Talk:Stephen Hendry

message: The World Snooker website lists Hendry's prize money up until 2007/8 i.e not including season just finished as £8,396,485. He is also unless there is another player who us going to get a 147 in line to bank at least £181.000 from the 2009 World Snooker championship apart from anything else he won this year which might have been at least £100,000- so would be nice to know excatly how far from £9 million he is.  Seems baring another 147 and if he is knocked out in 1/4 final, and won at least £100,000 during rest of season that at the end of sheffield he is at in and around £8,677.485 ? --78.16.6.45 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prize Money- at end of sheffield should it read something like £8,677.485? 

message: I assume the 'deciding frame' mentioned for the 147 was the last possible frame of the match? If not, the statement is incorrect, as Mark Williams clinched his 10-1 win over [{Rob Milkins]] with a 147. --MartinUK 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume correctly.--Kalsermar 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deciding frame

message: This article makes several references to "Stephen Bendry".
This is incorrect.
The player's name is "Stephen Hendry"
87.228.229.103 06:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hendry not Bendry

message: Should we change all the snooker related years to represent seasons and not years?
Exs: a victory in 1992 could be a victory in the 1992/1993 season or the 1991/1992 season. --CrazyChip 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the format of the years? 

message: I am considering re-writing pieces of this article, as the article isn't well written. In particular, the "playing style" section and other bits seem to have needless,vague and possibly untrue statements. eg."In the final, however, a nightmare run of missed pots in the evening session shattered Hendry's confidence, and he went on to lose 6-10 to Peter Ebdon." Surely, Hendry lost 6-10 to Peter Ebdon would suffice here. Can a more experienced Wikipedian give me the go-ahead, as I am a relative newbie...
Andy4226uk 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  Just please understand WP:V and WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting the article

message: A section has recently been added about Hendry winning the Triple Crown. I have never heard of the Triple Crown in snooker, could somebody please put a definition within the text, or create a wikilink to a relevant page? Andy4226uk 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Triple Crown 

message: Words such as "poor" and "disappointing" have led to my addition of the tag. I'll likely edit the article to remove these at some point. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree + with Dudesleeper's NPOV tag. I've already toned down this article several times but will try and have another go this week bigpad 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now much edited and NPOV removed bigpad (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, though I have to observe that if people would quit ripping off WorldSnooker bios and instead use them and other material as sources to write new articles the way we are supposed to be doing, that the rampant WP:NPOV problems with snooker bio articles could be avoided, because most of the POV language is entering these articles by such blatant copy-paste plagiarism. It sometimes amazes me how many snooker bio articles have simply gone under the radar and not been WP:AFD'd on WP:COPYVIO grounds.  Last I looked most of them have been rewritten enough to survive such an assault at this point, but really the vast majority of new ones over the last two years have appeared to be of such a form.  We really have to do better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV|POV issues]]

message: Didn't we have a better pic of him before?  The new one is pretty amateurish (no offense intended! I just mean that it is a bit washed-out, and not particularly illustrative, since we're only seeing him from the side and rather occluded). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: I think that the "hey, I just won this trophy!" kind of picture, shot from the front, is better as the infobox pic on an article like this, with an "action shot" also helpful, but further down in the article.  Not just for snooker, but as a general principle.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the current photo, which is clearly a television screenshot, can't be permissible. Is the uploader claiming it as their own work, meaning they sidled up right beside him as he was taking a shot? - Dudesleeper talk 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced it is a screenshot, although it could well be.  The person who claims the copyright is seemingly employed as a photographer.  It's feasible that the copyright owner took this photo because there is always a brief photo shoot before the match commences where the player is photographed in cueing position.  If the copyright is under question, I would at least contact the person who owns the website to make sure they are the person who uploaded it and make sure it hasn't just been scavenged from their website.  Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 

message: Just "for the record" I would really like to see our new anon contributor suggest some compromise language on the world record material.  It's been expressed in edit summaries that the "O'Sullivanful" language isn't appropriate for this particular article, since this is Hendry's article, not O'Sullivan's.  I have to concur with that. Is there a middle-ground approach we can use? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that means, and I don't see the harm in pointing out that Stephen Hendry used the same cue when he was obtaining a lot of the records that he currently holds.  He's only had a different cue for the last 4 seasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.154.173 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it needn't get into a lot of detail about O'Sullivan.  There is or was another passage in this article that also went into a lot of detail about some other player, and I think I flagged that for cleanup as well.  It's not that various details and stories aren't important, it's that they need to be where they belong.  Things about O'Sullivan that don't really directly relate to Hendry belong in O'Sullivan's article.  I think that's the point that Bigpad is making (and I'm supporting), while I also think some of your cleanup of the passage in question was also useful.  I.e., it's a compromise.  I also don't think this is excessive nitpicking. WP articles on major sports figures get longer and longer and longer, and can eventually get to the point where they become nearly unreadable for the average reader.  This is mostly because such people have many, many articles written about them in sports publications, more all the time, each of which reveals some "interesting" little details, and fans of the personage want to include all of these details here.  It's a perspective matter: In an encyclopedia, a bio article needs to be lean and written for the general reader, not for fans.  I'm sure an entire 300-page biographical book could be written about Hendry, but this article cannot be that book. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fair enough and I have updated the article accordingly bigpad (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The record 

message: Will people please keep an eye on this.  Hendry has won 65 PROFESSIONAL titles in his career, not 79.  He has won more than that in his professional career but the others were pro-ams at the start.  The record for professional titles stands at 73 with Steve Davis.  He has won the Scottish professional championship three times as well, but despite the terminology some good amateur players were allowed to enter technically making it a pro-am (as with Davis' two English Championships and why his tally stands at 73 and not 75).  If by chance I missed a pro title off his record, by all means update the total but please add the title to his tournaments sction.  It is important that pro titles and pro-ams are not confused.  Sometimes you will see sloppy journalism and fansites report that he has won more titles than Davis - this is true because Davis did not have distinguished amateur or pro-am career, but this is an article about a professional  career so the total should record only professional titles. WalterMitty (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see article for what I hope is a final edit to end this 'controversy'. And, FWIF, Davis did win an English junior or age-level billiards title (and reached the equivalent snooker final), so it's not really fair to say that he was undistinguished as an amateur ! bigpad (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 79 titles

message: I've never heard that he pioneered that shot.  I was watching the game before Hendry came along and have seen Alex Higgins play that shot - or at least one like that, so unless Hendry does something unique with it I don't think he should be given credit for it, and it should at least be mentioned that a similar type of shot was already in existence.  I'll leave it for the time being to give time to find a citation, but since it's a disputed fact it can't stay in indefinitely without a reference.   WalterMitty (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough but Alex was so unorthodox that he tried everything at least once! Hendry is widely recognised as having pioneered that shot (or made it an established modern break-building shot), as per commentators' opinions and other info. You're correct that it needs sourcing and I'll do so but it's not that easy to find. Give us some time! If I can't nail it down, it'll be ok to reword that piece as per your points bigpad (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I don't know if we want a change of wording, but its not that the shot wasn't used before Hendry, you can look at plenty of footage from the 80s where it was. But Hendry perfected it and made it a much more standard shot. Possibly pioneered not the right word? He turned it from being a possible shot when you had to go up for the blue to a integral part of break building. Jleadermaynard (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hendry's 'pack splitting from the blue' shot

message: Should ti not be acknowledged that some of Davis' wins, especially in the UK championship were not ranking victories merely because of the ranking systme not including them, and yet they all were for Hendry?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of ranking wins compared to Davis 

message: Why is Stephen Hendry added to this Category? He's not from Perth & Kinross, he's from Lothian. I know he lives just outside Auchterarder now but that doesn't change where he is from. Thoughts? Grievous Angel (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hendry's not from Perth & Kinross 

message: I have never heard of any of the nicknames attributed to Hendry and it would seem that other suggestions have been removed without explanation. I would think for consistency that unless a name can backed by a citation than they are not included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedlumper (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, because several people here use the ice man nickname. I'm not one to post messageboard references, but in this case it's necessary to demonstrate the nickname's usage. I don't have time to look up the other two, but a Google search should prove adequate. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: "In the next 3 professional tournaments (UK Championship, Masters and the Welsh Open), Hendry lost in the first round to Stephen Lee, Neil Robertson and Martin Gould respectivley. He found some form in China Open, beating Robert Milkins and Ricky Walden, only to lose in quater-final with Peter Ebdon, the future winner of the tournament."
Can someone run a spellcheck over respectivley and quater (sic), and perhaps rephrase the last couple of clauses?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.246.161 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 1.4 Recent years (1999–present) 

message: I can't find Hendry's MBE in the London Gazette. Is there an editor more familiar with the subject who can provide the citation? Have searched for "Stephen" & "Hendry" and "Order of the British Empire from December 1990 to November 2012 at the London Gazette without a result.
---- Karl Stephens (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBE Honour 

message: No mention of the fact that he threatened to leave Scotland if the Scots voted in favour of Devolution, or that he apparently still lives here? It was widely publicised at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.67.44 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views 

message: Does this really belong in the lead? I say it doesn't, it's recentism and hardly a very important fact about him. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently left his wife 

message: An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding that Hendry is "considered to be one of the greatest snooker players of all time" to the lead. While this is undoubtedly true, epithets should be attributed specifically to people who regard him in this manner per WP:FLOWERY and preferably not to snooker forums and blog comments on a BBC article per WP:BLOGS. I am not opposed to such claims being included in the article, but ultimately they are just opinions and need to be attributed to people qualified to make such assessments. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my previous comment, I did not realize that the editor had replaced the sources with his most recent revert. The latest set of sources are compliant with WP:RS so I have no problem with the information in that regard, but the content still isn't framed correctly. Therefore I have added the relevant attributions (opinions are not facts, no matter universally they are held) and moved the comments to the status section so I hope this resolves the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead makes it clear he was the youngest world champion, that he has won more modern day world championships and won more ranking titles than any other player so I think the factual record does a very good job of conveying his standing in the game i.e. there is no-one who had more success on the modern circuit. Adding that he is the "greatest" just introduces subjective bias into the lead. The thing about sport is it provides its own set of metrics for evaluating its practitioners. WP:LEAD also states that the lead should observe Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL policy and that there should be relative emphasis. There are other contradictory opinions on who the greatest is; yes, undoubtedly many regard Hendry as the greatest, but commentator Ted Lowe regarded Joe Davis as the greatest and we are increasingly seeng Ronnie O'Sullivan recognized as the "greatest" too. I have no strong opinions on whether he is the "greatest" or not; he is clearly in the top three or four regardless of where anybody stands on the issue. If we had a bunch of opinions in the status section assessing Hendry's standing and they all placed him in the top five for example, then "relative emphasis" would be to say that the consensus of expert opnion within the sport places him in the top five greatest players, but I still question whether this would add further understanding of a man who won more world championships and more ranking titles than any other modern player which effectively says the same thing anyway but in a completely factual way. I guess the point I am ultimately making here is that there are some that would argue that is not the greatest, but on a factual basis you cannot argue against the claim he is the most successful player on snooker's ranking circuit so the factual record does a better job at establishing his credentials. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you, which since my opinion is as valid as yours means we have a deadlock here, so let's wait and see, maybe other editors show up here too. Thomas.W  talk 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And as luck would have it, literally two minutes later one does. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not trying to imply anything by that... Thomas.W  talk 17:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't know where Thomas is, Betty, but I'm in rather hazy Walton-le-Dale. By the way, you may want to add Lowe's comment at Fred Davis (snooker player), because there is no mention of it. And the only quote on Ted's page about Fred is his description that he was "getting on a bit and is having trouble getting his leg over". 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm editing from my usual location, which since I'm an expat and left the UK many years ago is in another country. I'm originally from Sussex, though. Thomas.W  talk 18:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The European Union sounds very interesting. Lancashire must try and join someday. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be more specific, and say where in the EU, but since I've spent a few years here fighting very aggressive POV-pushers of all kinds, I've chosen not to. Thomas.W  talk 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your absolute prerogative, Thomas. But "very aggressive POV-pushers"? whatever can you mean. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both left wing and right wing political extremists, nationalist bigots from half a dozen countries, religious fanatics and ethnic fanatics, plus a bunch of people who were just plain weirdos. Most of my time here has been spent on dealing with people who weren't here to build an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W  talk 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Your analysis of Hendry's achievements convinces me that the comment by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is fully justified. In fact, as that is the governing body of men's professional snooker, there is no-one better placed to make this judgement. Yes, Ted Lowe's personal judgement about Joe Davis is well documented, but both gentleman are now gone, Betty. Times move on. If you have an equally robust source for the same description about O'Sullivan please share it here, otherwise that just sounds like your own personal view. It's not a matter of "understanding", it's a matter of a well-sourced accolade by a sportsman's professional body. Of course it belongs in the lead. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that we don't actually know who wrote those profiles (probably somebody in World Snooker's I.T. department) then I would say it has no more credence than other qualified opinions out there. Unless World Snooker undertook a poll of its membership then the opinion is just one person's opinion, not a reflection of consensus among the membership. Anyway, I will be adding some further expert opinions to the article shortly to make the statement a bit more even balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sure, why don't we re-organise the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association  to make it all a bit more democratic, while we at it. And wow, really, you're gonna drag up some stuff to slag Hendry off a bit? 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "And wow, really, you're gonna drag up some stuff to slag Hendry off a bit?" — Yeah. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? You can have whatever opinion you want about the man, but there's no denying that he's the best snooker player ever. Even O'Sullivan has said that he's not on the same level as Hendry. Thomas.W  talk 19:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Sullivan is obviously not going to proclaim himself the best is he, but the general consensus now by commentators, players and coaches is that he is an objectively inferior player to O'Sullivan so if you are going to insist on inserting subjective bias into the article then it should at least be accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Betty, you told us early that "The thing about sport is it provides its own set of metrics for evaluating its practitioners", and that people's "subjective opinions" can't be trusted. So how do Hendry's and  O'Sullivan's tournament achievements stack up? Let's forget about what "people are saying". You can't have it both ways, can you? 86.175.172.143 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that subjective opinion does not belong in the lead but if we are going to have it then it should observe WP:WEIGHT, and the general consensus is somehwere between divided on the issue and O'Sullivan now being regarded as the greatest. I agree that we should let teh facts speak for themseleves, in which case the subjective claim should be removed from the lead. But if you want a stastical overview: Joe Davis won the most world championships, Steve Davis won the most professional tournaments, Hendry was world number 1 the longest and won the most ranking tournaments, while O'Sullivan has made more centuries and maximums. There is a statistical debate about who is the greatest player, and it comes down to four names. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF!! What the hell is all that about Ronnie O'Sullivan doing in an article about Stephen Hendry?? You need to start your own article called World's Greatest Snooker Player. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is verifiably sourced content addressing the question of whether Stephen Hendry is the greatest or not. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're out of your tree, Betty. Good luck, Thomas. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself requested above that "If you have an equally robust source for the same description about O'Sullivan please share it here, otherwise that just sounds like your own personal view." I have produced sources that counter-act the neutrality of your claim so what exactly is the problem now? Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   You're free to remove warnings and almost anything else from your talk page, but it's still in the page history, which is what counts, even though you seem to know the ropes, judging by your talk page history (and block log), having a habit of edit-warring to force your version of things on others. But I can assure you that the warning I gave you was seriously meant, not "trolling", as you wrote in your edit summary... Thomas.W  talk 21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to acquaint yourself with the definition of edit-warring. It is defined as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Will you please explain how I have over-ridden your contribution? Every single word of it is still there; all I did was add further sourced content to counter-act a non-neutral claim which last time I checked was entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of "one of greatest" to the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Stephen Hendry. 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/20120423174044/http://www.worldsnooker.com:80/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131001012039/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0,,13165~2234503,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0,,13165~2234503,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/snooker/Hendry-wins-battle-of-the.5785346.jp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2743663%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806150325/http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-Shanghai-Masters-Draw.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-Shanghai-Masters-Draw.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914031450/http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-World-Open-Final-Venue-Results.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-World-Open-Final-Venue-Results.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227003158/http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-tournaments-china-open-2011-final-stages.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-tournaments-china-open-2011-final-stages.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0%2C%2C13165~2234503%2C00.html
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) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wscreal.com/hendry.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224004542/http://www.scottishsnooker.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=772 to http://www.scottishsnooker.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=772
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220123111/http://uk.yahoo.eurosport.com/snooker/person_prs28971.shtml to http://uk.yahoo.eurosport.com/snooker/person_prs28971.shtml
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) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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/20110523071632/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136261/index.htm to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136261/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150729232500/http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/BIG-READ-Ronnie-O-Sullivan-Stephen-Hendry-snooker/story-26716694-detail/story.html to http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/BIG-READ-Ronnie-O-Sullivan-Stephen-Hendry-snooker/story-26716694-detail/story.html
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) 02:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hendry won 5 consecutive World Championships from 1992-1996, is that a record in the modern day, I know Joe Davis one more consecutive but he was not the modern day. Can someone verify this as I would like to add it if it is true. Amy foster (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 consceutive World championship Wins  

message: There's a detailed interview in The Guardian  that we're not using yet, which not only summarizes his book but has some unique-to-that-publication material that is pertinent to how/why his pro snooker career came to an end. In it, he also actually dismisses the claim that he just had a case of "the yips", but rather was suffering a more serious set of problems, a general loss of focus and faith in his playing ability, and anger/embarrassment issues when losing to low-ranked younger pros.  Even says his final maximum break was pretty much by accident. Lots of interesting stuff in there (albeit for use within WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE limits). I'll leave it to regular editors of this page to decide what to integrate.  Oh, and it also goes a little bit into his transition into pool (though I'm not certain whether they mean eight-ball or British style eightball pool / blackball, being an "ambassador" of the game in China. I'm not sure what that entails, in detail, though it's worth looking into further so we can update his article and lead and categorization as it pertains to pool.  Hendry's not actually retired, he's just no longer competing in snooker on the pro circuit, while he is doing other cue-sports-related things instead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: my understanding is that he played regular Eight-Ball and Chinese Eight-Ball. I don't think he plays blackball, but I could be wrong.  Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful newer interview (2018-10) 

message: Last month  removed Eve Muirhead's comments from the "status" section on the grounds that her views were not relevant. An anonymous editor subsequently restored the comment on the grounds that the views of different sportspeople are relevant.
I have no particular view on that, and you can make the case for either position. However, the comment was not particularly well integrated with the existing prose. Both O'Sullian and Bingham had essentially considered the same point earlier in the paragraph, so I simply relocated Muirhead's comment to alongside O'Sullivan's and Bingham's, and tidied up the reference (which was not correctly formatted).
The editor subsequently reverted my edit with the immature edit summary accusing me of "downplaying" Hendry's "achievement". I think an objective appraisal of my edit would indeed agree that this is nonsense. Here are the three competing versions:
* IP: 
* Betty's: 
* MrLoop: 
I have a personal preference but I can live with any version. Can we get a quick straw poll please and settle this issue quickly. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first version (by IP) gives undue weight to Eve Muirhead's opinion, by placing it at the end of the paragraph and implying that it is the most important and definitive, trumping any previous views given earlier in the paragraph. Your version seems more neutral and logical. However, I'm not altogether sure why Muirhead's opinion is relevant, as she's not a notable snooker player or commentator, most likely just a huge Hendry fan, hence she's bound to say he's the "greatest ever" and I'm therefore not too comfortable with including her in his BLP. So I would prefer to go with Mrloop's version. (I would say Desmond Kane's opinion is slightly more relevant with him being a sports commentator.) Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I prefer MrLoops. I'm unconvinced that her comments are any more worthy of note than mine or yours. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Muirhead was perhaps making a general point about how most sports have a defining event upon which these debates are settled. To be honest though I am not fighting to retain the comment, I was just trying (and clearly failing) to avoid an edit-war with an editor who historically has a POV issue on this article.  Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it's true that the World Championship is top dog by a country mile, but that doesn't mean all the other events can be dismissed, or treated as equally important. Bit different for curling perhaps where the Olympics is the only thing we ever see. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I don't see why we are even naming her. The views of a (somewhat) unrelated sportsperson isn't of all that much note. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Ah, a new account to go with a new day. This discussion is about Eve Muirhead's comment, not Desmond Kane's. If you want to initiate a discussion about that be my guest, but please start a fresh section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were looking for input? Sorry if I came into the wrong conversation - I’ve just joined and am updating sports related pages. Anyway, my point was that I think you need consistency here and in that sense Kane’s and Muirhead’s views need to be treated in a similar manner. I’d suggest sticking with views from well known sources (as my first year of sports studies have taught me so far). Alternatively, if you permit views from lesser known people/sources you open it up for a bit of a free for all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportismygame (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I personally think these "he is the greatest" commentaries should be banned from BLPs as they can never be truly unbiassed and fairly sourced. The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals who play the same sport (e.g. O'Sullivan and Bingham in this case), but their comments should be framed as "this is what so-and-so says" without reading any more (or less) into it than that. A statement of records and stats can be provided, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions about the "greatness" of the sportsperson in question. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree with Rodney Baggins. We're an encyclopedia and shouldn't be getting into this area. Hundreds of people have compared Hendry/O'Sullivan/Joe Davis etc., picking a handful is almost certain to be biased. The Eve Muirhead remark needs to go, even the whole section. Nigej (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Very much appreciated Mr Logan (assume no relation to Betty!?) I have read through the new status section and it reads pretty well now, maybe a little long-winded and could probably be pared down slightly, but fine by me for now. I must congratulate you on registering a user account, because it makes it easier for people to recognise you and communicate with you. If you create a user page, your name will appear as a blue link rather than a red link, which would be even better. Thanks for discussing and helping towards reaching a consensus. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I believe the previous ordering was superior so I have restored it. If you would prefer to restructure the section then start a fresh discussion and obtain a consensus please. The purpose of this discussion was to determine what should be done about Eve Muirhead's comment and that appears to have been resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eve Muirhead comment 

message: A comment from Eve Muirhead was recently removed from the Status section. The consensus for this was found primarily on the basis that it was from someone who is not a snooker professional. Following the same logic, I believe the comment from Desmond Kane should also be removed. This is on the basis that he is a bit of an unknown source (e.g. doesn’t even have his own Wikipedia page) and is not a former player. I concur with the view of Nigej, stated in the Muirhead discussion, that “The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals.” I would like to follow this approach and remove the Desmond Kane comment. I think this logic should also be applied to any future additions to this section of the page, otherwise it risks becoming unwieldily with comments from relative unknowns. 
In further support of this, I would add that the section is on the long side, is rather pro-O’Sullivan and is not particularly neutral, and because of this is likely to be susceptible to edit wars. 
Please can I get a canvas of views on my proposal to remove the Desmond Kane comment and hopefully find a consensus? MrLogan666 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kane is a snooker writer. His opinion as a journalist is very important. I think we make it very clear who he is, and why this matters. There's a big difference between a person known for a (somewhat) unrelated sport, and someone who writes about snooker. It makes sense thematically to talk about journalist thoughts, as well as other players. Not so much for people unrelated to the game.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It's not a biased section. We have neutrally presented relevant opinions. The opinions themselves don't have to be neutral. By that logic Hitler's article is biased. Maybe we should cut down his genocide a bit and spend half the article talking about all the good things he did. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean here - there being more of one thing than the other doesn't make it biased. The article needs a bit of an overhaul (it's on my to-do list), but this section should really cover what the media, journalists and other players think. It should probably include others (I know McManus, Joe Johnson and Clive Everton have both measured up on this). It's a little ridiculous to remove a well respected journalist/snooker writer because you haven't heard of them.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Glad my suggestion was helpful. I think your change strikes the right balance for me between O’Sullivan and Hendry on the highly contentious ‘greatest’ issue. I still think the section is on the long side and you would have been better cutting it at Bingham’s comment but won’t revisit the Desmond Kane debate. So overall happy with this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportismygame (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section 

message: The lead section mentions Hendry's records within the modern era but doesn't define what the "modern era" is. When did it begin? --Jameboy (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's a big undertaking, I've not got round to this one yet... Modern era is 1969 onwards, but does need an explaination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's jargon, and probably should be added to Glossary of cue sports terms so that it can be linked to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Looks like there is a citation for this at 1969 World Snooker Championship (last sentence of Background section) but it's behind a paywall so I can't verify it. --Jameboy (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern era 

message: I distinctly remember Clive Everton in commentary (many, many years ago!) describing how Stephen Hendry attempted to win all ranking tournaments in the 1990-91 season (and subsequently suffered from exhaustion, contributing to the Crucible Curse). However, this alleged plan is not mentioned in this article or in the article on that season. Are there any references for this? Is it even true? Clearly he did win the first four ranking tournaments, and his streak was broken by Jimmy White in the final of the 1991 Classic. But then, Hendry was actually pretty good :-) and this may not have been a part of any premeditated plan. KarlFrei (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990 plan to win all ranking tournaments in the season? 

message: Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having a separate 'Seniors tour titles' section for snooker players