Talk:David Merkow

message: The article describes the NGA Hooters Tour as the top mini-tour in professional golf. This is sourced but is causing some controversy (see this revert). My immediate response was top mini-tour where? In the US? Worldwide? It's unclear from the current wording. We should also probably consult more specialist golf sources to check whether this is indeed the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other sources have been added to fill it out.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so we now know it's the third biggest tour in the US. The "top mini-tour in professional golf" is still ambiguous though. Can we drop that in favour of describing it as the third biggest tour, perhaps mentioning that the two that are bigger are the PGA Tour and the Nationwide Tour? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine, though there appears to be further support as well for the fact that it is the top developmental mini-tour, if you google the matter, so it doesn't appear to be much of an issue.  Still, it would be better if we moved the word developmental.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this edit makes things more clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Good point.  It is odd.  The a day ago had the typical -- a one-ref, one sentence description/discussion.  An editor through OR said he questioned the accuracy of the statement, leading to ... what you see.  The original form was indeed better IMHO.  As to the blue link being sufficient, because some people who read wp articles read the paper form and don't click through, we don't rely on that and strip out every bit of info that is in a click-through.  Rather, we follow what the RSs do, and have the barest description if the reader may be a layman, and not know the term.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my reduction of the sentence to a simple fact was per WP:NPOV, as stated. No OR was added -- in fact, it was the appearance of original research about "top mini-tour in professional golf" that was removed. Our WP policy about minority viewpoint is explained on the No Original Research page at WP:No original research#Neutral point of view.  — CactusWriter (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that the description is out of hand and that all is needed is the link. It seems like the main reason the description was being included (before the recent debate) was to establish that Merkow is notable enough to merit an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree with that assessment. It does appear to have been included for the sake of an AFD notability debate. I suggest keeping the sentence to the appropriate facts. I don't think this bio is the place for expanded analysis of the Hooters Tour -- otherwise we'll need to include the common adjectives like third-tier, third-level or minor league as used by golf authorities like John Feinstein and Kevin Cook. A blue link to the Hooters tour is all that is required here.  — CactusWriter (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I've cut the description of the tour out. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGA Hooters Tour 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nusports.com/sports/m-golf/mtt/merkow_david00.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Merkow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716220121/http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=6578 to http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=6578
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified