Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

The business relationships Woods has formed with companies such as Chevron and countries such as Dubai suggest he is either politically ignorant, apothetic or in favor of extremely unsavory business practices. The Nation magazine published the article "Tiger Woods Deserves Your Scrutiny" in thier Novmeber 30th, 2009 edition which states:

In 2008 Chevron entered a five-year relationship with Tiger Woods's foundation under the guise of philanthropy. But if Woods had a shred of social conscience, this partnership never would have existed. Lawsuits have been issued against Chevron for dumping toxic waste all over the planet. Alaska, Canada, Brazil, Angola and California have all accused Chevron of dumping. Even worse, Chevron has a partnership with Burma's ruling military junta on the country's Yadana gas pipeline project, the single greatest source of revenue for the military, estimated at nearly $5 billion since 2000.

Ka Hsaw Wa, co-founder and executive director of EarthRights International, wrote in an open letter to Woods, "I myself have spoken to victims of forced labor, rape, and torture on Chevron's pipeline--if you heard what they said to me, you too would understand how their tragic stories stand in stark contrast to Chevron's rhetoric about helping communities." Chevron is underwriting a dictatorship, but Tiger Woods apparently sees them as upstanding corporate partners.

Then there is Dubai, site of the first Tiger Woods-designed golf course. Located at the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, Dubai has been a symbol of economic excess and, most recently, economic collapse. It has been called an "adult Disneyland"--complete with indoor ski resorts and unspeakable human rights violations. As Johann Hari wrote in the Independent, it is a city that has been built over the past thirty years by slave labor. Paid foreign laborers work in more than 100-degree heat for less than $3 a day. Dubai also has a reputation as ground zero of the global sex trade. The project cost $100 million, and Woods said nary a word about his benefactor's practices. This is business as usual for Woods who would sooner swallow a five-iron than take anything resembling a political stand.

See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/zirin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.67.167 (talk • contribs)

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)

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

[[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)

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.[1] Twocontinents (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 ([2] 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)

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)

Name

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)

Race

Wow. The section detailing this man's "racial" makeup in terms of fractions is staggeringly strange, and a pure example of the American obsession with race-as-identity (ie. a convenient way of never looking beneath the surface). This should be addressed; however, the article is protected. Somebody should make clear that the neurotic attitude evidenced by this article is non-standard, harmful and plain weird. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. You should be able to edit it.--Chaser (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with the user above, and have removed the detailed 'percentages' from the section about Woods' parents: frankly, it's pretty silly to assign exact percentages to a person's ethnic makeup without them undergoing some kind of DNA test. Also, it just looked weird. I've left in the description of Woods' own ancestry though, which is rather more notable: whatever the reasons for it, many media sources have commented on his multiethnic background. Robofish (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article...

...But you all can decide: [3]. I don't think there's anything here yet, but its a developing part of the Tiger Woods saga, and should probably be watched. At least there's a reliable source should this become more important. --Jayron32 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

I would think there are enough warnings about BLP here, but apparently not enough for some people. Do not use the talk page or edit summaries to take shots at Tiger Woods or anyone else involved. Stick to the facts about what happened. Enigma^msg 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Car accident and alleged affairs

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

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)

Censorship?

This discussions was originally at the top of the thread.--Chaser (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Right or wrong, there is absolutely no chance that Wikipedia will ignore the ubiquitous news coverage of Tiger Wood's alleged extramarital affairs. Indeed, I just saw a short piece on The Kudlow Report covering the story, so the most that someone like you might hope for is to make sure that the truth is not mixed with sensational and unverified rumors. // Internet Esquire (talk) 01:02, 8 December 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)

Well, that article has now been deleted for the second time... --Hapsala (talk) 16:51, 8 December 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)

Section title

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 no 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)

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)

A paragraph may be too much, but DUE weight is determined by the amount in reliable sources. I haven't seen many positive statements, but I have seen a number of articles about Jesper's statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not undue weight, his views are relevant as he's the one who introduced the couple in the first place. A line or so should be included. His comments have been widely reported, eg. here, it's not just the Golf Channel.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Google news has thousands of hits for Tiger Woods in the last few days, but looking at these headlines, I'm not seeing a focus on Parnevik's comments.--Chaser (talk) 18:00, 5 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)

You never need to apologize on Wikipedia for needing help with English. Wikipedia encourages writers of all languages to contribute, and you should feel free to ask for help when you need it. I did, however, reject the new text. I'm afraid it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, on several points. All the best. Nrehnby (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nrehnby on both points, good luck with wikipedia, and feel free to ask for help anytime. However, I agree the text you've added doesn't belong on Woods' article. A page for Tiger Woods doesn't need to list every one of his endorsements. Dayewalker (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two. It's undue weight to a tiny ad campaign on a biographies of a living person.--Chaser (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

American Media (publisher)

There are a lot of good media sources starting to state that American Media (publisher) knew about this story in 2007 while investigating for National Enquirer, (eg: Daily Mail), but traded silence for an interview article in Men's Fitness. Aside from the "with whom" issue, this seems to be developing into a "who knew when" story - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's give it until tomorrow to see how it develops. I'd like to see some both more and more serious sources reporting on this before we include it. Per WP:UNDUE, we don't have to record every detail, and that's doubly true when the details are harmful to the subject's reputation (both the publisher's and Woods').--Chaser (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I wholly agree - hence placing a note here over modifying the article. This is moving too fast at present, and much of it more appropriate to WikiNews over Wikipedia. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged mistresses

Shouldn't there be a complete list of all of Tiger Woods' mistresses ? There's seven now with more coming out every day.--Tovojolo (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The article currently lists Uchitel and Grubbs, the two that have had the greatest effect on this story. The others are not listed because having a complete, ever-expanding list is an unnecessary detail better fitting of a tabloid publication than an encyclopedia article.--Chaser (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Once Jamie Grubbs spoke out, I knew this story had legs, and I expected that we would see more and more public scrutiny of Tiger's alleged infidelities. Far from news, they've been reported for years, and not just by tabloids, but the stories never got much attention before now. As it now stands, Uchitel and Grubbs are no longer news, but many of Tiger's other alleged mistresses are, and once this story plays out, a laundry list of the women romantically linked to Tiger may be appropriate, or even the subject of a separate article. Right now, coverage of this still-developing story belongs on Wikinews. // Internet Esquire (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional women are starting to get coverage from things that approach, but are not quite reliable sources. I urge caution and patience. The important part is not that Wikipedia is first or scoops the mainstream press. The important part is that we get the article right, and keep the article in compliance with strict requirements of the biography of living persons policy. The serious claims that are being made about Woods are likely to affect his reputation and earning potential. To that end, for the claims of additional affairs, we should wait for higher quality sourcing than I'm seeing so far, such as the NY Daily News gossip section and Fox News' entertainment blog. (There's also the Economic Times, but that appears to be an outlier that is anyway simply parroting the Fox blog.) We would do well to wait until we get reports from papers of record, such as the London Times and the NY Times, with which to update the article. Certainly any tabloid is always insufficient. In between these two extremes, we should check to see if claims are widely reported and only include them if doing so would attribute due weight to the press coverage.--Chaser (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Must agree with the above sentiments. Take note that Wikipedia is not news and we must fall in line with BLP guidelines. Accordingly, if we are to list anyone, we should be asserting that (1) it is cited by a strong, valid reference (read: not tabloids), (2) it is a notable incident, and (3) is not going to violate any BLP policy. In such a situation as now where emotions are running wild, we are better off just waiting for things to settle down than trying to be the first with the information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news bulletin. We gain nothing but inaccuracies from trying to rush information out before it's ready. --Shirik (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, but it is a living encyclopedia edited by humans. That means readers expect a reasonable error rate at any given point in time, especially as it pertains to current happening events. As long as we are citing reputable sources like the Botson Herald or other major publications, then why not include all the information we can with citations. If the next day a clarification comes out or a denial posted in the press, this data can be modified. What's the point of having a Wikipedia page on BLP folks if they are all going to be white-washed. Also, regarding notability, of course this is notable. Its the story of Icarus and Tiger played with fire, now he's getting burned. If it was not notable, why is his wife re-negotiating her prenup to the tune of $60m for 2 more years. I'll tell you why, because Nike, Titleist, and Gillette are telling Tiger that they are sticking with him... unless Elin pulls the plug because that would confirm all allegations and cause a media storm. Wikipedia is NOT an investigative journalistic source and I understand does not want nor does it have a liable fund. But this whole series of affairs and mistresses is notable regarding its impact on this individual given the reactions his Sponsors will undoubtedly have. 76.103.60.227 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's virtue in waiting for a consensus among the press that they've got the right story instead of printing what the first weak reliable source says. The Boston Herald, not even Boston's leading paper, said that Woods' wife moved out. Now a local Fox affiliate is reporting that they're both planning to leave for a private Swedish island. Which is true? We're better of waiting than including things that don't have citations to more cautions news organizations.--Chaser (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We both agree that any point made in the article should be notable. The fact that she's moving out of the house is not that notable - if she holds a press conference at the same time, maybe. Celebrities have homes all over the globe and travel to them frequently - so what. The fact that she's renegotiating her prenup as stated in the press is very notable, in light of recent events, namely the fact that Tiger publicly denied inital allegations. By your standards above we'd never have ANY contributions to any pages on any developing story for a BLP. Most stories are a work in progress as it relates to BLP - He's admitted to 'transgressions' already. The key thing here is having a NPOV with clear citations to reputable sources. We come to Wikipedia to get a NPOV summary of what the latest chronological set of facts are on a subject - as agreed to by a mutual consensus of the mass consciousness since we can all edit, albeit tweaked by experienced, knowledgeable moderators, of course. Yes, these facts can change, but if they are both notable and cited with reference to a reputable source, why censor? If you Google 'Tiger Woods Update' now you get 5,000 sources with info on this story. I looked at the list and there are alot of major publications that are household names discussing what's happening. I'm not advocating including every nuance and tidbit, but the current article only names one mistress and MANY publications are pointing to upwards of 6. Why can't we publish all the names? 76.103.60.227 (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

There are a number of editors, including an admin, who are systematically deleting everything that doesn't fit their personal preferences. For these individuals, it doesn't really matter whether the developing story has been top news for a couple of weeks. As of now, the article certianly takes into consideration the fact that most facts are indeed disputed. But, if the "truth" is requested here, almost the entire section "Accident and alleged affairs" should be deleted. --Hapsala (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this recent addition (in the last paragraph), we've got two new sources claiming he's had affairs with more women, including Holly Sampson. One is a blog from the San Francisco Chronicle. I can't find any indication of whether this blog is subject to any fact-checking or the newspaper's editorial control. The blog certainly doesn't look like the kind of source we'd traditionally use on BLPs, ending its post with "I don't know. I just don't know. Stay tuned." The other source is The Boston Herald, which is a reliable source. That said, I don't see that the claims of additional paramours beyond the first six have been widely reported. If they're not widely reported in the middle of such intense media focus, then including them would attribute undue weight to the claims. We should wait until there is wide reporting by reliable sources for the rumored eight or ten women. Otherwise, it is undue weight.--Chaser (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that this is a widely reported develping story. At this very minute, e.g., The Wall Street Journal reports that governor Nordengren was taken to hospital on a strecher Tuesday. Unfortunately, however, most facts from the prime sources we have been familiar with, might be rather unconfirmed, to say the least. The article, however, deals with this problem in an acceptable way, and just because you don't endorse the prime sources does not automatically imply that you should delete material in the article. Anyway, thanks for your genuine concern. --Hapsala (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the only sources don't fall in line with Wikipedia policy, then it very much does mean that the material should be deleted. You have to be very careful with primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. Again, there is no reason to rush this information out. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. There is no net benefit from rushing information onto the page, and there is certainly a net loss. --Shirik (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one reliable secondary source available, the Boston Herald (linked above).--Chaser (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shirik. Any "mistresses" that should be listed should have multiple reliable sources cited, preferably from national news agencies (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN). With such a "hot topic" now, there should be many reliable sources for mistresses. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If something is new information or an exceptional claim or remotely defamatory, it should have more than one source within current events. Period. Preferably our A++ heavy hitters like the AP, or long-standing strengths like the NYT. If there aren't other locations of the same information in some form, it probably means it's still too new to be verified in any way. The word of Christ himself by itself would not be enough to convince me of affairs with more than 6 women and PORNBIO-listed individual were happening in this case. Hell, there's barely proof of any affair past one quote in US Weekly. I have no idea why that's been given so much weight, even. ...I'm going to remove everything after 210 written as it is. The Boston Herald article is the only thing close to a plausible story out of all of that, and it's absurd to tie the entire statement on the weight of just that one source. No. If these things were such clear fact why wouldn't we have dozens and dozens of possible sources of the most reliable types with the same information. As I said, US Weekly's one quote is weight of any affair at all and that would also look a lot better with more behind it. Without any care for results, I'm chopping out the last line after 210, though the first line of that paragraph should probably go, too.

This is a GA-Status BLP article on a very high-end global celebrity, and has an average of 100k hits a day since the incident. Have we no shame, maturity or standards? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

daTheisen, I think it would be OK to report that tabloid stories have emerged linking him to a total of six women. Although the major US print media has been rather quiet about it, it got this story in The Times, which is one of the papers of record in the UK. For others, more of my reasoning is on daTheisen's talk page.--Chaser (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Always good to remember that what may look like several sources may not be independent of each other, thus may come from a single spring (or sewer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.174.208 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NBC just ran a story on Dateline covering the alleged affairs, and aired an interview with one of the ladies. I believe the burden of reliable sources has been met, though I'd like to see the section worded neutrally. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Drugs and accident

http://www.koco.com/mostpopular/21890426/detail.html Showtime2009 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See this section above. I think the same reasoning applies.--Chaser (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add the rest of the mistresses

I came here to get an authoritative head-count on the mistresses and found that Wikipedia has artificially stopped the tally at 3. Folks, that is so days ago! The rest of the world is logging 8, i think. See http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/galleries/pictures_rachel_uchitel_alleged_tiger_woods_mistress_is_at_the_center_/pictures_rachel_uchitel_alleged_tiger_woods_mistress_is_at_the_center_.html 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some say the number is 11.

But that doesn't matter. The fact is beyond those already in the article, none of the additional women have been cited by reliable sources (reliable sources being defined by Wikipedia in posts above). Furthermore, of those who are saying that there are additional women, none cite evidence, just hearsay. Maybe that's suited to the National Enquirer or another American tabloid magazine, but to an encyclopedic article? Hardly. Scryer_360 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see the discussion above.--Chaser (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger as victim of domestic violence?

The stories re broken teeth, a cell phone in his face, and golf club attack (if true) would probably put many Americans in jail. The criminal system's focus on domestic violence has been intense ever since the O.J. Simpson case; verbal threats against spouses are charged as "terrorist threats". Equal justice issues (treatment of rich vs. poor, male victim vs. female victim etc.) are raised by Florida law enforcement's choosing not to investigate further.Ykral (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says whatever it is you want to add to the article?--Chaser (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article split

With today's revelation that Tiger Woods paid $15,000 for a "date" with Loredana Jolie, has not the time come to split the article in two ? - with a separate article on Tiger Woods' sex addiction - his mistresses and prostitutes ? Tovojolo (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of reliable sources for this and many other claims that the tabloids have made. What you propose also has big biographies of living persons policy issues.--Chaser (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Curse of Gillette

Unsurprisingly, removed within seconds [4]. But its pretty relevant to any bio imo, given the whole issue of 'image' in sports endorsements that is playing out right now. Anyway, whatever. As ever, the notion of a Curse of Gillette is recognised and is out there in RS, whether Wikipedia wants to acknolwedge it or not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed it as we don't put every piece of pop culture trivia into bios. For example, Letterman's Top Ten on Tiger Woods has gotten plenty of media coverage, yet it doesn't belong here either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I think we're at a decently stable version for now and at WP:BLP/N I marked the last article version as an unofficial fair revert point for reference until anything substantial has come up to add. Location, format, info included and quality of references are all way up to where I at least would stand up for what's still included, so better to stray from anything remotely pop-culture-like until well after the fact, if agreed with at all and a good location picked. It's just not worth having anything extra to discuss when the vibe of pending doom is still present. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it. Only Wikipedia has the capacity to downgrade the retail correspondent of the The Independent to the status of a David Letterman gag writer. Like I said, its out there, and being noted in better and more respected sources than this craphole, so whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If we change our minds about adding a jokes and trivia section to the article, we'll be sure to give you a call.--Chaser (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's just a joke. This article (and this section) is busy enough without non-encyclopedic material. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How are you both suggest that non-Encyclopedic material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia! Though, er-- editor could look for an article about Professional athletes with memes or something. ((In no way shape or form am I endorsing the creation of that.)) 06:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And if The Independent suddenly gets a reputation as a comic, I'll let you know. Honeslty, I have never heard such nonsense in my life. MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to other alleged mistresses

Dayewalker has removed my brief list of the alleged mistresses. Why? The page already has included mention by name of one other mistress by name, so, why shouldn't the other 8 or 9 be mentioned by name. Why give attention to one mistress and not the other. Their names should either be here or on new separate page on the alleged affairsMyk60640 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Myk60640

Glad you brought it here, I was also coming to the talk page when I saw your post pop up. I feel that right now, a list of alleged mistresses is extremely undue. The WP page is covering the story as it happens, but being specific about people who haven't been confirmed to be a part of it seems like we're going too far. What does everyone else think? Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To Myk60640: The Sun is a tabloid and not a reliable source. The Daily News source is a gossip column, ditto not a RS. The WJBK is not a golden source for controversial material -- it quotes US Weekly and TMZ so it is only echoing non-reliable sources. People mag is not a RS. The NY Mag is quoting the gossip column of the Daily News. The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Although the NY Post may be a RS, I don't see the link as being substantial enough to include her name. The CNN sources information already in the article.

The "sex addict" speculation -- which is all it is -- is, disappointingly, reported by ABC (its morning show) and CBS (its entertainment division) and not its news division. But such speculation is about what a sex addict is and I don't believe belongs here. I think you will need to work on trying to gain consensus for that part.

That all said, nice work on putting together the list with such extensive sources -- it just doesn't meet up with WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. It must be frustrating after all that work. Possibly with time, if and when some of these details percolate up to a strong RS, then inclusion might be called for. But right now, I suspect or guess, that many of these alleged mistresses are folks who would do anything (and I mean anything) to get their name in the tabloids so they can be the next Paris Hilton wannabe. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus

This should probably be incorporated in the article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/11/sports/AP-GLF-Tiger-Woods.html?hp ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated. I'm not sure about the section title, now, though. His statement did not clarify with whom he was unfaithful, so I guess, per BLP, we'll have to continue describing any included individual affairs as "claims" and so forth. Thoughts?--Chaser (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to change it from "alleged affairs" to "infidelity". I think it is less lurid then "affairs". I don't think we need to use "alleged" now with "infidelity". I'd be curious what others think. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His own public statement used "infidelity", so that makes most sense. Very nice addition, Chaser, short and simple, nicely worded. Nrehnby (talk) 03:52, 12 December 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"...

Actually, "person of color" is the more respectful term because saying someone is a "non-white person" implies a focus on "whiteness" as a mainstream identity against which everyone else who is not considered white is labeled as "other" or "not white" (and therefore not mainstream or "American"). Moreover, "white" is a poor term for describing those of European ancestry - "European" or "European American" in the U.S. context is more accurate. "People of color" OTOH is a more affirmative and inclusive term because it is a description of what a person is - not what they are not. Lothar76 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Move personal information to the end of the article

I'd like to suggest moving the personal information from the top of the article to the bottom. I don't think of this as burying, as this isn't a traditional paper encyclopedia. It will be there in the table of contents, easily accessed. I have no personal feelings about Woods -- I neither watch nor play golf. But I would argue that in light of his, some would say, historical achievements, that this will be a comparatively small event in his life. I know this story may grow and it may impact his endorsements. And I'm not recommending any deletion of the text and I wouldn't object to a mention in the WP:LEDE -- could even link to the new section. In my experience, "Personal information" sections tend to be after the information about their upbringing and career.

What I'm suggesting is to change this:

1 Background and family

1.1 Early years

1.2 Marriage

1.3 Car accident and alleged affairs

1.4 Other

2 Career
...
7 Career achievements

to be:

1 Background and family

This will only include the text found under the "1.1 Early years" heading.

2 Career
...
7 Career achievements

8 Personal information

8.1 Marriage

8.2 Car accident and alleged affairs

8.3 Other

Having all this detail before any discussion of his career strikes me as giving too much prominence of his personal life before one word of his career.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea, but we'll probably be able to have a discussion about it with better perspective in a few months once the dust has settled. This may end up having a deleterious effect on his career: only time will tell.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. But I would argue the personal information belongs at the end whether the time frame is now when it is a red hot topic (and tabloid heavy) or later when it is a historical event, factually relying more on substantial references. His personal life shouldn't be given such prominence. It may be front-page worthy for a tabloid or even on CNN, but seems out of place in Wikipedia that relies on WP:BLP let alone just a general ethos of quality. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good move, nicely handled. It's far better where it is now. Nrehnby (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the order of placing his career before his personal life. As shown by this google trends search for, "tiger woods" this has become THE defining moment in his life in terms of public perception. This news story has eclipsed any of the interest in his career, and in that regard is remarkable in itself. http://www.google.ca/trends?q=tiger+woods&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 In addition, Tiger Woods status has fallen with consumers according to the Davie Brown Index it has fallen from 6 to 24. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=apSFuIgCLGDw I think the article should include the list of identified potential mistresses, and also in light of his decision to go on hiatus, this aspect of his career should be bumped up to closer to the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.5.91 (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the majority of people now coming to this article are seeking out information about his infidelity, though I think it is difficult to support the idea that this will permanently "eclipse" any interest in his career. If, say, a year or two from now the only thing Tiger is known for is this imbroglio and not his historical achievements, then maybe it would be appropriate to move it above his career. Again, very doubtful. Our goal here as page editors is to avoid the problem of recentism. Quoting from WP:RECENT:

Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, .... which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention. ... [T]he relative emphasis on timeless facets of a subject which Wikipedia consensus had previously recognized may be muddled by this practice.

We don't want to muddle things up. There is no question in my mind that the timeless facet of Woods will be his athletic achievements. And that is where the emphasis an encyclopedia should be. Nor should Wikipedia reflect the noise level emanating from the tabloid press (the vast majority of the said Google hits). And there are always dangers in counting hits; see WP:GOOGLETEST. "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity." Pushing this above all of his unquestioned achievements would clearly violate WP:NPOV, in particular WP:STRUCTURE. Do you perceive that clicking on the Table of Contents is too difficult for those seeking their daily fill of Tiger scandal? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your concern, I've added a mention of his infidelity to the article's lede and provided a convenience link to the section. So, now there is information at the top of the article in two places: the lede and the TOC. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the changes to add a mention of it to the lede. I find this article now more navigable and I think weighted appropriately in a way that is respectful of his major golf career achievements which should be emphasized first. It's not that I thought this section should be before his golf achievements, but that if you missed seeing it in the table of contents you had to scroll through 10 pages to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.5.91 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Yep, I finally figured out the navigation problem -- I should have done that from the beginning! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant?

In section #Car accident and alleged affairs:

The order itself specifically prohibited the publication of any images of Woods naked or having sexual intercourse, without confirming the existence of such images.

Is that sentence necessary information on Tiger Woods? There's a source for it, and it's accurate, but the current sentence still reads much like irrelevant tabloid speculation. --87.79.165.249 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure the information about the injunction itself is that relevant. The BBC story that it cites no longer exists (or rather, it's probably been rolled into the latest story on Woods).--Chaser (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus the Guardian source doesn't say anything about "sexual intercourse". If the consensus is to keep a mention, I would think something like:

The order itself specifically prohibited the publication of any nude images of Woods.

I'll defer to the page editors as to whether this nugget is all that notable. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The injunction seems to be very important considering that it is affecting world wide media, even restricting the reports in mainstream US newspapers. As such, it seems that full information should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.73.66 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Who was going to publish these photos besides the tabloids? I've removed reference to the injunction.--Chaser (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'alleged'

"On December 11, about two weeks after the car accident, Woods admitted to "infidelity" in a PR statement released on his website and announced an indefinite hiatus from professional golf."

Since he's already admitted it, shouldn't the 'alleged' from the heading be dropped? Aditya Ex Machina 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quiting PGA

I heard all over the news and online about Tiger quiting the PGA Tour? Parker1297 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, indefinite hiatus. Most pundits predict 3 months. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article about the accident and alleged affairs needed

As this article will only deal with the matter very briefly, I'd suggest a new article covering the car accident, alleged affairs - and especially the extensive news reports covering this developing story be created. In that article, an external link such as Taiwan's Apple-1 Daily newspaper animated recreation of the night of the November 27 accident - might possibly be more suitable than in the main Tiger Woods article. --Hapsala (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How could a speculative, clearly non-BLP worthy set of humorous recreations add to Wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't meant to be a repository of internet links just for the sake of collection -- each link should add value to an article. This doesn't. And this is a clear example why a forked article, which would be under the exact same BLP constraints as the parent, would be a breeding ground for POV problems. If something can't be on this page, it certainly can't be on a forked page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So, according to you, the entire section about the alleged affairs should go as well? --Hapsala (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. But I'm not a page editor per se -- I've not taken a BLP-sharpened knife to the text -- I feel that other editors are doing a fine job of restricting the sources to reliable ones. Apple-1 Daily is not a reliable source for speculative recreations. Should their macabre recreation of the Fort Hood massacre be allowed at that article? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The "minimisation" in this article of the global news sensations about Tiger in the last couple of weeks are pure comedy, and actually a bit harmful. Given that it has lead to Tiger's indefinite departure from golf, there is clearly a case for a separate article on the revelations. Fig (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My concerns about BLP problems with this article are considerably reduced with his latest statement. Although I wouldn't personally create a subarticle, there is no reason that I can see that someone else cannot do so. Including more detail about this consequential two week period in his life would take some of the pressure off this talk page to include things in the main article. You should probably expect it to be quickly semi-protected if BLP problems arise. Just try to use clearly authoritative new sources and avoid anything that looks like a tabloid.--Chaser (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In practice this hasn't worked as well as I'd hoped. Unlike John Edwards' affair, this really comprises three issues: 1) the car accident, 2) the various alleged affairs (Jaimee Grubbs, who produced a voice mail, is the only one we can be really certain about, but I'm not sure the reliable sources have come to that conclusion), and 3) the effect on Woods as a golfer and product endorser. While it's possible to have all three in one article, the two major problems are titling it and linking it from multiple sections in this article: the lead, endorsements, some section on his career, and of course the existing section on affairs. It'd be awkward to link to a bunch of different sections in Tiger Woods' car accident, revelations of affairs, and effect on his career. These problems may be surmountable, but it's probably better to resolve them by creating an article in userspace first. That's my $.02.--Chaser (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)