Talk:Elin Nordegren

message: The first reference to legal action states "Steinberg also said the couple was considering legal recourse against the magazine." The next paragraph starts "Nordegren won the lawsuit". I think there needs to be a reference to an actual suit being filed. Jaydub99 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nude photographs hoax 

message: What is up with the dash in her name? Is that her official name?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, her last name is Nordegren. The "Woods" was clearly added by someone who can't deal with the idea of a woman not being branded with her husband's name. I hope somebody fixes the page soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.81 (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the history of when that edit was made. Notice the editor provided no citation for the change. The lady's name is Elin Nordegren and the Wikipedia article should be edited to show that rather than reflecting the sexist assumptions of American society. 141.157.188.81 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary to conclude that the addition was sexist, but you're right that it's inappropriate to include it without a source stating that that is, in fact, her legal name, per the WP:BLP policy.  I've removed it accordingly. Chick Bowen 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think you missed the name over the infobox picture though. 141.157.188.81 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So I did, thanks. Chick Bowen 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: I have removed a thread begun by an anonymous editor, who wondered why the events surrounding the recent car accident are not covered in this article.  User:Jayhammers responded that "recentism" was the issue.  In fact, we do cover recent events, and we have covered the car accident in the Tiger Woods article.  However, the allegations about Nordegren the anonymous editor referred to have been covered only in gossip magazines and blogs rather than reliable sources, and it would violate the biographies of living persons policy to include them in the article.  Please note that the BLP policy also covers this talk page, as it says at the very top of the page.  Thank you. Chick Bowen 16:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to current events removed

message: Why is the name of this article Elin Nordegren (snow bunny)?!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvinlzp (talk • contribs) 10:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my fault; when I semi-protected it I should have move-protected it as well.  My apologies to all. Chick Bowen 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snow Bunny? 

message: Under "Nude photographs hoax" the first sentence ends with "with text claiming it was, in fact, she". My English is not perfect, but I am pretty sure it should say "her" and not "she". --78.54.16.209 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I changed it in the first place, and I'm not going to edit-war over it, but "she" is correct, even if "her" would be considered acceptable in informal contexts.  This is standard predicate nominative--if a copula declares two nouns to be identical they should be in the same case. Chick Bowen 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information about the predicate nominative, which I never heard of. But concerning to the article there seem to be two camps, both claiming to be right. As a non-native speaker subject complement was new to me, so thank you again for the hint. --92.224.60.21 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the wording so that there is no longer a problem with "her" versus "she.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Nothing about her husband's marital infidelity and all that, which has been all over the news lately? john k (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is semi-protected, not full-protected; I and other editors have reverted unsourced speculation, but anyone is welcome to add information that is properly drawn from reliable sources, as long as it's truly about Nordegren and not primarily about her husband.  I have added a couple of brief sentences about the hubbub. Chick Bowen 05:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing? 

message: Undue weight is given to this episode in Nordegren's life. It goes into more detail than necessary to give the essence of the hoax -- that is what sources are for. The way it stands now, it looks like it is the most significant event in her life.
I want to take my summarized version and put it under "Marriage to Tiger Woods" as the third paragraph.
I am recommending this change:
Shortly after Nordegren's relationship with Woods became public, nude photographs of a woman resembling Nordegren began circulating on the internet which were proven to be fakes., with text claiming the pictures were of Nordegren. Nordegren, whose modeling work included bikini photo shoots, strongly denied that she has ever posed nude. The nude photographs were actually of Playboy magazine model Kim Hiott, and most were derived from the 2000 edition of Playboy's "Nudes" special edition."That's not her naked!", playboy.com, URL retrieved 2006-09-22."Claim: Photographs show golfer Tiger Woods' wife posing nude", snopes.com, URL retrieved 2006-09-22. Despite this, identification and repeated denials from Nordegren and Woods, in September 2006 (immediately prior to the 2006 Ryder Cup) Irish magazine The Dubliner published an article "Ryder Cup Filth for Ireland," which included the nude photographs of Hiott and stated they were of Nordegren."Wet Spots", Fleshbot, 2006-09-21. Woods described the story as "unacceptable," and his agent Mark Steinberg said, "Everyone knew it wasn’t her. It's plain as day." Steinberg also said the couple was considering legal recourse against the magazine. The Dubliner issued an apology for the story, saying that they had printed the photos as a "satire of tabloid publishing." She subsequently settled a lawsuit with the magazine requiring, in part, a lengthy apology.
On November 16, 2006, Nordegren filed a libel suit against The Dubliner. Nordegren won the lawsuit and as part of the settlement accepted by a Dublin court, The Dubliner was required to publish its lengthy apology in a variety of venues. If the magazine failed to meet the conditions, the award would be increased to $366,500 and the publishers would have to pay Nordegren's legal costs.
The resulting paragraph would read:
Shortly after Nordegren's relationship with Woods became public, nude photographs of a woman resembling Nordegren began circulating on the internet which were proven to be fakes."That's not her naked!", playboy.com, URL retrieved 2006-09-22."Claim: Photographs show golfer Tiger Woods' wife posing nude", snopes.com, URL retrieved 2006-09-22. Despite this, in 2006, Irish magazine The Dubliner published the nude photographs and stated they were of Nordegren."Wet Spots", Fleshbot, 2006-09-21. She subsequently settled a libel lawsuit with the magazine requiring, in part, a lengthy apology.
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Your wording is pretty good.  The first sentence could use some tweaking, since you call the pictures "fakes" without stating that they were intended to be taken as Nordegren (that is, they were real insofar as they were of someone else).  Then there's a "this" with unclear referent.  So I would suggest, "Shortly after [. . .] became public, nude photographs purporting to be of Nordegren began ciculating on the internet, which were established to be fakes.[refs]  Despite the debunking, [. . .]" and otherwise as you've suggested. Thanks for pointing this out. Chick Bowen 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK to me. Tomas e (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so I've done this.  I also integrated it into the previous section--no need for its own, I don't think.  Feel free to tweak.  Thanks again to Therefore for bring this up. Chick Bowen 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarize nude photographs hoax 

message: Now officially reported that she's divorced. Someone should edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.31.51 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce 

message: I changed it to back to Swedish as it is ridiculous to classify Nordegren as Swedish - American.
And as per MOS:BIO, she became known as Swedish.  Norum 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish - American vs. Swedish 

message: It has been formally reported that she is taking classes. I think the occupations au pair and clerk are out of date and that Student would be more appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.182.220 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: Could anyone do sth with the ancient picture of her? She is very discusable person in the latest days... I think that pic that is from year 2003 is not acceptable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a better one? The important thing is it has to be free - public domain, cc-by, or something similar. Unlike newspapers or most web sites, we can't use most copyrighted photos. Wikipedia:Image use policy has the details. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So when I meet her at a street and do a snap of her and upload, still forbidden? Why nobody does sth like it, in case it's allowed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a lawyer, so don't know how ambush photography is viewed in the relevant jurisdiction, but from the Wikipedia point of view, the photo itself would be perfectly acceptable. If you have taken a photo of her that you are willing to mark as public domain, or Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike, please do upload it. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 year old photo? 

message: this twitter obviously is a fake, but I was wondering whether anyone knows of any of her contacts, official site, e-mail, profile on social networks, anything!! 96.47.225.210 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  any online contacts of her? 

message: Any sightings of her stripping?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.4.114 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elin Nordegren. 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/20061016234521/http://www.playboy.com/specialeditions/features/tiger/ to http://www.playboy.com/specialeditions/features/tiger/
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) 10:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening sentence of the lead contains the following statement: "professional golfer Tiger Woods, who has worked as a model and nanny." I don't think that Tiger Woods has worked as a model and nanny. I'm not supposed to make stylistic and grammar corrections, so I stood there and laughed at the sentence.Anthony22 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *True dat. Next thing you know all the cabinet doors in the den are sanded, primed, painted. I'm almost done, honey. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in opening sentence of lead 

message: Is the spouse, partner, ex-spouse, etc. of every famous person 'notable' in their own right? If so, why? Thank you, Billsmith60 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this person deemed notable?