doesn't even have a definition for "card games".  So It seems a case can be made either way. Cardsharp currently redirects to another article for a painting, so it seems what is best is to leave this article as it is, and put a disambig page at cardsharp which will link to this article and the article for the painting. 2005 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not two words 

message: The separate Card shark article, totally unsourced, is simply flat out incorrect that these two terms are different and have exclusive meanings. There certainly are two meanings, but both terms share them.
"Card shark" is simply a colloquial, and non-notable variant of "card sharp" (though "shark" by itself predates such usage of "sharp"). The terms are synonymous and have been for a very long time.  "Shark" in the sense of "parasite", "one who preys upon others" — gives only the negative meaning for both "shark" and "sharp" (the origin of the name for the animal rather than vice-versa, according to the majority of etymological sources, with a few considering the matter indeterminate) has been used (along with the now-archaic "sharker") to mean "cheat" or "swindler" (not "skilled person") since the late 16th century (with "sharker" appearing slightly sooner than "shark" as a noun (a shortening process mirrored in other nouns, e.g. "cheat" and "fraud" as labels for people). — gives the negative meaning only, for both — gives both meanings for both, explicitly says they are synonymous in this context, that the positive sense of "shark" arose much later than the negative meaning, and later than it did for "sharp", and most importantly of all that the principal modern definition of "sharp" is "an expert especially at card games; pro", while the principal definition of "shark" is "hustler", i.e. "swindler"; this inverts the relationship propounded by the less deeply-researched Webster's New World Dictionary and Webster's II cited elsewhere  After the fish became widely known, "shark" as a human-directed epithet took on renewed and even more negative life in the early 18th c., as term for thieves such as pickpockets.  By the early 20th c. it retained its negative meaning, and began appearing in compound terms such as "loan shark". Contrariwise, "shark" also began taking on gaming-unrelated positive senses in the early 20th c. as a college slang term (for "good student who does not have to study hard"), but the "expert"/"ace" sense was not common in general parlance until the 1920s–1930s.  As we will see below, "shark" actually inherited or borrowed this sense from "sharp", which had already obtained it approximately 70–80 years earlier (while also not losing its negative sense)!
"Sharp" or "sharper" is simply a 17th c. variant (among others, including the 16th–17th c. "shirk" and the noun form "shirker", the meaning of which shifted over time to "malingerer"/"loiterer" and eventually to the Modern English meaning "one who avoids obligations or work").  "Sharker" led to the noun "sharper" and necessarily the back-formed adjective "sharp" by the late 17th c. (possibly the 16th c., by which time the verb variant "to sharp" was already in use). "Sharp" as a shortened noun arose in the late 18th c., and interestingly was already in wide use and taking on the positive definition by the middle 19th c., in stark contrast to "shark", which was still an entirely negative term for most people for another 50–80 years. The positive sense of "sharp" as a noun and compounding element (e.g. in "sharpshooter") probably derives from pre-existing positive senses of the word (as in "a sharp dresser", "sharp-minded", etc.) — gives only negative meaning for "shark", and gives "sharper" as synonymous, without addressing the shorter form "sharp"
According to the prevailing etymological theory, the original "shark" derives from German Schorke/Schurke ("rogue" or "rascal") — gives only the negative meaning for both; very notably it declares that the negative verb "to sharp" is archaic — the core meaning of both "shark" and "sharp" in this context has always been "dishonest person", not "expert" or "professional", a positive connotation that is modern and still not entirely accepted. The same adding-on of a positive sense that is resisted has been happening with the term "hustler" over the last generation or so.
Dictionaries clearly demonstrate that they both retain the same two meanings, and are interchangeable (with Americans somewhat but not consistently preferring "shark" for the positive sense and "sharp" for the negative one):
 — gives both meanings for both and even for the obsolete "sharker", but only the negative meaning for "sharper"; to the extent it conflicts with other Webster dictionaries, it trumps them, since it is the unabridged version — gives both meanings for "shark", but only the negative meaning for "sharp" and "sharper", which is unusual and seemingly commonly only to some but not all Webster dictionaries — gives both meanings for "shark", and only the negative meaning for "sharp", like Webster's II but unlike Webster's Unabridged, strongly suggesting that the smaller Webster volumes simply omitted the definition to save space — gives both meanings for both — gives both meanings for both, with negative meaning being primary for both, and positive meaning labeled informal for both — gives both meanings for both, with positive meaning being primary for "sharp" but negative for "shark", in contrast to some Webster's publications, and labeling the positive meaning as slang in the case of "shark", and both of them informal in the case of "sharp" — this old dictionary, current around the time that "shark" was barely beginning to gain a positive sense, and "sharp" had already long had one, gives only the negative meaning for both
The "card shark" phrasal variant is so non-notably colloquial that it does not even appear in most dictionaries that nevertheless have an entry for "card sharp" in addition to "sharp" by itself. Of all the dictionaries I have, there is only one exception, the massive Webster's Unabridged, which provides the swindler definition for "card sharp" and both definitions for the "card shark" version, thus contradicting itself at the "sharp" entry. 
Clearly, confusion has arisen because of the joking use of these terms (e.g. "so, ya think you're quite the shark do ya?") with such frequency that both variants have acquired — again, like "hustler" — a secondary meaning of "very skilled player" in general parlance — i.e., it is a meaning generally not accepted by such players, to whom the terms retain their negative, insulting connotations, but rather by people around them like mom or their drinking buddies, less familiar with the lingo of card, billiard, etc. games, and thus less exposed to the original pejorative meaning.  Within certain disciplines, especially pool and billiards, the "shark" (but not "sharp") variation has taken on a third meaning ("to attempt to intimidate or distract one's opponent, or a player who does so", verb and noun, respectively, with swindling connotations not applying, the term for which is "hustling" in those games).  Only a handful of dictionaries that I can find provide the "skilled player" definition for "shark" without also providing it for "sharp", in particular the recent American Webster's New World and the also American Webster's II, which are quite abridged volumes.  The majority of dictionaries that provide an "expert"/"skilled person" definition at all provide it for both terms, and almost all of them provide the swindle/swindler definition for both terms.  
In summary, the overwhelming evidence is that "sharp" (and "sharper") derive from "shark" (and "sharker"), via assimilation to the pre-existing homophone "sharp" (meaning "pointy" or "cutting", and with several positive and negative figurative uses — "sharp-witted", "sharp-tongued", etc.)  In this context, "shark" and "sharp" are simply two variants of the same word, with the original meaning "swindle/swindler" or "cheat", and both have taken on the secondary meaning "skilled person at a particular activity". Meanwhile, some but not all Americans interpret "shark" to exclusively mean the latter, a view encouraged by some of the Webster's dictionaries but contradicted by multiple other American and non-American sources (including the most authoritative Webster's), even reversed by some of them, and this alleged exclusive definition is rarely if ever evidenced outside of the US, e.g. in Oxford publications.  Ergo, there is no evidence in support of a separate Card shark article. 
The creation of a separate Card shark article and assertion that the terms have different, exclusive meanings was not a gross error, simply a misunderstanding based on not doing any research. Card shark should redirect to Card sharp (the more commmon term, in contrast with "pool sharp" which is uncommon even in British English today), and the combined article must be massaged to indicate that the terms usually mean a cheater or hustler, but sometimes simply mean a skilled player. I've even provided ready-made citations in the course of providing the rationale for this merge, above.  This post can be boiled down very easily to create a whole new, pre-sourced article section on the origin of the terms (which was actually at least half of the point of the research I did for this post!)
;References
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - The two terms have different meanings. A shark is a cheater or a manipulator, and a sharp is a skilled player. That's about as distinct as it gets. Rray (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ray, 2005, this isn't a vote.  I've sourced the corrections; you haven't sourced your opinions. I'm sorry that this article's sourced facts disagree with your personal idiom.  Asserting the same argument again and again without providing evidence does not make your argument stronger, just more shrill.  You can make these "they're different terms, because I say so" arguments until the sun goes supernova, but that won't change anything.  See WP:V and WP:RS.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a vote.  You have no consensus to make an absurd change that goes against the sources I cited originally.  This is not a vote but it is not fascism by you doing anything you want just because you are willing to be rude and ignore everyone else.  After months you have ZERO support for this merge. I'm not going to play into this obvious obsession of yours because it is really and truly genuinely scary.  2005 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an admin has left you a level-3 personal attacks warning on your talk page (and another one after that!), so I won't lecture you about WP:NPA again, on the assumption that you've gotten the point by now. Anyway: This has nothing to do with my opinion. The facts provided by sources are what are required in the article, per WP:V and WP:RS.  WP:CONSENSUS is not an issue here; you and one other person do not make a "consensus" to keep proven-false "information" in Wikipedia articles.  Even if there were 2,000 of you, WP:V would still forbid this.  What sources you cited originally? There were none before the merge.  Up at the top of this talk page there is some discussion as to whether there is a space character in the term or not. Other than that, the only sources ever provided here were provided by me.  Please do no prevaricate. Finally, please also stop engaging in fallacious, incendiary argument tactics, such a labeling people you do not agree with "fascist" (per reductio ad Hitlerum, Godwin's law and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is still any dispute about this merge, please cite sources justifying keeping the articles separate.  Otherwise we can just take :Card shark to WP:AFD and settle the matter that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: Card shark has been nominated for deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: [Creating subtopic heading to not confuse pre- and post-AfD discussions.]  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely irrelevant; this is en.wikipedia, not en.us.wikipedia. What is the more common term in the US is not a guiding factor (NB: I say this as an American, born in Texas.)  See WP:BIAS.  As indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card shark, I'm well aware of the jargonistic ground-truth of the matter, but it simply doesn't relate to the issue.  Sources, period.  If the poker slang usage can't be documented, then that usage is neologistic and non-notable. If there are multiple, independent reliable sources for it, then it is notable (which still doesn't necessarily mean separate article; more likely a move of the article to Card shark if there's evidence of overwhelming usage, with the article rewritten to indicate that the "sharp" version of the term is passing into obsolecence along with the negative meaning.  Please do note that such a theory would require pretty hardcore documentation, given the reliability of the multiple sources so-far cited on the topic. By way of comparison, the African American Vernacular English term "bitch" or "beeatch" meaning "girl or woman", without any particular negative connotation, or "chump, weakling or low-status male" when used in reference to a boy or man, is very, very well-documented in linguistic literature, yet does not have its own article, but rather only part of a section, at Bitch#Slang. Just because something can be documented (which this so far has not) does not mean it automatically gets an article. Anyway, it's not a particularly safe assumption that because someone disagrees with you about something at Wikipedia that they are necessarily ignorant or stupid about basic concepts like current usage not being perfectly mirrored in readily accessible published language references. What those sources are good for it establishing etymology, and this in turn establishes a clear basis on which to merge the articles until such time as there is such a weight of material about the neologistic usage that it warrants a new article due to original article length excesses. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the relevance is that Wikipedia is about what people are doing, thinking, and saying in the real world.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute (very - ever thought of going into politics?) but nonsubstantive. The same three points could be said of anything, including the sources I cited.  I am unaware of any source that could be brought to bear that is about what people aren't really doing, what people only pretend to think, or an imaginary world. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a brief explanation that's probably right .  There's probably something out there closer to the source.  Anyway, citations to reliable sources is not the best way to settle this kind of dispute.  That's for  verifying content in main space, not solving etymological issues on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. Citation to reliable sources is the only way to settle such a dispute, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ongoing case in point: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding head. The facts presented in the article are not even in question - movies, cartoons, etc., do frequently depict heads blowing up due to over-thought or incomprehension, but that does not make an encyclopedic article automatically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but that's not the way Wikipedia works.  We reason through things on talk space.  Citing to what are claimed to be reliable sources, without a link, proves nothing.  It doesn't help that the few links that are provided do not check out. Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon?  I've been editing WP near-daily for over two years. I hardly need a lecture on how WP works.  "Without a link"?  What are you talking about?  No link is needed for textual sources that you can verify from your own bookself, 5 minutes in the closest bookstore, or any library. I'm sorry that my 2000-plus-page unabridged dictionary isn't on a website, but that does not make it a "claimed to be reliable" source; it is a reliable source.  I'm, well, astounded that you would suggest that a source is not reliable simply because it doesn't have a web version you can link to. <bzzt> <spark> <pop> DOES NOT COMPUTE! <bang>  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point the discussion is over.  You're being uncivil and rather irrational.  Trying to pull rank is no more helpful than unlinked citations on a talk page.  You really need to step back from this.  It's unproductive.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice your strike-through but feel compelled to respond to part of the struck material anyway, just for the record: I wasn't "pulling rank", just saying I've been around long enough that I understand how WP works. No incivility implied/intended.  On the other, non-struck, point, we are discussing. I cannot agree that discussion and sources do not mix; the purpose of article talk pages is principally to talk about sourcing; if WP:V is not satisfied, there is little else to talk about.  We could talk for a very long time about the nature of these terms and this vs. that interpretation, but such a discussion isn't pertinent to WP very much if at all if the opinions under discussion aren't sourced.  That said, I do no mean to imply that a meaningful discussion can't be had without citing sources. That was never my intent here; I wrote a sourced exploration of the etymology and usage as recorded in reliable sources because the question was then at issue, and neither opinion was sourced. If you review my edit history you'll see that this is not my normal operating mode.  It just happened to be called for in this particular case. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The web-board post you referred me to not only said the same things I've already said in the sourcing thread above, but its only source was one of the ones I've already cited anyway (Webster's Unabridged), more thoroughly, and in comparison to other Webster volumes and various other sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit noted and unchallenged; the alleged consensus has in fact been challenged, as I have taken the matter to WP:DRV on policy bases, and may even go to WP:ARBCOM if that is (amazingly) what it takes to get rid of a WP:POVFORK that cites no sources.  I'm totally blown away that this is even an issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of [[Card shark]] into [[Card sharp]]

message: :[Creating subtopic heading to not confuse pre- and post-AfD discussions.]  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely irrelevant; this is en.wikipedia, not en.us.wikipedia. What is the more common term in the US is not a guiding factor (NB: I say this as an American, born in Texas.)  See WP:BIAS.  As indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card shark, I'm well aware of the jargonistic ground-truth of the matter, but it simply doesn't relate to the issue.  Sources, period.  If the poker slang usage can't be documented, then that usage is neologistic and non-notable. If there are multiple, independent reliable sources for it, then it is notable (which still doesn't necessarily mean separate article; more likely a move of the article to Card shark if there's evidence of overwhelming usage, with the article rewritten to indicate that the "sharp" version of the term is passing into obsolecence along with the negative meaning.  Please do note that such a theory would require pretty hardcore documentation, given the reliability of the multiple sources so-far cited on the topic. By way of comparison, the African American Vernacular English term "bitch" or "beeatch" meaning "girl or woman", without any particular negative connotation, or "chump, weakling or low-status male" when used in reference to a boy or man, is very, very well-documented in linguistic literature, yet does not have its own article, but rather only part of a section, at Bitch#Slang. Just because something can be documented (which this so far has not) does not mean it automatically gets an article. Anyway, it's not a particularly safe assumption that because someone disagrees with you about something at Wikipedia that they are necessarily ignorant or stupid about basic concepts like current usage not being perfectly mirrored in readily accessible published language references. What those sources are good for it establishing etymology, and this in turn establishes a clear basis on which to merge the articles until such time as there is such a weight of material about the neologistic usage that it warrants a new article due to original article length excesses. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the relevance is that Wikipedia is about what people are doing, thinking, and saying in the real world.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute (very - ever thought of going into politics?) but nonsubstantive. The same three points could be said of anything, including the sources I cited.  I am unaware of any source that could be brought to bear that is about what people aren't really doing, what people only pretend to think, or an imaginary world. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a brief explanation that's probably right .  There's probably something out there closer to the source.  Anyway, citations to reliable sources is not the best way to settle this kind of dispute.  That's for  verifying content in main space, not solving etymological issues on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. Citation to reliable sources is the only way to settle such a dispute, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ongoing case in point: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding head. The facts presented in the article are not even in question - movies, cartoons, etc., do frequently depict heads blowing up due to over-thought or incomprehension, but that does not make an encyclopedic article automatically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but that's not the way Wikipedia works.  We reason through things on talk space.  Citing to what are claimed to be reliable sources, without a link, proves nothing.  It doesn't help that the few links that are provided do not check out. Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon?  I've been editing WP near-daily for over two years. I hardly need a lecture on how WP works.  "Without a link"?  What are you talking about?  No link is needed for textual sources that you can verify from your own bookself, 5 minutes in the closest bookstore, or any library. I'm sorry that my 2000-plus-page unabridged dictionary isn't on a website, but that does not make it a "claimed to be reliable" source; it is a reliable source.  I'm, well, astounded that you would suggest that a source is not reliable simply because it doesn't have a web version you can link to. <bzzt> <spark> <pop> DOES NOT COMPUTE! <bang>  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point the discussion is over.  You're being uncivil and rather irrational.  Trying to pull rank is no more helpful than unlinked citations on a talk page.  You really need to step back from this.  It's unproductive.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice your strike-through but feel compelled to respond to part of the struck material anyway, just for the record: I wasn't "pulling rank", just saying I've been around long enough that I understand how WP works. No incivility implied/intended.  On the other, non-struck, point, we are discussing. I cannot agree that discussion and sources do not mix; the purpose of article talk pages is principally to talk about sourcing; if WP:V is not satisfied, there is little else to talk about.  We could talk for a very long time about the nature of these terms and this vs. that interpretation, but such a discussion isn't pertinent to WP very much if at all if the opinions under discussion aren't sourced.  That said, I do no mean to imply that a meaningful discussion can't be had without citing sources. That was never my intent here; I wrote a sourced exploration of the etymology and usage as recorded in reliable sources because the question was then at issue, and neither opinion was sourced. If you review my edit history you'll see that this is not my normal operating mode.  It just happened to be called for in this particular case. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The web-board post you referred me to not only said the same things I've already said in the sourcing thread above, but its only source was one of the ones I've already cited anyway (Webster's Unabridged), more thoroughly, and in comparison to other Webster volumes and various other sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit noted and unchallenged; the alleged consensus has in fact been challenged, as I have taken the matter to WP:DRV on policy bases, and may even go to WP:ARBCOM if that is (amazingly) what it takes to get rid of a WP:POVFORK that cites no sources.  I'm totally blown away that this is even an issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-AfD debate

message: See the above topic.  The article's section on this is completely unsourced original research and supposition.  We know clearly that "shark" predates "sharp", so there is no reason at all to suppose that "card sharp" (or "[any other modifier here, such as 'pool'] sharp" predates the "shark" version.  The opposite is almost certainly true, for any case postdating the general public acceptance of both terms, but predating the decline of "sharp" in favor of "shark" generally (with "card sharp" being pretty much the only holdout) in the last half of the 20th century (as hinted at above, "sharp" remained a popular term until the rise of "shark" with (finally!) a matching positive as well as negative connotation, in the 1920s–1930s, which, as I can source from elsewhere if needed, also saw the rise of the pool hustler all over North America, which began exposing more and more people to "shark" which for whatever reason was the preferred term in that subculture, probably because of is predatory sound). Because both "sharp" and "shark" were in general usage in the language (both positively and negatively, and both with and without modifiers) at the same time, there is no need to posit any sort of pro or con argument about whether "card sharp" came from "card shark" or vice versa; the entire question is nonsensical: Both would have been in use until, presumably due to the influence of famous paintings and literary mentions, and dialectal preferences in different areas, cards settled on "sharp" for the most part, and pool settled on "shark" overwhelmingly. The real question the article should ask in this section (and answer with the copy-pastable references I've already provided) is which unmodified word came first, and explain how they relate, and that both of them mean the same thing in both their positive and negative insinuations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is too obsessive to take with anything other than amazement, but as pointed out at the beginning of this page, a "sharp" is a cheat, while a "shark" is a skilled player.  This is how the words are used in dictionaries and common usage.  More to the point maybe, the idea that two separate words mean the same thing is just weird.  The separate articles are needed to prevent this confusion. Skilled players are not necessarily cheats; cheats are not necessarily skilled players... a peson can be both, that is why in some cases they both apply, but it is not required. 2005 11:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is smartassy, but I can't let this stand. "Two separate words" very, very, very often "mean the same thing" (without such a narrow context that they can be distinguished by minute meaning nuances) and there isn't anything "weird" about that at all: weird and strange; bear and ursine; flatulence and farting; and so on – I could quite literally do nothing for the rest of my life by write pairs like this, there are so many of them, in English alone, much less other languages.  There are often shades of meaning, and that seems to be evolving to be the case here, but so far it is not sourced (or referenced or cited – ooh three not just two with the same in-context meaning). As "used in dictionaries" (see my sourcing above) my, not your, position is the one supported.  I've sourced this so well you seemed to feel compelled to label the effort in rather nasty terms like "obsessive".  What was "pointed out at the beginning of this page" was your opinion, without sources.  The "common usage" you allege remains undocumented. There is no evidence of "confusion" requiring "separate word" articles (and words generally don't get articles of their own here - Wikipedia is not Wiktionary).  Nothing about the article suggests that skilled players are necessarily cheats or vice versa. The fact that both can apply - and can be confused/conflated - is precisely why the terminology is so vague and thus the article is merged.  Maybe in two generations the terms will be so diverged that no conflation results any longer, and then they'll be good separate articles.  Let's revisit than when we have great-great-grandchildren. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So you say.  But that does not make it true.  It seems like SMC has thought more and better about this than any of the rest of us, so I'd favor his views, until someone else demonstrates an equal depth of thought.  If the meanings overlap in confusing ways, which seems to be the case, merging the articles into one discussion sounds best to me.-69.87.204.172 12:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much thought but research; I spent several hours on that, and not to prove a point but to improve the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Etymology" section dispute

message: The article says that "card shark" applies to magicians (who do card tricks), and then says that "card sharp", not "card shark", applies to those who do card tricks. The distinction between these terms is unsourced, original-research supposition in the first place, as overwhelmingly documented at the merge discussion.  But I am just obligated to explain on the talk page here what the contradiction is if I put up a  tag on it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit did nothing to resolve the contradiction at all, it just made the sentence longer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fyou don't understand something, you should ask questions.  The sentence is quite clear.  please don't add tags that make no sense. 2005 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is no longer self-contradictory, but it remains certainly, and very well-sourcedly, counterfacual. :-/  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: I understood the original text and the previous changes to it perfectly. The sentence before your recent third take was not at all clear, and was in fact contradictory with other material in the article. Moot point at this stage, but I won't leave unaddressed the claim that I'm either having reading comprehension difficulties or am being recalcitrant. The templates made perfect sense in the context of the article versions to which they were added and restored (and one of them still does, the other being mooted.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Update I removed the paragraph because it was still unsourced and marked as dubious, and contradicted those five references.  Additional discussion is of course welcome.  --Thinboy00 @323, i.e. 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: No mention of the game show Card Sharks? TheHYPO (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a matter for disambiguation; not necessarily relevant to the content of this article, per se. I would advocate awaiting DRV results before DAB'ing this, as any further substantive editing may just confuse the issue. Do agree that disambiguation is necessary after the dispute is resolved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The debate is over, and articles merged, so I've put the disambig hatnote at the top now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game show 

message: The word grec was used in French, for instance in the title of a book by Robert-Houdin ("les tricheries des grecs dévoilées").
[The previous comment was added to the article itself by  02:18, 16 August 2008, and moved here by — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A book about what? Do you know enough French to be certain it means something relevant in the context?  Is grec the French word for "person from Greece" or "of or having to do with Greece"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greek" 

message: Someone has weirdly edited this page and changed many of the references from "sharp" and "shark" to "snark," including mistitling the reference works (at least the Karl Johnson book, and the Honthorst painting).  I've changed them back to their proper forms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.164.77 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of "snark" anywhere in the definitions or references. Even Google corrects "card snark" to "card shark." Thisisborin9 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's joke vandalism.  Snark is a slang term.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card Snark?? 

message: In the Methods section I am amused by the oxymoronic claim that center dealing is not used for "legitimate cheating". Isn't all cheating by definition illegitimate? As a native speaker I understand what was intended, but it could cause confusion and should be corrected. Perhaps it could say that center dealing isn't a "practical" or "typical" cheating technique due to the difficulty and little or no advantage over using the more common bottom/second dealing techniques. Nolandda (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate Cheating?