Talk:Tiger Woods

Thrust of this article is Entirely wrong

Tiger Woods is a fantastic, lovable human being. He plays golf amazingly well. These are the things that interest most people. Who GIVES A SQUAT about 55,000 trophies, awards, inductions, etc. etc. etc. Put 'em in a list with their dates and BE DONE WITH IT already. Tell the world what amazing shots he did - holes in one, long putts, trick shots, coming from behind. Who wants an encyclopedia that just lists PGA Tour championships?Friendly Person (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia reader, that's who. Nice to know, however, that you are personal friends with Tiger Woods, and can attest to his personal demeanor. ReignMan (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

Tiger Woods is not only a brilliant sportsman, he is a great human also. Forget about 65 worldwide wins, 14 majors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.54.43 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article states that his name is Eldrick Woods, but it is Eldrick Tiger Woods. Somebody who has the power to edit the article, please do so. Davidjones (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. If you read further in the article, details of his name is described along with references to the effect. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that his middle name could be "Tont", but the 2 online sources provided do not say that. One says it's Eldrick T. Woods, and the second says that it's Eldrick (Tiger) Woods. There was also a transcript provided from the Larry King Live show where Tiger stated that Tiger was given to him at birth. There is a third source that is a book to which I don't have access. Does anyone know if it is this book that gives his middle name as Tont, or is there another source out there that indicates this? Kman543210 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Amazon.com, you can search the book "The Wicked Game: Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, and the Story of Modern Golf". for the word "Tont". On page 120 it says "Their only child, Eldrick Tont Woods was born..." Mr900 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't doubt that was his real name, but the sources weren't specific as to which said what. Kman543210 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved 'Controversy' section into the talk page

I've just gone ahead and moved the "Controversy" section into the talk page. Consensus appears to be "remove". The referenced "Cut streak" and "Tiger proofing" sub-sections can be saved and incorporated back into the main article. I kind of doubt the encyclopedic relevance of those parts myself but I defer to the other editors on the matter - its in here and can be moved back easily enough. Unreferenced stuff is unusable per WP:BLP especially labeled as controversy (eg: Fuzzy Zoeller is still alive - and has sued people who posted untrue stuffs of him on Wikipedia = check out his article). I also noticed that the article length was reduced by about 20kb (from around 100kb) when this section was removed - so some judgement needs to be done on whether the items here is really important enough to be included in an already lengthy article. --Eqdoktor 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Snip - removed old controversy section from talk page as it has served its purpose. WP:BLP also applies to talk pages and unsourced stuff needs to be removed. Vandalism edits were also happening on the section. --Eqdoktor 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page itself has become unmanageable in length, with too many subheadings, many of which are now defunct subjects. I'd like to see a number of these headings removed that distract from the work of maintaining a credible entry. Bottre73 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the "critiques" section again tonight, and I have to say that as years pass, these three issues offer less and less to the entry. Does Tiger proofing work as a critique, or does it seem to go along with general trends in increased golfer fitness and more advanced equipment? The cut streak article is very poorly structured and seems very much a side issue. And Mr. Woods performance in the Ryder Cup hardly merits its own section. Bottre73 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

bad manners at 2009 masters

i dont understand this as i don't think it has happened before, but the camera caught Tiger the past two days at the masters, spitting several times and one time spitting out chewing gum, unmannerly acts... ??? go figure , perhaps related to his anger at poor scores

bobby jones I, champ 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Results Timeline

Is there a good reason why the results timeline should be split in two:

Tournament	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999
The Masters	T41 LA	CUT	1	T8	T18
U.S. Open	WD	T82	T19	T18	T3
The Open Championship	T68	T22 LA	T24	3	T7
PGA Championship	DNP	DNP	T29	T10	1

Tournament	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
The Masters	5	1	1	T15	T22	1	T3	T2	2
U.S. Open	1	T12	1	T20	T17	2	CUT	T2	1
The Open Championship	1	T25	T28	T4	T9	1	1	T12	DNP
PGA Championship	1	T29	2	T39	T24	T4	1	1	DNP

Instead of just one table:

Tournament	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
The Masters	T41 LA	CUT	1	T8	T18	5	1	1	T15	T22	1	T3	T2	2
U.S. Open	WD	T82	T19	T18	T3	1	T12	1	T20	T17	2	CUT	T2	1
The Open Championship	T68	T22 LA	T24	3	T7	1	T25	T28	T4	T9	1	1	T12	DNP
PGA Championship	DNP	DNP	T29	T10	1	1	T29	2	T39	T24	T4	1	1	DNP

"Because it's like that on the other golfer pages" is not a valid reason. Was there a major change in rules which sets apart pre-2000 results from 2000 onwards? That would be a valid reason, for example. If it's better in one table it should be changed on them all. The page should not be left with a substandard layout just because other pages also have a substandard layout. - ARC Gritt^TALK 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the change, don't think anyone would object and it does look better that way. --Daj12192 (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Politics?

Does anyone know what Mr. Wood's political leanings are? I heard that he dodged the question in an interview. Shanoman (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been completely apolitical throughout his career. After the recent edits of the "politics" section, I think the section should be deleted. If none of the events have anything to do with what he believes, why should there be a section about them? I think all it is doing is connecting Woods to Obama when no such connection exists. --Daj12192 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thai

Why is Tiger not categorized as Thai? Pawyilee (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The background section does refer to him as one quarter Thai. Bottre73 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wins table

Why is the wins table so rainbow-coloured?

[1]

grand slam

Tiger Woods does not own a Grand Slam as someone put on his page. winning four in a row over two years is not a grand slam. hasn't the guy achieved enough that people don't have to inflate his accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

I don't follow this page closely enough to know if this is a good edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Info Box

Tiger Woods infobox does not match any other golfer except Jack Nicklaus, which this means it needs to be put back to the previous version to put consistency in the encyclopedia. It would be easier to rectify this by removing this inconsistent ones on these two pages rather than change thousands upon thousands of others. Bluedogtn (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, the infobox on many articles is not standardised and is not a template. Over 50 articles, and increasing, are now using the template. I have been inserting it mostly on articles that currently have no infobox, and it will take time to get progress through them all. You could help. If you wish to discuss further, the Golf WikiProject talk page would be the best the place to do it. _wjemather^bigissue 10:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

tiger woods

I would like to know why Tiger if his dad was 25% chinese and his mom is 25% he is only 25% chinese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blkgrl77 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's how ethnic percentages work. You can't just add the two percentages together, you have to average the two percentages. For example, suppose someone's dad is 100% Chinese and their mom is also 100% Chinese -- then the person would be 100% Chinese, not 200%, because 100% already means the whole thing. Or if someone's dad was 100% Chinese and their mom was 50% Chinese -- then the person would be 75% Chinese, which is the average between 100% and 50%. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

terrible math there. If your mom is 100% asian and your dad is 100% black, you're 50/50. you wouldn't be 100% chinese!!!! why would you type that.

re The previous comment: Its perfect math. Your asian/black example is different to tiger's case. You must calculate 50% of the total ie. his Mums 25 + his dads 25 = 50. 50/2 = 25% chinese.

 What I don't get is how he could be 25% Chinese,25% Thai,and 25% "African American"  (etc). Shouldn't it be 25% African? 76.166.245.241 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

LOL I found the unnamed person's response to Metropolitan90 hilarious. His or her's example of "If your mom is 100% asian and your dad is 100% black..." only proves Metropolitan90's math, not counter it as they obviously intended. 100% asian averaged with 0% asian would be 50 ... just like he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please update Tiger's equipment

I am not a registered user and this page is locked.

Source: http://www.pga.com/2009/news/industry/02/23/tiger_equipment/index.html

"Woods will carry the Nike SQ Dymo prototype driver (8.5 deg.) when he tees it up this week at the WGC -- Accenture Match Play Championship. He used a Nike Sasquatch Tour driver in his last appearance at the 2008 U.S. Open. He will also be playing Nike's Victory Red Forged Blades, a new set that he helped develop with Nike. Woods' irons are set to 1 degree upright, have a D4 swingweight, standard size Tour velvet grips and True Temper Dynamic Golf X-100 shafts.) Woods will have the SQ2 fairway woods, a Victory Red sand wedge and a Nike SV lob wedge. Woods will continue to use Scotty Cameron Studio Stainless Newport 2 putter -- with standard lie and loft, 35 inches long.

Woods plays the Nike One Platinum ball, wears the Air Zoom TW 2009 shoes and will, of course, wear apparel from the Tiger Woods collection."

Thank you!

68.229.127.125 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

great listing of equipment, can anyone comment on the impact of using this top equipment on the leading players games, e.g. it is, in my view likely 4-6 strokes per round, and so without this great equipment,

Tiger would NOT be Tiger and have won ??? 1/2 the wins he presently has ???

and a great player as bobby jones, who used hickory shafts on his divers and irons, would, with modern graphite or stell shafts, EASILY beat Tiger badly ????

and taking those 4-6 strokes off Jack Nichlaus scores, if he had had that present modern equipment,

would have had him winning double the no. of wins he presently shows AND the fact that Jack Nicklaus semi-retired, from ab age 35-45 with a bad back, means his record still entirely beats Tiger, who will play through this age 35-45 period and so compare his MANY more active years of playing to then claim he beat the Nicklaus records...

record keeper willy jonez 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

add one IW please

Resolved

'''伍老虎'''nowiki (ctrl-click)">'''伍老虎'''nowiki (ctrl-click)">'''伍老虎'''nowiki (ctrl-click)">'''伍老虎'''nowiki (ctrl-click)">'''伍老虎'''nowiki (ctrl-click)">[[wuu:伍老虎]]

Done. --B (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Record

"and the first person to win two tournaments at the same golf course in the same season."

This is incorrect on two accounts. First, Jack Nicklaus won the Crosby and the US. Open in 1972, both events were at Pebble Beach. Second, Tiger also won the Pebble Beach Pro-am and the US Open, both at Pebble Beach, in 2000. I believe the record the writer was going after is that Tiger is the first person to win two tournaments at the same course in the same year on TWO different occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.197.133 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle at Bighorn and the Showdown at Sherwood?

These two events should be included on this page of Tiger Woods!GOLFAUTHORITY 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tiger Woods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Result was Keep--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf, Supertigerman (talk · contribs), Tewapack (talk · contribs), ZimZalaBim (talk · contribs), Giants2008 (talk · contribs), and Sli723 (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As part of the GA Sweeps, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria. I find in excess of a dozen paragraphs without any citation. This means that the article either needs to be reorganized or that there are many distinct topics without any references. I am a regular watcher of this page. I check all editorial changes at least twice a week. I am very aware of how closely this page is watched and have full expectation that involved editors will uphold this GA status. Please don't let me down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - Problems go deeper than a simple lack of citations. I counted 14 sources that I would consider questionable, plus several others from his official website. This is Tiger Woods. It shouldn't be rocket science to come up with good references for someone who has been written about as much as him. I would also like to see his 2007 and 2008 seasons take up less space, to avoid any hint of recentism. The trivial nickname at the end is not helping either. I'll try to dig up some more cites, but other changes will also be needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward Keep It is down to six paragraphs without citations and is continuing to improve. I will check back in about a week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep the article may not be perfect, but it has greatly improved and is well-deserving of being kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the financials. For instance, in 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Rankings and http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/157.html say 11 millions but this page say 10.8 millions. I'd be tempted to trust the numbers of the official pgatour page instead?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.81.205 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This page, which is linked to in the article, matches the figure given. The page you linked to is a world list that apparently includes earnings from events on other tours. After looking at List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods, I believe the Dubai Desert Classic (a European Tour event) accounts for the difference. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Hi all,

I am handling an OTRS ticket from a senior employee with Tiger's company ETW Corp., regarding the name of Tiger in this article. It is contended unequivocally that "Tont is not Tiger's middle name" and that "his official middle name has always been Tiger".

I have analyzed the references presented here, and two of the three used make no mention of Tont. That leaves only the book; quite frankly, one reference in passing by a book does not outweigh both what Tiger has said himself on television, and what is being contended in this OTRS ticket (#2009061110035594) by someone who is authorised to represent him.

I propose that both the "Tont" from the lead, and the short sentence relating to how he got it, both of which are sourced to the in-passing remark in that book, be removed. I ask for your comments in forming a consensus before doing so, however.\

Regards,

Daniel (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what he said. Having examined said ticket, I agree. Keegan (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, this individual poses a sound argument. I agree, as well. Bottre73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

name of amateur competitor?

Looking for the name of the competitor with Tiger for his last amateur chamnpionship. Was a white guy who had a pretty girlfriend who was his caddy. I remember the announcers saying that both competitors would make it big professionally and wanted to check and see what happened with the Tiger competitor. Ring a bell? 52.129.8.51 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger's opponent in the 1996 U.S. Amateur final was Steve Scott. I tried looking him up in a Google News search, but didn't find much. There is a March 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer piece on Scott, but it's not freely avaliable on the Internet. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Racism

{{editsemiprotected}} Could someone with access change the statement:

Since his record-breaking win at the 1997 Masters Tournament, golf's increased popularity is attributed to Woods' presence. He is credited for dramatically increasing prize money in golf, generating interest in new audiences as the first person of color to win the Masters, and for drawing the largest TV audiences in golf history.

...surely "non-white person" is as accurate and a lot better than "person of color"...

Is it appropriate to add...

That Tiger Woods experienced flatulence on his way for his victory at the 2009 Buick Open? Is it appropriate enough to be included, or is it too irrevelant and controversial? I have the cited sources about his farting. Thanks. And by the way, should this page be archived, since it's already 124 kilobytes long? -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 15:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fart jokes are a superior form of comedy, regardless of what Scott thinks. It should totally be included.72.229.212.177 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant and will not be included. Please familiarize yourself with the nature of appropriate content for encyclopedic entries. Bottre73 (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then. Also, should this page be archived? It's 125 kilobytes long, which makes older computers take a very long time to process their edits. (It's taking my computer almost a minute to process my edit) -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bad External Link

As of Wed Aug 19 10:56:27 CDT 2009, the link to Tiger Woods Perfect Golf Swing Video at www.mindrelish.com fails. DNS lookup of that server fails. I do not know if this is a temporary hiccup or permanent issue. Maybe someone can check in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplflyer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add his net worth

Estimated at $600 million by Forbes.[2] Twocontinents (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo in Article

There is a typo in the article, in the subsection "Golf Course Design" it is said that Tiger Woods will design a course in Esenada, Baja California. The name of the city is Ensenada

TGA?

On another wiki I saw an article about Tiger Woods when he was 16 he won his first TGA Tournament there is not a such thing is there. It's supposed to be PGA right? I figured somebody would know. 4.224.210.52 (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Car accident

The discussion below reflects censorship by Tiger Woods supporters. The car accident was breaking news on CNN. The entire incident, including Mr. Woods refusal to be interviewed by police authorities is mainstream news in global media. Not to include it in Wikipedia is highly unusual. Articles like this are very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.198.46 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Hardly. Tiger Woods supporters? Speaking only for myself, I have no strong feelings about the man, but the story about the accident was newsworthy, so I came to Wikipedia to see if anything relevant had made its way into the 'Pedia, then I came to the conclusion that this story can, should, and is being covered by Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews. This incident does not yet merit coverage by Wikipedia, and it probably never will. // Internet Esquire (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This incident is worth mentioning. Not doing so would quite literally be "ignorant". There is so much information floating around, at least wikpedia can be a source for the known facts without sensationalizing.

The known facts are: Tiger woods was involved in a car accident at his Florida home at 2:30 am on November 27th. He was taken to the hospital and released shortly after and is in good condition. The incident is under investigation.

From Health Central Hospital and Tiger Woods' office: Tiger Woods was in a minor car accident outside his home last night. He was admitted, treated and released today in good condition. We appreciate very much everyone's thoughts and well wishes.

source: http://web.tigerwoods.com/news/article/200911277723088/news/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.15.81 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia should be a source of accurate information, it should not become a temporary home for newsworthy information that will soon become dated and irrelevant. From What Wikipedia is not:

Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

// Internet Esquire (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no source, but there's reports out of Florida, that Woods was in an auto accident. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no source? It's all over the news. Norum 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy, to dig a source up. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Should have know...lol... Norum 20:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

critically injured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.142.89 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He is very bad injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.130.156 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all over CNN, and other local news.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He was released from the hospital with facial lacerations. Not a "serious" injury. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/woods-out-of-hospital-following-car-crash-1829715.html 71.182.233.240 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)James

I have saved time and already put that he was released.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And I've updated the article regarding the facial lacerations, as documented in a USA Today website page. As for "serious" injury, that's what was being reported, and we should keep that information in the article; it's factual that this was what was being reported, even if in fact initial reports were untrue. [We shouldn't say they were untrue at this point, but if a newspaper or other reliable source does say that the initial reports were wrong with regard to "serious", then we can (essentially) quote such a source.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is any of this even worth mentionin in an article. Surely getting a scratch in fender-bender that is so minor that no one found out about it for a day doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Just delete the entire paragraph! 216.16.225.18 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning because it happened to a World's Number 1 Golfer, and most likely one of many famous athletes, of course its worth mentioning, however if it happened to some Hockey player whos only 19 then No it wouldn't be worth mentioning.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsworthy, but not yet worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. As the story develops, it may turn into something more noteable. Right now, the most noteworthy spin on this story is the fact that Tiger Woods jealously defends his privacy, going so far as to sue his yachtmaker (and win) because said yachtmaker used Tiger's name and image in promotional materials without Tiger's permission. // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You sound like you have a fucking problem with someone defending their privacy. You are the worst kind of asshole, one who thinks people in the limelight should always be in the limelight. Dickweed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.32.149 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it should matter to anyone how I feel about it, but I don't "have a fucking problem with someone defending their privacy," which is why I argued that the story does not yet merit being mentioned in the 'pedia. God knows how you could come to any other conclusion, much less decide that my comments merited an unprovoked personal attack. Once again, the most noteworthy spin that the press has put on this story is that Tiger Woods has a knack for avoiding the limelight. Ironically enough, he named his yacht the Privacy. // Internet Esquire (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this content is not really encyclopedia material, unless further developments occur. As it stands right now, my understanding is he got in a car accident, went to the hospital, and was released in the same day. Something like that would be forgotten by just about anyone -- it's just life. Now if there were some kind of long-term injury that impacted his career, it would be worth mentioning, but it's not. As said earlier, newsworthy, but not encyclopedia-worthy; this would even encroach on violating WP:BLP. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that someone remove "charges pending", which is not stated in the source. It is a BLP violation and libelous. 71.77.19.7 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Charges pending" was included in the original source, which in all good faith is probably where it came from. That may have changed, but it was in the original AP article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotta be honest guys, I'm an infrequent contributor, but I came to Tiger's wiki to see what was being said about the accident (I like following Wiki politics :-) I was extremely dissapointed it isn't even being mentioned. It is an absolute certainty that this incident will be included in nearly every historical summary of his career, and it is absolutely asanine to not include the incident on the page. It doesn't have to speculate anything, but we know for a fact Tiger Woods drove into a tree at 2:30 AM outside his house and is refusing to explain what happened to the public. That much should be documented and everybody here knows it. Megacake (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's a single-car, low-speed, minor alcohol-free traffic accident with no injuries. Unless something else happens involving this accident, it's actually the opposite of "an absolute certainty" that it'll be mentioned as a historical part of Tiger Woods' career. "Knocked over a fire hydrant" isn't exactly in the same category as "Won 14 majors."

The facts are detailed in the article already. If something else happens in regards to the accident and it becomes more notable (and is covered in reliable secondary sources, not gossip outlets), it should be added to the article. Until then, we shouldn't speculate. Dayewalker (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it all seems to be cleared up now. Tiger Woods has been fined $160 for accidentally hitting a fire hydrant with his car, and he's released a statement that this "entire situation" is his fault.

Wait, he hit a fire hydrant, right? So what "entire situation" is he talking about? If I hit a fire hydrant with my car, I wouldn't be refusing to talk to police and then making a press release apology for "the entire situation".

It's very fortunate that his wife was "coincidentally following" the car in a golf cart at the time and was there to "rescue" Tiger from the hydrant crash. According to one eyewitness, she rescued him with a golf club repeatedly until a police car arrived.

And why has the alleged mistress just laid down $100,000 for one of the most expensive lawyers in Hollywood? And please nobody say that this question is irrelevant to a wikipedia article on Tiger Woods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

champion's truth

we do have the fact(s) that Tiger has / is refusing to reveal the truth ab this incident , a fact for all to see, that is a part of the character of the so called champion tiger ... scales o jus 69.121.221.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Scenarios

No offense to any of the editors who've speculated on what may have happened with the car accident, but I'm removing that section here on the talk page as per WP:BLP. Wikipedia isn't for speculation, it's for reporting the facts. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people applies on talk pages as well, so we shouldn't be speculating here about what might have happened. Dayewalker (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As the car accident has become world news, it should at least be mentioned briefly. Or we might end up with a new article dedicated to that particular event... --Hapsala (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned briefly in the article, pending any more information (or effects on Tiger Woods' life). If Woods was going to miss substantial time because of the injury, or if there was some kind of (confirmed) personal detail about the wreck that was notable, it would be a part of the article. Right now, all we have up are the facts confirmed through reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Uchitel

Please read Talk:Rachel Uchitel before editing. Someone may want to do a procedural AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP removal

As we did during the John Edwards affair, I have removed the references to an affair pending reporting of the alleged affair itself in reliable sources. Reliable sources have discussed the National Enquirer's story on the alleged affair, but no reliable sources have discussed an affair (the National Enquirer does not qualify as a reliable source). This is required by our policy on biographies of living people. We are not a tabloid. We do not report on tabloid rumors. We particularly do not publish negative information about living people that has not been reported first in reliable sources.--Chaser (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please quote relevant parts of the giant pages you have linked to. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what Chaser is trying to say is that by quoting a gossip site/non-reliable source, we give credence to it. Quoting rumors from a gossip site, then saying Tiger Woods denied rumors seems to give more weight to the rumors. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think that's in our rules. I could be wrong, and if a quote is provided I'll revert myself (although I'm about to go to bed). I've added back the original neutral statement. I didn't read what the other editor added, and I didn't add it back in. The Enquirer's allegations have become one of the most notable incidents in TW's incredibly notable life, regardless of their veracity. It will probably be more notable if they're false (leading to lawsuits that last a lot longer than an apology), but at this point a short neutral statement is the way to go. Whether the allegations are proven or disproven, the allegations themselves are notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia's policies address this situation adequately. To wit, quoting the AP reports that quote the National Enquirer is not the same thing as quoting the National Enquirer itself, but doing so accomplishes the same bad result. Moreover, from a standpoint of legal liability, I (personally) steer clear of repeating allegations that are more than likely false and slanderous. (Note that this is not a legal opinion, nor should it be construed as legal advice.) Even when asked for specifics about such allegations, I simply point to URLs rather than quoting or discussing the content, as I've seen quite a few "innocent" third parties swept up into very expensive lawsuits. On this note, since names have been named and specific allegations included in the Tiger Woods article, I've stopped editing the article itself; the only reason I'm still contributing to this talk page is because this particular section of the page does not name names or cite specific allegations. Thank God I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, or I might feel compelled to protect the article and run the risk of being labeled a censor. // Internet Esquire (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For something with such obvious BLP ramifications, the National Enquirer just doesn't cut it as a source, even when used by the mainstream media. Why are we compelled to include such rumors when we don't need them to report on the accident itself? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've been overtaken by events. Today there are new stories on this rumor by many major media outlets. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has a good summary. In any case, I should have better explained myself to begin with. This old ANI thread is probably the best summary, or (even briefer) the talk page post that MastCell references. In any case, MastCell was influenced there by the edit-warring, which is not a factor here. Given how much media coverage these allegations are getting now, I think they have become important enough to include in the article, in compliance with BLP, even if they are false and denied forever. Moving forward, of course, we should be careful to continue to describe them as rumor unless reliable sources give them more credence, or one or both parties admits them.--Chaser (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this story now has legs. The original allegations about the New York party hostess are almost certainly bogus, but a second woman by the name of Jamie Grubbs (added: the correct spelling may be Jaimee Grubbs) has come forward, and Tiger Woods has issued a new statement on his website apologizing for his "transgressions." I'm not one to judge, but this new development means that the events leading up to Tiger's auto accident are going to have a much longer lasting impact on Tiger's reputation. // Internet Esquire (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well folks, the mistress count has now reached 3 and will probably rise. Our boy is sounding more like his mentor MJ every day. Nothing about this story has been the least bit surprising, and it is also quite premature to declare the Rachel story as "almost certainly bogus." You have no way of knowing this. You are also quite unfair to the Enquirer on matters of marital infidelity. Where there's smoke there's fire, and the Enquirer is usually correct in these matters (as opposed to, say, aliens). NE reported MJ's marital "issues" as early as 1997, while they were in fact going on, and years before his eventual divorce. The chorus of MJ apologists kept slurring the Enquirer right up until the day NE was proven correct. Now we have a similar chorus equally adamant about Tiger's moral fiber, right up until the time he publicly confessed to "transgressions." The snowball is accelerating. Someone might want to start thinking about how to rewrite these paragraphs in Wiki-suitable fashion after the disclosed story has gotten much worse, from Tiger's perspective. Jrgilb (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eldrick Tont vs. Eldrick Tiger

None of the three sources immediately after Tiger's name read anything on his middle name being Tont. A recently released Orange County traffic infraction ([3] PDF) involving Tiger has his full name as "Eldrick Tiger Woods." That's one source for Eldrick Tiger and zero for Eldrick Tont. --Zimbabweed (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Car accident and aftermath section

I just reverted a change in this section title to add the word "adultery". I have removed it, per WP:BLP. Although his apology implicitly admits that he had an affair, I'm still not comfortable with describing it in Wikipedia's voice as "adultery", which was traditionally a crime. Affair may be a better word, but I'd like to have a thorough discussion about this before we change the section title.--Chaser (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I went to the wikiarticle on adultery and found this: "The term "adultery" for many people carries a moral or religious association, while the term "extramarital sex" is morally or judgmentally neutral." I reworded the section title to the even softer term, "extramarital relations", and hopefully the community here will find that to be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vybr8 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: marital infidelity. There are some actions that do not lend themselves to complete neutrality. For example, "murder" vs. "premeditated, voluntary manslaughter." Either way it is really bad. "Adultery" is probably archaic since no one is ever prosecuted even where it is still illegal. But any public report of marital infidelity has a negative connotation which you can't avoid. Jrgilb (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that the story of extramarital relations was published prior to the car crash. I'd suggest rethinking the order listed in the current edit: "Car accident and revelation of extramarital relations" Vybr8 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The original Enquirer story involving the New York party hostess did not and does not appear to be true. Only after the accident story did the original Enquirer story start to get attention, and when Jaimee Grubbs started talking, Tiger changed his statement to a "pregnant denial." // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The original Enquirer story was ignored before the accident, but this signifies absolutely nothing about its veracity. You have know way of judging true or false. Tiger provided an implied denial in his first statement, then a totally self-contradictory implied confession in his second statement. Any denials by the principals, him or her, are obviously self-serving and completely unreliable. Wait, you mean people actually lie to the media and the public? I am shocked! ("Your winnings sir.") Jrgilb (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Round up the usual suspects!" // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "infidelity" here, "adultery" is archaic and specific for things not yet confirmed. Something happened, but until we get reliable sources on what it was, we shouldn't be too specific. The voice mail and press conference didn't confirm any details, so I think it's bet to go with a blanket statement of infidelity. Dayewalker (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

True enough that I have no way of knowing whether the original Enquirer story is true or false, but it lacks credibility by any sort of legal standard, and it would not have seen the light of day but for the accident. Similarly, Jaimee Grubbs revelations followed news reports of the accident and appear to be a consequence of it. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source that says he had an affair? I know he has all but confirmed it, but I don't see a high quality reference saying he has had an affair. Until we get that, I do not see how we can state, in Wikipedia's voice, that he had an affair.--Chaser (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's your concern, the reversion you just made makes no sense at all. "Revelations of alleged extramarital affairs" is much better than "affair claims." // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why's that better? It's not really possible to reveal an allegation. Allegations are made. What about just "alleged affair"? I'm using singular here because both parties have denied the Uchitel affair claim and none of the major news outlets have treated it seriously.--Chaser (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is interesting in its discussion of Woods' media coverage, though not so much about the car accident itself. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the rush? Wikipedia has no deadline. In the next few days the truth will likely come out, or it will become apparent that the truth will never come out. Can't we just wait a few days to see rather than trying to be on top of the latest? - Wikidemon (talk)

Linking Jack Nicklaus' name

Just a quick suggestion to add [[ ]] to Jack Nicklaus' name. His first mention is in the following sentence- "In 2002, he started off strong, joining Nick Faldo (1989–90) and Jack Nicklaus (1965–66) as the only men to have won back-to-back Masters Tournaments." Faldo's name is linked. I do a lot of this tidying up (I rarely log in though), but this is the first time I've wanted to edit a semi-protected page.

Vivouk (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)vivouk

Tiger's Religion

I think it's worth mentioning in this article that Tiger Woods is a Buddhist which he learned from his Thai mother.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKB64063720080327?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Winstonwolf33 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger's birthplace questionable

Does anyone know the name of the hospital in Cypress, CA where Tiger was born?

Is it possible that Tiger was born in the "Anaheim General Hospital" or "West Anaheim Medical Center"; both are near the Anaheim-Cypress border.

I’m just curious, because to my knowledge there has never been a hospital in Cypress, CA.

PS. I will not object to the deletion of this subject and it's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.35.192 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Somebody should delete this from the main article: "Just testing to see whether there really is a Wikipedia editor exodus." - ironically, unlike this vandal, I don't have the necessary rights.

 Done - By Tewapack.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  281° 0' 45" NET   18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Events

The section detailing 5 days of Nov/Dec (crash/affairs) is not encyclopedic format. No encyclopedia gives a day-by-day account of "new developments". It comes across poorly. It should be succinctly encapsulated in a sentence or two without the detailed timeline.--Billymac00 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll be able to limit this to a sentence or two due to the media firestorm it has created. However, I have significantly edited the section to make it far less of a play-by-play. With time, we'll be able to pare it down even more.--Chaser (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesper Parnevik's comments

Is there any particular reason for including Jesper Parnevik's comments? Many people have commented on the recent events, but I'm having trouble seeing why a whole paragraph on Parnevik's comments are not undue weight. It is true that he introduced Tiger to his wife, but given that his comments have been mostly covered by the Golf Channel, I think a whole paragraph devoted to them as too much. What do others think?--Chaser (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:UNDUE that would preclude those comments. Perhaps you can give an exact quote from WP:UNDUE that you think the paragraph in question violates. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed undue to me also. I know Parnevik has more of an interest in this than other golfers, but it seems kind of strange to single him out for negative comments and ignore other golfers/athletes. Dayewalker (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comment is undue. Particularly given that his is the only response -- were it balanced against support from sponsors, that might make sense. Not that I'm proposing that. I think the less said, the better, in terms of remaining Wikipedic in the current frenzy. Nrehnby (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Spirit Airlines - eye of the Tiger

I wroting this section:

• Spirit Airlines launching advertisements relate to Tiger scandal called as "Eye of the Tiger Sale". This is shown image of SUV crashing into a fire hydrant Tiger did not got endorsement pay from airline.

I needing help to improving text so other editor did not delete it. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)