Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 1

message: I know it was deleted for vandalism, but shouldn't it be mentioned in the 'family' section? Maybe?
Ubuntu Dude 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Father's Death?

message: Tiger is 30 years old, but with a very boyish face still; so the death of his dad is a test of his maturity -is he still a child or a grown man able to deal with life including close relative's death and go on in his profession. 
Or will he collapse and whine - his past seeming overfocus disrupting his large athletic skill. For years.
Some whine today winning Brit Open with score  of - 18 !!
But with that leading, oustanding golf , he did get emotional ? again ?
Should a champion athletically ALSO be a grown man ?
:I think you should get a blog.Ernham 04:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Champion - Child or Man

message: There no mention on the page of his caddy Steve Williams. I belive there should be although not sure wher to put it or anything about him.
[added 16-Jun-06]  Steve Williams is mentioned in "Charity and youth projects" section.  However, in the Family and background section, there is this statement, "His cousin, Robert Woods, the famous volunteer firefighter, has been rumored to become his new caddy."   Reeallly????   PKT 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. There should be something about his caddies (plural) but special mention for Williams. He and Woods are very close. How many pros have been best man for their caddies? How many pros holiday in the homeland of their caddies, and take part in their caddies sport (speedway in this case). There's a special bond there, and Woods has acknowledged it has helped his golf. Incidentally, sign your posts. Moriori 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: caddy

message: "his iron play is generally as accurate as any player ever to play (including Nicklaus),"
   -not sure i would agree with that. any citations from golf experts?
: My source was this book, I'll add it to the refs. - Davis21Wylie 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Playing Style

message: Can anyone confirm his actual ancestry?  I mean if he is actually only 1/32nd or 1/64th native american, then I think we should remove it.  Even I have about 6 different nationalities, but they are so insignificant I don't tell people about it.  dave 00:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Your numbers are correct, but I think it is actually his mother that is part white.  I believe their ancestries go like this.  Mother: 1/2 Thai, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 white (Dutch, I think).  Father: 1/2 black, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 American Indian.  Funnyhat 04:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: I wonder if the details of Tiger and Elin's wedding ceremony are really necessary for an encyclopedia; It belongs to a category of their privacy. It must be a sort of "statements that will date quickly" that should be avoided, I believe. (They'll settle down as an usual, stable couple soon, not a flamboyant one.) Despite a bright superstar, Mr. Woods is a sensible man who wishes an ordinary life; He has suffered from "completely lost privacy" due to his superstardom. -222.14.94.13 12:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wedding

message: The section on criticism is much too large a part of this article. I've npoved the phrasing somewhat, but it is still wrong to give such large share of the article to this. It's not like he is a wildly controversial figure, and the article shouldn't put him on the back foot like this. The rest of the articlle should be expanded, but I'm also tempted to slash the "is Tiger Woods bad for golf?" section to a couple of short sentences as it is out of date now he has gone two whole seasons without a major. The first cricitism is of debatable relevance too. Woods isn't mentioned in the quote and he did go to Stanford for two years. Any comments? Wincoote 09:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've turned it into a "Controversy" section, Wincoote 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The criticism section is disproportionate

message: Hi.  I have found a few problems that could be considered POV in the article.  It's nothing disproportionate, but I feel it could be corrected.  The two examples I can quote come from consecutive paragraphs in the "Professional Career" segment.  The first is: "The next phase of Woods career was relatively disappointing.", and the second: "Woods played well in the 2004 off-season (...)".  The problem is we cannot say that he "played well", or "played badly" unless we are quoting someone else's statements, or else it's our opinion (more especifically, that of whoever it was who wrote that passage).  Even if someone can come up with the stats to back it up, it is not for us to say if he played well or not.  When I wrote a passage with similar statements (now completely erased from the article), I wrote that "according to the game's critics, Woods has been playing 'poorly' since (...)".  That's what we have to do.  He played well in the 2004 off-season according to {someone}, otherwise it's our opinion, which we cannot give in the article.  So, as I see it, either someone provides a source for the statements that "the next phase of Woods' career was disappointing" and that "he played well in the 2004 off-season" or those passages will have to be removed.  There may be other instances in the article with similar problems, I haven't read the whole thing yet.  Regards, Redux 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a misapplication of NPOV.  When we say, "he played well" or "he played poorly", we're talking about his tournament finishes, not whether he had his A-game. :)  How about, instead, things like "in the next phase of Woods' career, he won fewer tournaments..." or something like that. DanKeshet 08:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would be in favor of this slight rephrasing.  If it's as you said, then indeed there's no NPOV issue.  The problem would be that it isn't all that clear.  When I read it, what came to mind was that the article was expressing an opinion (or giving an opinionated description of a moment in Woods' career).  When you hear "he played well", it sounds more like an opinion about his game than an objective assessment of his results in that period of time.  Regards, Redux 23:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues? 

message: Section seems disproportionately long and disorganized. We dont need to note every single thing that Tiger has been criticized for. Just the notable ones will do. Savidan 06:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Sorry, forgot to sign my name and what I reverted to. I reverted Carty215's ridiculous edits to 22:13, 22 February 2006 Daycd. My bad.Flibbert 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv Vandalism 

message: Anyone have a source for this? It may be a text dump, in which case it is unlikely to be updated. I'm inclining towards deleting it. Osomec 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are entitled to delete any material they don't think is beneficial to wikipedia. What's the evidence that it has been well received? I'll have a look at those links and think about it so more. Osomec 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a  tag to this, as it doesn't have any encyclopedic relevance and is 100% subjective. It belongs on ESPN.com or a sports blog, but not in a serious biography. I'd like to see this removed soon. Thanks. Harro5 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When you think of Tiger, or you see any film or video biography of Tiger, you'll always encounter shots like the hole in one at the (then-) Phoenix Open, the chip-in in the '05 Masters, and so on, just as you'd think of Jack Nicklaus's one-iron at Pebble Beach. Maybe the list could be pared down, but then again maybe not. In any event I think it's perfectly appropriate. JMO. Joseph N Hall 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Athletes have their memorable moments, Tom Brady will be remembered for his game winning drive in Super bowl 36, Tiger will be remembered for that chip he had at last years masters, Doug Flutie will be remembered for his amazing pass to win the Rose bowl against Miami.  Herb Brooks will be remembered for coaching the Miracle on Ice team, the list goes on and on.  If you can cite sources that list these shots as memorable shots, and change the section title to memorable shots, then it wouldn't be POV.  False Prophet 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary shots section

message: One of the last lines in Tiger's intro reads "prompting a major surge of interest in the game of golf among gay people and young people in the United States."
Gay people?  I'm guessing this is a joke or vandalism, but I'll be respectful and say I'm not sure.  I will remove this for two reasons:
1. Not verifiable - I've personally never heard anything like this before and I've played on junior tours across the country for many, many years.  Tiger Woods is married to a female, therefore he is not gay - I'm not sure how he prompted a major surge of interest in golf for gay people.
2. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with golf or Tiger's career (correct me if I'm wrong).  Even if this was true, it would be like mentioning 'Tiger has prompted a major surge of interest in the game of golf among Pro-Choice advocates.'  (I'm not comparing pro-choice advocates to homosexuals, I'm simply comparing the relevancy of such a topic)  Chupper 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's freaking vandalism. It should read "prompting a major surge of interest in the game of golf among minorities and young people in the United States." I have no idea when it was added, but I'll fix it if it's not already fixed. - Davis21Wylie 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Gophers 

message: This might be fruitless, but this article is extremely long, far longer than recommended by Wikipedia even for very notable individuals.  I suggest removing some of the trivial details not necessary for an encyclopedia, for example, lists of who Woods's neighbors are, the date on which he was introduced to his wife and by whom, the very long list of memorable shots (of questionable neutral Point of View in any case).  His career has at least 10 years remaining, let's pace ourselves!  Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to put every little detail you happen to know about someone.  It is also not a fan site to put things about an individuals favorite foods, all his famous friends, documented or not, and all the minutiae about his life. Let's EDIT!  Crunch 12:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the list of memorable shots is too long, and I'm not sure that we need the "What's in the bag" bit, the content is currently under a  tag which isn't appropriate.  I'm removing the tag. PKT 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long non-encylopedic article 

message: I'd prefer putting  P1  instead of  1  for playoff wins. What do you think?
You could do that, I suppose but you'd have to do it for every golfer who won a major in a play off. :P
Seriously though, I abstain my vote.  --FrasierC 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results in majors (playoffs) 

message: This seems to have come from this website article:
GolfOnline - Towering Figures shouldn't it be referenced? Michaelmcguire 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the information came from his website, www.tigerwoods.com.  I added the reference as well as cleaned up the entry a bit. Aktornado 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the bag 

message: It is commonly accepted that Tiger Woods is currently tied for second on the all time majors list.  Any reputable news agency or source has him listed as second.  However one contributer here continues to change it to third based on his view that the U.S. Amateur and British Amateur opens were considered majors in the early days of U.S. golf.  As such, in what should be considered a statistical list, he's including amateur wins for some golfers, but not others.  While I can see his point of view, it's not something that is considered standard practice, as I have never seen it done like that before.  Nor can I find any reference to a reputable source doing so.  By only including the amatuer wins for Bobby Jones and other golfers in his era, but not for the more recent golfers such as Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, Tiger is bumped down to third.  This is confusing, and generally considered innacurate, and as such I have changed it back to what is considered the standard list.  If anyone else wishes to contribute to this discussion, please do so here: talk:Golfers_with_most_major_championship_wins  --Aktornado 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed the link to the disputed article and provided a source for the information provided.  The information provided is indisputable, and at this point I feel any changes would be considered vandalism.  Aktornado 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your footnote states "it is generally recognized that Bobby Jones won 13 majors 5, that Nicklaus won 18 majors 6, and that Woods has won 11 majors".  As requested in the other discussion, I'd like you to provide one source that lists this.  It is not "generally" recognized in this fashion, that is flat out false.  You have yet to provide a single source that acredits Jones with 13 majors, Nicklaus with 18 and Woods with 11.  This is a direct quote from the PGA TOUR, "Earl Woods would have been enormously proud of his son Sunday as he won his third Open Championship and 11th major title. He’s tied with Walter Hagen now, and only Jack Nicklaus, the man whose records Woods covets, has more with 18." found here: http://www.golfweb.com/tournaments/britishopen/story/9568293 Aktornado 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An explination of your opinion is not a "cite".  And listing three different sources in three different contexts to arrive at one conclusion is not good form.  You have still not given a single article that suggests Tiger Woods is third behind Jones and Nicklaus.  Aktornado 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is just one article (from the Detroit News) that states directly that Tiger is third behind Jones and Nicklaus, as you requested .
Right now, this is how I see it breaking down:
* Tiger Woods has won 11 professional majors. - Undisputed
* Walter Hagen won 11 professional majors. - Undisputed
* Bobby Jones won 7 professional majors. - Undisputed
* Bobby Jones won 6 amatuer majors. - Undisputed
* Bobby Jones won 13 majors. - Disputed
* Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time professional major wins. - Undisputed
* Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time major wins. - Disputed
Given the above, why don't we state "Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time professional major wins." and leave it at that. The article Golfers with the greatest number of major championship wins already goes into detail on the amateur open matter; there's no need to drag it into this article. Aren't I Obscure? 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me Aktornado 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of contention seems to be the following: whether it is standard practice to include (or suggest) a list that lists players by both the amateur and professional majors they have won/only the professional majors they have won or whether it is standard to practice to include (or suggest) a list that includes amateur wins for some players (such as Jones and the other real old-timers) as majors, and not others.  I contend that the latter is a widely-used practice, as the sources that I have posted in this and other discussion forums demonstrate [] (The Detroit News), and  [] (First Tee--which the PGA sponsors).  There are many others, which a google search will reveal.  The former method is of couse also a widely-used one which is why I created a footnote that attempts to explain these two different practices.  To answer a question that Aktornado raised in a different forum: I don't know if there is a biblical date that we can point to stating that this is the year when the amateurs were no longer considered majors--but I don't believe that is necessary because I do know that there are many reputable sources that indicate that in Jones's era, the amateurs were considered majors and they are not considered majors in Nicklaus's and Woods's era.  As we are discussing top players on an all-time list, upon which Woods’s position and Jones’s position are given different places by the two different but widely-used standards, the specific year is irrelevant because the sources indicate that it was after Jones had retired and before Nicklaus played.  To answer Aren't I Obscure?'s question: The reason we cannot simply include, in the opening paragraph, that Woods is “second” on a list is because it gives undue preference to one method over another.  My proposal is that we leave it off the opening and explain this whole matter in the footnote. Stanley011 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How is it that The Detroit News and First Tee demonstrate "wide use", but CNN, Fox Sports, ESPN, and pgatour.com do not? Aktornado 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I did misread your post, my appologies.  However I still don't believe the current iteration of this article is very good.  That footnote is too lenghthy, and really the opening paragraph isn't very good to begin with.  I think I see where we can reach common ground here, so I'm going to rewrite it, and I think you'll be satisfied with the result.  I'll post it here before going live with it.Aktornado 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second or Third on "all time list 

message: This article is pretty nice, first off.  But to be a "good article," it just needs some good-old-fashoined cleanup.  There are "citation needed" tags, mistake formatting, headings with only one paragraph, headings with incorrect formatting (all caps or punctuation).  These things will definitely need to be addressed first.  Also, for the legnth of hte article, the references are a bit light.  Since the footnote method is being used, the inline website citations (that look like this --> [www.google.com]) need to be converted to <ref> citation.  It is more fair to the original works anyway.  Also, there are whole subheadings that don't have a single inline reference of any kind.  I would address these issues pronto, as the content is good article quality.--Esprit15d 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: Shouldn't somebody mention Frank, Tiger's club cover?  Not only is it a part of Tiger's game, but a few years ago there were several Nike Golf commercials with Frank "giving golf advice" to Tiger. --Kitch 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank 

message: DO NOT assume that Tiger Woods has won the PGA Championship in 2006 by listing it here - until it is official it cannot be posted here as an official win - very sad.  The person who wrote that in should be reported, as Tiger has NOT won the 2006 PGA Championship - it is still being played, geniuses.
I totally agree.  I was watching the 2006 PGA Championship live on CBS and before it was finished and official, Tiger was getting credit for the win.  This is very sad.  I had to go and change it back two or three times.  For instance, Tiger had a five stroke lead with a five-inch put left to make on the 18th green and some contributors were presuming he would win. VERY PRESUMPTUOUS!!!  What if he had been struck by lightning or had a heart attack?  But in all seriousness, these articles should not be predicting the future, however sure it might be.
Do not assume he has won Player of the Year. He has not, those results will come in November, and are voted by his peers.
We also know matthematically that he has won the Mark H. McCormack award for the ninth straight year, but we will not post it until it is awarded - next March.
Yeah. It is fact that when Tiger's in the lead at the Majors going into the final round he has won. :P
And yeah, in all seriousness, obviously Wikipedia isn't for predictions. 
--FrasierC 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumptions

message: I am going to add a "citation needed" to the sentence in the criticisms section about tiger-proofing being seen as racist.  Right now it has (if you'll forgive the term) "weasel words."  It's not clear who the "many" who viewed tiger-proofing as thinly-veiled racism were (e.g. many journalists, many golfers, etc.)  I don't remember a great outcry about it being racist, so I'm just not sure that this is true.  If someone has a citation - great.  
I am also thinking of taking the part about Augusta National out, both because I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Augusta, Georgia the "deep south" and because I'm not sure that I remember Augusta National being singled out for particular criticism.  
Also, I don't know that it's clear that there was ever a comparable era of dominance by a player, or that lengthening courses would have affected one if there was. (Lengthening a course would not have made Nicklaus less dominant - I don't think he hit it all that much further than anyone else.  Making him putt with a salad fork *might* have helped.)  Also, I think we need a citation for the statement that no course had ever been changed in response to a player's dominance - it may be true, but I wouldn't be that surprised to find out that Augusta National, for example, was designed to give Bobby J. a bit of a challenge.  --TheOtherBob 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove that secion of the article, I think they're quite obviously weasel words, and I don't think it's much of an issue today.Aktornado 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Tiger-proofing in regards to woods is total non-sense. In fact, That would actually help Tiger more than hinder him compared to the majority of the field, save for maybe a small handful of others better on the fairways. Ernham 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger-Proofing 

message: That's an interesting use of the word, one that I have never heard before.Leeborkman 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Common in the United States, I believe.  Anyway, I've noticed something odd here - his mother's racial makeup is discussed, but not his father's - and then the article goes straight into listing Tiger's racial mix.  One can deduce his father's from that, of course, or by visiting his article, but it reads rather oddly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in the article, but was deleted by 70.26.223.50 and not re-inserted until now. 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a single person be "multiracial"? 

message: I have passed the nomination for Tiger Woods to be a good article. It's really a great, extensive resource. Keep up the good work! - Mike 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA nom

message: Regarding this statement: "Tiger Woods and Lee Trevino have been the only two player to have captured the three major opens (U.S., British, and Canadian) in one year: Trevino in 1971 and Woods in 2000". Does it belong here, and in this form? The Canadian Open isn't a Major, and 'British Open' is a colloquialism. (Lidz 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at American/British Style of writing you'll see that it's recommended that when there is a difference in writing style, preference should be given to the style that is most suited to the article in question.  As Tiger Woods is an American golfer, it simply makes sense to use what is most often used in America for this particular article.  When discussing a British golfer, such as Colin Montgomerie, I think it would make sense to use The Open Championship.  As you can see in his article, that's what is done.  While if you look at John Daly or Jack Nicklaus British Open is the term used.  I think it only makes sense to be consistent with this policy.Aktornado 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the use of "British Open" is perfectly appropriate. "Open Championship" is the name of the tournament, but it is not the most widely used name outside of the tournament and the UK. Were this an article about the Open Championship, then the term "Open Championship" would be appropriate. Most readers, however, are going to find the term ambiguous out of that context, and frankly "US Open" and "British Open" look well balanced in a list. Joseph N Hall 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British Open vs. The Open Championship

message: Tiger Woods is NOT the highest paid athlete in the world-- Micheal Schumacher is. According to F1 Racing Mag in July 2006, it said he earns well over $100 Million. This number can also be found on formula1.com
User:PublicSecrecy 6:03 AM, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:If you can provide evididence to refute the sources that have already been given, please feel free to update it.  However I think it's important to only use historical data (in other words, 2005 income as opposed to projected 2006, or future, income)
:For a better article regarding Forbes findings see: The world's best-paid athletes  ~~Aktornado 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's from the official f-1 site. Your info on Woods is from a 3rd party not at all linked to golf or Tiger. Plus, that's 2005, this may be from 2006. Ernham 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salary

message: Personaly, I don't feel this incident is noteworthy enough to be included in the article.  Anyone opposed to removing it? Aktornado 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dublin Newspaper

message: Shouldn't you add something about Tiger's practice routine, hardwork and dedication to become the 'Tiger"? He is an icon of professionalism and success. His dedication can be worthy for the learners.
imroz=
::A 60 minutes interview with him said that he practices about 9 hours a day.Ernham 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Practice

message: I noticed that this article uses the term British Open to refer to The Open Championship throughout the article. Don't worry. I'm not an anal retentive who insists that anything other that 'The Open Championship' is wrong and will suffer the wrath of the British Empire. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! Sorry, got carried away. However the article never mentions the name Open Championship. This is likely to perpetuate the myth that the tournement is officially named the 'British Open' as opposed to being a coquoilism.
I have two requests that you can deal with seperately. Firstly, the first mention of the the open to be changed to read The Open Championship (British Open), simply to inform an unknowing reader of its official name. The second request is for tables and the infobox to refer to it as The Open Championship. The reason for this is that while coquial names are fine in normal text. When it comes to tables you don't refer to the Chicago Cubs as The Cubies in a table of World Series Winners. 
FYI. I've just added an optional rydercupapp field in the infobox. You can use this to add the number of ryder cup appearances that Mr Woods has made. josh (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Open 

message: Woods never graduated from college. He attended Stanford for only two years and then forsook further education (much to his father's chgrin, by the way). The info box on the right-hand side lists Stanford under College, and the formatting falsely leads the reader to believe that he completed his education.DocEss 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make it a little more accurate, but the template is acting weird. Not sure how to fix it. Ernham 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College 

message: A compugeek is needed to fix a glitch in the infobox, the link to Stanford University which for some reason displays a couple of [[.  Beats me, and others who have tried to rectify it, but I'M not very wiki-progamming savvy. Moriori 19:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Stanley011 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, yes. But now inaccurate. Please read comment "College" above.DocEss 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glitch in infobox

message: Some idiot/s hiding behind IP addresses keep inserting the line "Woods also served as a House of Representatives page" or some variation of that.  Is there some way we can get a vandal bot to automatically revert whenever the words "page" or "House of Reps" is used in this article so that good faith editors don't have to keep doing it?  Thanks. Stanley011 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: no, the antivandal bot is fairly stupid (unexplained deletions, insertion of expletives on a list, I think, and isn't page-specific in any way).  What can be done is to restrict editing of the page to only registed users.  My sense is that you need a lot of attacks (certainly more than a half-dozen a day) to convince an admin to set up semi-protection, and it's usely only for a day or two, but I could be wrong - in any case, here's the policy: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy.  John Broughton  |  Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-vandal bot badly needed for this page

message: I did clarify the sentence, so it now reads "the only player ever to win multiple professional majors in consecutive years. There  is no debate that in Jones's day, he won amateur titles, which were later made into professional. There is debate about whether or not we should include those in the "majors" category. Given that the links I posted about Tiger Woods being the only man to do so are directly from official golf websites (golflinks and pgatour.com), it is clear that the common perception is that he is the only man to do so. Yes, true Jones did it with amateur and professional titles, but Woods is the only man to do it with professional titles, so there is no need to include Jones.
Supertigerman 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a need to because without this explanation, it gives readers the false impression that amateur majors were not considered majors in Jones's day.  Thus the only accurate way to frame the sentence would be to leave the line about Woods being the only player to win professional majors, and then also noting that Jones did it with amateurs and professionals because, as I and others have explained numerous times before, Jones only had 4 majors in which he could possibly have competed.  All of my assertions are well-sourced (Washington Post, GolfOnline, etc.) and thus are appropriate and indeed necessary for any sort of precision to be achieved. Stanley011 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you did write that, I kept it in for clarification. The huge debate about Jones's winning the Grand Slam is on the page about most major championships. They had a long debate, but concluded that since news sources today talk about the modern professional majors, and not that one with amateur and professional titles, it is what we go by. They concluded that since pgatour.com consistently says that Tiger is 2nd behind only Nicklaus, and not Jones, it refers to the modern definition, which is tougher to achieve. Amateur majors were considered majors, but not professional majors. Therefore, Tiger is the only man to do it by winning professional majors. In any case, you have to admit that given increased length of courses, more players, and much tougher field strength today, Tiger's achievement is more impressive. When I say that Tiger is the only man to win multiple professional majors in consecutive seasons, that does not imply that amateur majors were not considered majors. I am only talking about professional majors. And given that pgatour.com and golfonline say that he is the only one to do it without even mentioning Bobby Jones (see link 19) there isn't a need to mention him. Supertigerman 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanley is undeniably correct. Unequivocally, Jones won the Grand Salm, and he's the only one to have done so. Plus, he was educated..DocEss 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones won the former version of the Grand Slam, in which the only tournaments he could have won were 2 professional majors and 2 amateur majors. No one has won all 4 professional majors in 1 season.Supertigerman 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, thank you for not being a neurotic, dogmatic wikipedia nutcase, and for actually making solid points. However, including Bobby Jones in this one instance is strange because now you'd have to go to every part of every article that talks about the grand slam, or other achievements that have to do with the amateur + professional era, and that's a) not feasible and b)silly because it would simply mar the appreciation for the achievements of others by stating the Jones's accomplishments after every one of those. So my question is, why don't we not include it here, given the statement using the word "professional" is correct? I realize for the sake of historical accuracy and such, but then why not include this at the bottom of the page with the footnote instead? Supertigerman 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for recognizing that I'm not a "wikipedia nutcase" (though I do try to abide by wikipedia policy as much as possible, and from what I can tell, you do as well) but I do dispute your above points.  First, it absolutely is feasible, and indeed quite easy, to go to every part of every article that talks about the majors and add relevant modifications to achieve the greatest context possible--wikipedia has a limited number of golf articles and takes on far greater tasks than this.  In fact, I would like to do just that, and just chose this article as a start.  And as far as maring other players' achievements, I completely disagree.  How does it in any way take away from the fact that Tiger won multiple professional majors in consecutive years by reading the line about Jones?  If anything, I think it adds to the appreciation of Tiger's feat because it shows how far back one must go to even detect a somewhat similar achievement, giving the average reader a wider appreciation for the historical context of Tiger's achivement.  I do not believe this context should be marginilized to the bottom of the page when it directly relates to the issue at hand.  Stanley011 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cluttering up several pages by referring to other golfers and their similar accomplishments will take away from the goal of the statement, I'm afraid. I don't think we should go to every golf page and say "Bobby Jones did the 'grand slam'" and have a bunch of asterisks and explanations for it. Since what he has done is not related to the modern definition, and since mainstream sources do not even mention him, I don't feel that it merits prime importance. This is not to say that what he did was also an accomplishment, but an accomplishment of a different kind which should not be directly compared to modern-day definitions. Hence, in the major golf championships page, they split it up into 1) modern-day and most widely recognized statistic and then later on (due to its lesser significance and lack of widespread acceptance) 2) combination of the amateur/professional merged with just the professional. My point is that adding extra information about "similar achievements" back in the day will only clutter up pages with unnecessary information and detract from the main point. We follow up one line with one line about Jones -- that's distracting especially since Jones has not done the same thing. Why not leave it as "only one to win multiple professional..." since that much is completely true, and not get bogged down in details and explain to the readers why we must include the word "professional"?Supertigerman 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can always remove the entire psuedo-statistic. Sounds like you don't think it's "fair" to count amatuers as majors; I'm sure jones doesn't think it fair he is being compared to someone that got to play in twice as many "real" majors per year than he didErnham 11:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones is bones! He is long passed-on. Win four majors of whatever ilk in one year and you win the Grand Slam. So far it is Jones and Jones alone who has done so. Plus, he was educated. DocEss 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bobby Jones

message: He's won some awards/majors in consecutive years, so should we shorten those parts with hyphens? I think it will make it look concise and more readable. For example, he's won the McCormack award every year, so it would read "1998 - 2006" instead of listing each year. It just doesn't look neat at the moment.Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the info box needs some major work Aktornado 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea it seems too unorganized. What do you suggest? Take a look at what I wrote above entitled "Wins."Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the years from showing all 4 digits to showing 2. My goal was to have clear-cut neat 1-liners. If this appears ugly or incomplete, just give a reason and change it back. I was thinking maybe we could have 2 digits for the parts that are squished (ie Masters), and show all 4 for others (ie US Open, because we can fit all 4 digits in one line). Would that be better? Perhaps we could combine years like I wrote above with a hyphen, and not list them all. Notice I did this only for lines which required it, ie lines in which showing all years with 2 digits would not fit in one line. This would certainly be neater, but some may think that it's bad. If you feel this is inconsistent (and that all need to have hyphens or no hyphens at all), please explain why and change it accordingly. I also made an extra line for the "professional wins" part, which I thought looked more readable. Also, for the "No. 1 PGA Tour Money List," I put the years on the line below it, but could not figure out how to indent those years. Can someone more wiki-savvy do that? I realize that whatever changes we make here will have to be replicated in all other golfers pages. No problem, with your help, we can do that -- let's just make sure we're positive on how we want to format it. If you think I really messed up, please improve it. Supertigerman 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moriori: Right now it looks sloppy with all the parentheses -- can you improve it instead of reverting?Supertigerman 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Awards

message: ESPN golf: Woods himself says "In this day and age, with this competition, to win 11 in a row would be almost unheard of." 
"The rampant Woods, who has won against much better fields in terms of strength in depth..."
I quote: "The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day, and I actually talked to him about this, he said he had to beat four or five guys every week. When you’re hot, that’s not that hard to do. That’s not the case anymore. It’s 40 or 50 now, so it’s a lot different." 
Even in Jack Nicklaus's day, there were 40 club pros at the PGA, and about 70 at the Masters. Nowadays that number is closer to ninety. The PGA has 140 people or so who could win and the two Opens have about 130 of the top players.
Fields today have more people - people who are stronger, as the lengths of courses have increased. This is slightly offset by better equipment, but people work out more, and as the sport has evolved, it has come to require a certain degree of athleticism.
Supertigerman 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stronger Fields than Nelson's Day

message: Look at the Results table. He turned 30 on December 30, 2005. At the British Open in 2005, he achieved his 13th total major. Notice the summary of performances says "46 starts" until now. That includes the 2005 PGA and the 4 majors from 2006. Therefore, 46-5 = 41. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was wrong the first time--thank you for making me aware of that.  It's actually 47, not 46 as I originally wrote.  Your'e neglecting the fact that he competed in the US Amateur in 1991-1996.  Those of course have to be added to the denominator, if you're adding those wins to the numerator do they not?  That means 41+6=47 for a grand total of 26.67%.  I will make the changes now. Stanley011 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh. My bad. Supertigerman 04:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both bad. In one paragraph in the Article (and in discussion above on this page) you diminish Jones' unparalelled accompplishment by claiming that Jones won "...at a time when the US Amateur was considered a major." Then, in a nearby sentence you claim Woods won 13 majors by the time he was 30 when we include the three US Amateur titles. Ya can't have it both ways: you argue above that Jones' Grand Slam somehow doesn't really count becasue two of the Championships available at the time were national amateur events and then you turn around and deify Woods for winning amateur events to bolster your invented 13-by-30 statistic. Please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias.DocEss 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously know nothing of the difference between professional majors and majors including amateur wins. To see the difference, go to the talk page of Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. As for the "deify" comment, no, we recite the facts. Do not come here and chastise us for our contributions because it is people like Stanley011 and me who make Wikipedia a better place. We dedicate time to editing, talk in a civilized manner when we disagree, and we compromise. Supertigerman 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know more than you assume, so be cautious in your tone. Anyway, look at this page, majors, and recite the facts that are there regarding majors. Also, please explain what I asked you to explain: how can you use amateurs-as-majors to make Woods look good and in the same breath use ameteurs-as-majors to make Jones look bad? It's one way or the other! Agian, please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias. DocEss 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think this response adequately covers it. First, you commented in the past on Jones's accomplishment in a discrediting way, with "ya but...amateurs-as-majors" kinda tone. Jones' accomplishment was an astoundingly difficult feat and nobody else has ever acheived it. He won all four majors in a season, not just at a time. No one else has done so and trying to bend facts & force statistics around Wood's "almost" is offensive to Jones (and me as a golf fanatic and a truth fan!). Second, Jones won everything he could have before 30, including those 13 majors --- and they were majors, majors by any definition. Woods did not win 13 majors by the time he was 30. [I do note that those 3 US Amateurs and the 3 Jr. US Amateurs (that makes 6) is also an astoundingly difficult and eminently admirable accomplishment. And, by the way, I watched them all, gawking in awe.] Too bad those 6 don't count as majors, though. Third, adding the winning percentage doesn't get you off the biased hook --- it's certainly neat-o math, but it doesn't turn Woods' 10-by-30 into 13-by-30. And lastly, I suggest (without meaning to offend) that your passions for one of the world's greatest-ever athletes might be controlled in Wiki world by tempering the awe with an insatiable hunger for accuracy. But please don't stop writing - you're doin a great job.DocEss 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tries to 13 total majors

message: To involved editors:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. 
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: I see people have been intent on making every "British Open" into "The Open". First of all, the official name of that tournament is "The Open Championship". Calling it "The Open" is like calling the "PGA Championship" just "PGA". Also, many non-golfers do not know about this distinction, and many in the U.S. know it as the British Open. How can this be clarified, since now there are two "Open"s? Supertigerman 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's bollocks. Not only in the US is it known as the British Open, but elsewhere as well. There was a story about Wikipedia in our local paper today. One paragraph said - "using it is like asking  questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake". It also says some pages seem to have been taken over by fanatics , and I guess that's what has happened here. Go for it Supertigerman, fight the good fight and change it to British Open. . Moriori 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a litany of opinions in the Talk pages for Open Championship. Go read all that and you'll have your fill of this debate, one I predict will be endless, annoying and intolerably boring.DocEss 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Open Obsession