Jump to content

Talk:Tiger Woods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kman543210 (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 17 June 2008 (→What is this?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleTiger Woods has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed

Template:V0.5

Archive
Archives
  1. March 2002 - September 2006
  2. September 2006 - April 2007


What is this?

Career Turned Pro 1981 Current tour PGA Tour (joined 1976) Professional wins 89 (PGA Tour: 32, Other individual: 14, 2-man team: 7)

This info is listed in the box in the right upper corner of the article. I don't know the correct information to put in there to fix it, but I don't think what is written is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and fixed. nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user: 72.25.16.65 changed a bunch of info in the box (vandalism), but instead of reverting the entire edit, individual users within 5 minutes kept changing the information back making it difficult to figure out what was left to revert. Everything should be accurate now, and I think the page might be protected against non-registered users. Kman543210 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the controversy section

--Bottre73 23:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) As someone who follows golf journalism quite attentively, I feel the "controversy" section here is completely unnecessary. What often occurs in a major athlete's career is that small controversies do develop from time to time, with few if any worthy of mention beyond a few weeks after their occurance. It's silly to keep these events attached to the article, as if their memory dogs or somehow taints the overall image of Mr. Woods in the minds of objective readers.[reply]

I think there is probably a way to touch on some of the supposed racial controversies within different sections of this article. The tournament withdrawal is a ridiculous non-issue at this point and the nude pictures should be delegated to his wife's entry and removed from here.

I recognize that this is a major deletion, so please add your name below if you agree with this request. If enough names appear, the change would seem a good idea, and we'll go through with it.

Jeff Bottrell, Billings, MT

I agree. Supertigerman 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One week later and we have another addition to the now eight-part "controversy" section - and this time with something noncontroversial. At this rate it will soon usurp the professional career section in total length. I would remind writers, as well-intentioned as you may be, that a good article "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details." I fear we're losing the substantive quality of the article as we veer off into trivial observations. Bottre73 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Ranger Rick section (the newest addition). I feel that the cut streak and Tiger-proofing sections are the only important elements of the controversy section. Supertigerman 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments. The uncited controversy sections should be removed. Mudforce 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it: This section has become a dumping ground for "unnecessary details". Don't mistake verbosity for encyclopedic relevance. Its a long section with very little usable content. --Eqdoktor 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the two important sections - Cut streak and Tiger-proofing because they are extremely important issues in his life. In addition, an innumerable number of hours were spent finding sources for and arguing about these controversies. Thank you. Supertigerman 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has unrelevent info, delete it Coolgyingman (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal - Splitting the Tiger Woods article

I am proposing that the Tiger Woods article be split into a second article as suggested in the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. As it is, the article is estimated to be about 88kb (less 100kb when I removed the 'Controversy' section - some referenced bits of it may be re-inserted back in). Which is entirely too long for 'easy' reading.

What to split: The best candidate sections to split out is all the Championship wins/tables and tournament wins etc. to be put into a new article Career achievements of Tiger Woods. I have conducted a test run of such a split and splitting off a career achievement article will save at least 40kb article length leaving the main article at a more manageable 50kb.

The best example for such a split is Michael Jordan (a FA status article) and its related split Career achievements of Michael Jordan.

I really think such a split will help the article clarity wise, bring it back in line with WP:LENGTH and improve the quality for WP:FA status. Post here for consensus and concerns. If there is agreement consensus - I will go ahead and do the split. --Eqdoktor 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split is done (97kb to 61kb size). I have transferred all the career wins/awards tables and lists to Career achievements of Tiger Woods. Some further improvements can be done to both articles - at least a better career achievements summary can be done in the Tiger Woods article. Refer to the FA status Michael Jordan and related Career achievements of Michael Jordan articles. --Eqdoktor 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods split

For reasons beyond me, Wikipedia wants articles to remain a certain size, and the splitting of 36 kb of information magically makes this article cleaner. Do you really think it does? It simply makes it tougher to find pertinent information. People interested in those details might not find the little link that leads to the new page, and the replacement summary looks rather sad even after I tried to add some summary-style information. Can we bring back the 36 kb of information back into this 63 kb article? All other golfers have the PGA Tour career summary and the table of major wins (which I made) nicely laid out. This article seems incomplete without it. At the moment, the summary underneath it looks amateur and not A-level. Thanks. Supertigerman 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a viable compromise.

What to include: The Major championships table, the Results timeline, the PGA Tour career summary, PGA Tour wins list (not the table), the Other wins, and the US Team appearances (which is about 6 lines). This is how the list of PGA Tour wins would look (this is what all other golfers have):

Notice this is a lot shorter than the detailed table and is what all other golfers have.

What not to include in the main article (since it is in the detailed new article)

  • The records and trivia for the major championships
  • Anything about the World Golf Championships because the wins are already mentioned
  • The extra columns in the PGA Tour professional career summary (notice there are 4 currently in the main article but 10 in the detailed one in the new article)
  • The playoff record
  • Awards

I believe this is much shorter than the 36 kb which was removed and would make the article look complete enough without excess information. Thanks for your input and time. Supertigerman 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy this discussion over (from my talk page) to the Tiger Woods talk area as its more relevant there (here).
I personally think that a lot of Wikipedia articles need to pay more attention to Wikipedia:Article size as a lot of people seem to equate excessive verbosity for quality writing. The problem I have with the previous "all-in-one-page" approach is that my eyes glazed looking through all his achievements - which are numerous indeed. In other words, 'you can't see the forest for the trees' [1]. IMO, The salient details of his career was lost amongst the info dump of colorful tables and extensive lists. The thing is with Woods (like Michael Jordan), his career achievements are so numerous as to overwhelm and unbalance the entire article unlike other golfers (it took up more than 30% of the article size - more if you factor in the flag cruft).
What we need in the main article is just a good summary of the major achievements of his career. What you have put up now on the present revision [2] looks perfectly acceptable to me. Leave it as it is, perhaps bold a few lines. I'm thinking a list of PGA tour wins is really not necessary (even the infobox duplicates a lot of the info). I'm using as an example Michael_Jordan#Career_achievements as what I think is a good example of a FA status summary. --Eqdoktor 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods

Is he Asian or African American...

He's both. JavaTenor 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article! :) --Eqdoktor 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's more Asian(50%) than African American(25%), so don't start claiming him yet Al Sharpton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo4eyes (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually he's more Asian(50%) than African American(25%), so don't start claiming him yet Al Sharpton." That might be the most ignorant thing I have ever read. If he were running for President, a Bus Driver named Eldrick Woods, or if he were ever to get in trouble, instead of a pro golfer named Tiger Woods, I bet he would be BLACK then. He is a Black Man in America, period.

Hobbies section?

Why does this article need such a section? Yes, its sourced but why is it even relevant to be in an encyclopedia?

Woods enjoys working out, boating, water sports, fishing, cooking and car racing. He has never owned an airplane, with his sponsor NetJets providing that as part of his sponsorship package.

....

The article is missing his favorite color, what he ate for breakfast last week and the fact that he wears the Masters Green jacket when he does his gardening (because its comfy). He has also never flown the space shuttle but NASA will loan him one if asked...

I'm being facetious here :)

All the stuff in the "Hobbies" section may be sourced but so is a million other inconsequential 'puff' trivia articles. Some editorial discretion is needed here. How Woods spends his money and the millionaire toys he owns has no place in a Wikipedia article. The inclusion of such an inconsequential 'puff' item section borders upon unencyclopedic hagiography.--Eqdoktor 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally, think it is important to add breadth to an article that will naturally be laden with Golf statistics. I disagree with this edit. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TonytheTiger. Athletes' articles should contain information other than sports statistics. The Hobbies section adds a more well-rounded perspective of Tiger and makes him seem much more human than a simple golf biography would. Supertigerman 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for a 'well rounded perspective' in the article and yes, the article does not need to be overladen with golf statistics. On the other hand, I find it a bit ironic (and more than a little unbalancing) that the section dealing with hobbies trivia and his millionaire toys has a bigger word count and has better sources than the 'Equipment' section (which IMO, a lot more interesting to me than his Yachts). The only thing in the 'Equipment' section that actually has a reference source is oddly enough, "Frank" the Golf Cover. (room for improvement there...) --Eqdoktor 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majors table

I don't know what the fuss was about, or about any table, or even if it was about this table I've changed, but I've made some adjustment to his Grand Slam table. It was divided over two lines, which made it ugly and hard to read. There was no reason for splitting it like it was, not even a century split reason, since the split was at the year 2000, which is still in the 20th century. People should be able to view a table containing 13 columns, and not be confused by it. Especially if it's not even covering the entire width of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashTestSmartie (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the color coded chart with major finishes go?

The chart is at Career achievements of Tiger Woods. It was moved to a new page because according to Wikipedia, the article was "too long". I disagree with the move and it is sad that you were unable to find that table. The article appears incomplete without it, and finding the link to the new page takes time. Supertigerman 18:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article! :) --Eqdoktor 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't count tables in with the size of the wikipedia article, Supertigerman. The current table is terribly ugly and drab compared to the colored tables. It sounds like you don't want the table in there for some other reasn.
Which current table are you referring to? The career summary table which all golfers have? Or the majors table that I created on the new page? It is silly to suggest that I do not want the table there; I simply don't think there should be 2 articles for 1 person. Regardless, I created the majors table and have added it to several golfers' pages, and certainly want to keep it. Supertigerman 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This article should be using Template:Infobox golfer. ClintonKu 09:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is being revamped. See the discussion here. Supertigerman 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino?

In Earl Woods, it sates he is part Chinese not Filipino, making Tiger 1/4 Chinese?

Article size creep and article quality

Redundant information is inflating the article and affecting the quality.

Its creeping back up to 70K+ with the inclusion of redundant information. There is a triple redundancy in the article. The large custom infobox has a summary and the overly expanded wins section has more redundant information covered elsewhere - mainly Career achievements of Tiger Woods where most of the information should be put in. Not to be a RTFM jerk over this, but there is only so much redundancies the article can accommodate for people who cannot be bothered to read the article before it affects the quality. As it is, the colorful table of major championship wins thats left in the main article should be sufficient for the cursory glancers (thats all they really want if they can't be bothered to read the article). As it is the table has unncessary WP:FLAGs all over it but thats a necessary concession I would think.

While we are at it, the editorial shortcut of stuffing the page with golf statistics to inflate it is not helping the page keep its 'A' status. We can't see the forest for the trees - its information overload. Wikipedia:Article size is part of the manual of style of a good wikipedia article - Brevity is the soul of wit... (and of quality :) ).

PS: I have edited the redundant info out - I think there is more than sufficient pointers to Career achievements of Tiger Woods at this point. --Eqdoktor 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no redundancy with the infobox and the majors table. Many golfers have these (as do hockey and tennis players). The flags are simply the format of the wins table (notice the tennis players have much more) and I do not think they are excessive as they used to be in golf tournament infoboxes. The majors wins table, results timeline, and the minimized PGA Tour career summary are on every golfer's pages and should be kept on this page. That's only 3 things - we're leaving all wins, records, trivia, and awards out. I think this works as a compromise, as it is far from 70K now.
As for retaining the A status, clearly the admins disagreed with you since the full expanded list of PGA Tour wins, playoff records, team appearances, along with the full trivia section of the major championship section were present when it was granted that status. The golf statistics are and important part of the page, and often what most people will want to read as it is well laid out. Cheers. Supertigerman 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why the majors table is in there (colorful table for the cursory glancers) and the PGA tour career summary. Why is the results timeline included with the colorful yet cypherlike encodement? A casual glancer would have no use for it and a serious reader/researcher would be better served with the main career achievement page with the info in the proper context. Not to be chasing kilobytes here, but a well done précis is better than hieroglyphic infodumps.
As for the quality status of the article, my mistake - the Tiger Woods article is just a GA Wikipedia article, not 'A' status (its only 'A' status in the various Wiki projects). This should change for the better as we work on it - FA status being the goal. Consensus can change, as the overall article quality level of the Wikipedia improves, older articles must keep up. It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. --Eqdoktor 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majors table and results timeline go hand-in-hand as the full timeline is more descriptive and on every golfer's page. In that sense, the timeline is probably more important than the major wins table as that is only for victories. A casual glancer probably would have use for it as it lays out his entire career, as opposed to only his wins. Indeed, the article is a GA status wikipedia article, but is "A" status in the two most important wikiprojects for him: WP:Biography and WP:Golf. Moreover, it was granted that status with many more tables than it currently has -- the full length wins table, WGC information and awards. I agree that the article is ever-changing, but I think leaving the 3 most important elements of golf statistics - major wins, overall major performance, and the career summary do not clutter the page. Supertigerman 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Someone is defacing his biography. I had to go back and make a few changes.

"Other ventures" needs more references and sources

Needs a whole lot more references and sources than it presently has now.

  • Charity and youth projects - one ref only. The variuos assertions need to be cited (Wood's beliefs etc.)
  • Golf course design - no refs. (fixed Eqdoktor 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorsements - one ref only (I added the watch endorsement cite). Need sources and refs to show that the commercials listed are notable (golf tricks, father's day etc.) If none, its all just WP:OR.

This section needs a lot of tightening up (removal of unsupported OR and such) hence the tag. --Eqdoktor 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the first billionare athelete fact. "In 2005 Eurobusiness magazine identified Schumacher as the world's first billionaire athlete." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schumacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.242.34 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Real First Name"

Apparently, when Tiger turned 21, he changed his legal name to Tiger woods. Here is some evidence: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/tiger.masters/index.html http://www.answers.com/topic/tiger-woods ("In August of 1996, Woods decided to quit college in order to play professional golf.

Four months later in December, Woods celebrated his twenty-first birthday. He marked the occasion with a legal name change, from Eldrick to Tiger.")

Unfortunately, I do not know how to add footnotes to the main page, so I did not want to put this information on there. Can someone do this?

I edited the info you provided in. Used the CNN cite as the Answers.com site is usually not as reliable (they take their info from Wikipedia). Tiger Woods' name he was born under is really Eldrick Tonter Woods. Can someone with access to any one of the numerous print autobiographies of Tiger Woods provide a page number and ISBN # so that a proper reference footnote be put in? (It can be done easily). I predict a lot of requests for cites on that name :P :P :P. --Eqdoktor 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon somebody, visit a library, crack open a print biography and verify/ref cite his middle name. This I guess is the downfall of Wikipedia, the over-reliance of google for online citations... --Eqdoktor 13:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm the downfall of wikipedia! Ok, seriously, I added a ref to his middle name from a Larry King interview. It's a reliable source, and it goes into detail about 'Tiger' being his middle name, and why. the_undertow talk 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, I'll see what I can do to scrounge up a real print biography to verify the middle name once and for all. :) :) --Eqdoktor 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his legal name is now Tiger, is the way his name is listed still appropriate? Maybe a reference to his 'birth' or 'given' name is in order. In any case, his name is no longer Eldrick. Whorchatasoto (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed Tiger's name to his legal name. I found the necessary citation in a recently published book (see Sounes, Howard (2004)) that cites his birth certificate. It currently reads "born on...as," and this may not be the best. If anyone can think of anything else, please do change it. These changes should effectively end this topic.Erkenbrack (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EL Section

I was looking through the ELs and I'm inclined to remove some of them. The Learning center and such are great things, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see how they enhance the reader's understanding of Tiger woods. Although I have not read this entire article, i would say that some mention of his work in these areas would be great and you can use the sites as references. Thoughts? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Updating for Major Championships

Woods has not officially won until he has signed his card. I'm not going to bother unediting it b/c people will just re-add it, but until he has signed his card, he is not champion. Bsd987 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

The value of some endorsement deals is provided, however, the contract value for Tiger's first Nike deal and his 2007 deal are not. For completeness the value of all these deals should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the 'Endorsement' section

Typo in the 'Endorsement' section:

"Woods have been described as the "ultimate endorser" for Nike Golf"

'have' should be changed to 'has' as Woods is a singular name not a plural noun.

Gramatical Error

It is not viewed as as a true Grand Slam, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we always talk about obvious gramatical mistakes on the talk page? :P12.192.132.130 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism tag

Can we remove it? I don't think it is needed.

michfan2123 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infant birth date and age templates

When I inquire about the youth of an infant the information I typically pursue is "How old is it?" not "When was it born?" for some time we had a {{birth date and age}} template that read as age 0. Then I started trying to switch to {{birth date}} with a separate {{age in months}} template. However, at age 3 months and 16 days this switched to age 4 months. I thought that was a bit goofy. So at WP:RT I asked for the creation of an {{age for infant}} template. This template has a parameter that you can either have the template read as age x months y days or age x years y months. I switched this in. However, since it is new there was some ongoing tinkering that made it look terrible because it had a return character that caused (age 3 months 17 days) to read funny because the closing parenthesis goes to a separate line. I think User:Supertigerman reverted the tempate at this time. This kink is now fixed. I think only the age is necessary because I think that is the encyclopedic information that is more important and having both makes the box look to big. I will watch for opinions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I will make the edit and await responses since no one has responded here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major succession boxes

They are not needed at all, the templates below show who won after and before him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but often both types of templates are used. I think you may be right. I think what I have seen may have been examples where both remained by oversight. E.g., when I created {{Tour de France Yellow Jersey}} and {{Tour de France Green Jersey}}, I just slapped them on all the pages of past winners regardless of whether they had succession boxes. I think few pages have editors as alert as you to this type of problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I removed all the succession boxes from other golfers as well. It didn't take long because they only went back to like 1995. That is another reason they were not needed. They only went back to 1995 when the majors have been around for much longer and putting them on every winner's page would be a waste of time. michfan2123 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Cup Involvement

There's no discussion in this article about his Ryder Cup/President's Cup involvement! I'm going to put something in under criticism, since he's an infamously difficult partner and mediocre performer, but I figure that there are other more positive things to include about his international team playing experience, so feel free to add.

Samois98 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:BLP, WP:OR, and make sure to use inline citations. Finding third-party reliable sources that conclude he is infamously difficult as well as mediocre will be necessary for inclusion. the_undertow talk 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Alumni

Does he belong in the Stanford Alumni category if he didn't graduate?

Samois98 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. An alumni is a graduate. the_undertow talk 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, the American Heritage Dictionary defines alumnus as "male graduate or former student". Woods satisfies the "former student" clause. JavaTenor (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-webster agrees but I have never heard that denotation in an educational sense. If categories are based on our own articles, then Java would be correct (but I still wouldn't use it that way). the_undertow talk 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's daughter

His daughter Sam isn't 5 months and 12 days old anymore. Stupid to put such info that is incorrect the next day... --88.114.30.60 16:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness

I feel there should be some sort of mention in the article about Tiger's dedication to physical fitness and the effect it has had on the sport. I actually don't think there is enough in here about his impact to the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.185 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hes good

i tink he good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.42.77 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) he dont need to work out as much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renalartery10 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005-08: Resurgence

Under the sub-heading, 2005-08: Resurgence, it states the following:

"Woods started the 2008 season with a 7 stroke victory at the Buick Invitational. The win marked his 62nd PGA Tour victory, tying him with Arnold Palmer for fourth on the all time list. This marked his sixth victory at the event, the sixth time he has begun the PGA Tour season with a victory, and his third PGA Tour win in a row. The following week, Woods was trailing by four strokes going into the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic, but made seven birdies on the back nine for a dramatic one-stroke victory. It marked his fourth straight official win, and his second win at the event."

Rather than seven birdies, the correct number should be six birdies (10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th). [3]

ForEvaUrz (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Achievements ?

Should the fact that Tiger may become the European Tour victory leader be mentioned?-----Adimovk5 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically, Woods now owns 34 career European Tour victories … despite never having been an official member of the tour. That number places him third on the all-time list, behind Seve Ballesteros (50 wins) and Bernhard Langer (42), but if it seems a bit elevated, here's why: Majors and WGC events count as official events on both the PGA and Euro tours. Woods owns 13 major victories and 13 more in WGCs. Add in his eight wins at "regular" European Tour events and it explains how Woods has reached such a mark."[4] Even Woods' future results are totally unpredictable, By Jason Sobel, ESPN.com, 2008-02-04-----Adimovk5 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tilghman

I find it surprising that this page has no mention whatsoever of the controversy that came from Kelly Tilghman's comments. Many African Americans were upset that Woods did not take a more firm stance on it, and I believe it warrants at least mention in the article. Tithonfury (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's already almost forgotten and while he was being discussed when it happened he was not central in creating the controversy. If she has a page, perhaps there, but not here. Just_Mikala (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Introduction

Since Woods has legally changed his first name to "Tiger," shouldn't the first line of this entry omit "Eldrick"? It should be listed in the background and family section, of course. But to say "Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods is a professional golfer..." is incorrect, since technically speaking Eldrick Woods no longer exists. sæ (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods ... a US House Page?

I just ran into a claim on United States House of Representatives Page that Tiger Woods was a US House page. The claim was cited to Lawrence Londino's 2006 biography of Tiger, Tiger Woods A Biography, but that source does not confirm the claim, quite the opposite it claims Tiger spent all four years of high school in Anaheim. On this basis I deleted this claim from United States House of Representatives Page. Just in case I'm wrong about this, if someone here who knows more about Tiger's biography than I do can confirm this claim is true, perhaps you could go to that page and add the claim back with a reliable source. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well done, folks

This would be the first time I've posted without correcting anything in an entry. It's just to say that this entry is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I doubt you could finally any encyclopedic entry to match it -- anywhere. A great job to all contributors. Jrshooter (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Rang in the new millennium"

The first sentence in the second paragraph under "1999-2002: Domination and the Tiger Slam" states "Woods rang in the new millennium with ...". However, this is talking about the year 2000, which was not the start of the new millennium. 2001, of course, started the new millennium. This should be changed to get rid of the reference to millennium, so it's clear that the year 2000 is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.37.138 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At some point when this article was unlocked, I made a change to remove "millenium". However, someone reverted my change, claiming that the millenium does begin in the year 2000. The wikipedia article on millenium notes the two different interpretations of when a millenium begins. I don't understand the desire to put ambiguity back into the article with the word "millenium". I have no desire to start an edit war, and no intentions to change this back myself. But I'm disappointed with the decision to revert the article to maintain the ambiguity and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.37.138 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feeling if it should or shouldn't say "millennium," but I have not really heard this interpretation. It seems like it's just arguing scientific semantics, but everyone I know when speaking of the new millennium is speaking of the year 2000, not 2001 (as well as all the news broadcasts). Kman543210 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "began 2000" - the previous version was much to flowery, and not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries and knee surgeries

I am not entirely sure about the details, so I am just adding this here to start, but there is a story on the wire services about having a second knee surgery done on one knee because of pain. This is kind of significant because this operation which is fairly new is exploding in popularity. Tiger Woods is known for fitness apart from golfing, but at the same time reconstructive surgeries on the knees is more common for players of sports that are physically more demanding than golf. It is also the case that such knee work was in the past more common for older men of at least 40 to 45 years of age if not older, so having this work done at a much younger age is significant and may be a factor in his career. -- M0llusk (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) This afp news is definitely a good source and is true: On April 15, 2006, Woods underwent his 3rd left knee arthroscopic surgery in Park City, Utah, and will miss at 4 weeks of the PGA Tour. The first was on 1994 when he had a benign tumour and the second in December, 2002.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dope scandal

It is widely known that Tiger Woods has doped himself with pills to gain his power. As Golf has never taken a dope test of course he escapes the life ban that is used in all serious sports like cycling. Can someone please add the section on his illegal use of substances. Just google "Tiger doped" for source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.73.154 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1) If it is so easy to cite, you should do so 2) Any source you cite will surely not meet any sort of journalistic standard and will be deleted Whorchatasoto (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Name?

Okay, so this is actually something I'm not sure about. I just happened across this page while watching ESPN and noticed that his name was listed on here as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods. I removed the quotes, because I have always heard from reputable news sources (ESPN, CBS, and anyone else who covers golf) that his actual legal name is Eldrick Tiger Woods. I continue to hear this, as recently as ten minutes ago on Mike and Mike in the Morning, which like any ESPN program is backed by ESPN's famously stalwart research department. A user reverted my edit and put a comment on my talk page (which belonged on the article’s talk page and not mine) that his given middle name is not Tiger. So I tried to do some independent research and I cannot find a reliable citation. I’ve found three fairly common recurrences:

1. The story I’ve always heard: That his legal given name is Eldrick Tiger Woods.

2. That his name is was Eldrick Woods, and it was legally changed to Tiger Woods on his 21st birthday.

3. That his name is Eldrick Woods, and his father gave him the nickname “Tiger” in honor of a man he’d served in the military with.

So, reliably, which is correct and verifiable. ESPN is more than content to let its on-air personalities report that the man’s name is Eldrick Tiger Woods, and since it’s their job to be right in matters of sports, I personally trust their word more than “some guy on wikipedia”. So, I will watch this page, and continue to remove quotes around “Tiger” until someone can find a more reliable source than ESPN to refute that this is his actual name. --Steeldragon1981 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His own web site lists his name as "Eldrick (Tiger) Woods", which, to me, implies that Tiger is a nickname, not a middle name. (negates option 1)
If you search the California Birth records at http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/calbirths, his name is listed as Eldrick T. Woods. "The Smoking Gun" has a court document from his lawsuit over his yacht with his name stated as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods [5]. The articles I've seen stated that he was going to legally change his name from Eldrick to Tiger but don't state that he in fact did it. (negates option 2)
Option 3 is the story stated in his PGA Tour profile.
There are websites that list his name as "Eldrick Tonter Woods" but the sources seem to be dubious astrology sites.
I think the most accurate statement of his name is Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods and will change the article to reflect this.Tewapack (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods seems to make little sense, given that implies he has some other middle name that starts with the letter T, which he does not. At this point, it makes the most sense to write Tiger Woods, since that is his legal name, and then in parentheses write "born Eldrick Woods". "Tiger" was given as a nickname, and was never his actual middle name. Supertigerman (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, his birth name was "Eldrick T. Woods". In California, birth records are public records [6]. California at one time provided indexes of birth (and death) records in electronic format that genealogy sites used (1905 to 1995). The site above [7] is one that still allows free access - just type in last name "Woods" and year "1975", month "Dec" and voila - there he is. As to what the "T." stands for, I don't know, could be "Tont" or "Tonter" or "Tiger". If you really want to know, order a certified informational copy of his birth certificate for $14 from California [8].
About his legally changing his name - from The Palm Beach Post - October 20, 1996 "A larger personal decision, though, will probably be made sometime after Woods celebrates his 21st birthday in December - he plans to legally change his name (it's Eldrick ) to Tiger ." - he planned to do it. But - from Chicago Sun-Times - January 9, 1997 "In rapid-fire succession, Woods won his third consecutive U.S. Amateur, signed endorsement deals worth $60 million, moved to Florida, won two tournaments, created a stir when he backed out of a dinner in his honor, decided against changing his name legally from Eldrick to Tiger , considered hiring a bodyguard and spent a lot of time wondering about his rightful place in the world of sports." and from The Fresno (CA) Bee - January 9, 1997 " "No, I'm not going to do that." - on reports Woods, whose given name is Eldrick, will legally change his name to Tiger" (All from www.newsbank.com newspaper archives through my local library.) Contemporaneous corroboration that he thought about changing his name but didn't, hence the legal document [9] with his name as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods.
Since standard format on Wikipedia is to start the article with the full name, with nickname included if appropriate, I'm chaning it back to Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods. Tewapack (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Tewapack. Supertigerman (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger and Nicklaus

It should be noted that Tiger Woods won all four majors that Nicklaus played in last. 2000 U.S. Open 2000 P.G.A. 2005 Masters 2005 British Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.119.251 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey news story

On June 7, User:Smuckers added the following:

  • Controversy arose when Woods, while promoting August's PGA Championship at Oakland Hills, said "People don't really watch hockey anymore", referring to the recent Stanley Cup finals against the Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins, after being asked who he was rooting for. His statements caused some criticism, leading to NHL spokesman Frank Brown to release a statement.

I removed the edit, but was reverted. I still believe it should not be included because the event is not notable. Additionally, the section contains original research: were the remarks really "controversial?" What "criticism" was caused? Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:OR.

I concur and removed it again - this is not encyclopedic. Sure, some are upset by the comment. Sure, some citations can be found. But this biographical article is not meant to cover every single possible detail of the subject's life.--ZimZalaBim talk 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Have a question..I deleted a meaningless quote from Phil Mickelson and was accused of vandalism..if a small quip from Mickelson is notable/encyclopedic then why wouldn't a quote from Tiger, that caused controversy and hundreds of publications to write about be?

Smuckers (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style

The playing style section was decent some time ago, but the quality has gone down significantly. Candidate for a complete re-vamp Metallion (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name again

There has been several discussions about whether "Tiger" is his real name or not. The recent conclusions seems to be that he never did change his name, and that "Tiger" remains his nickname.

I have no idea about what is correct in this question, I only note that the discussion has left the article somewhat inconsistent, as the heading lists "Tiger" as a nickname, while the text still contains the information that he made "Tiger" his legal name when he turned 21. JR 62.16.239.120 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

I think this article could use more about Tiger's personal, nongolfing life. Bradenkeith (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Article Related....But Interesting

Did anyone notice the Nike commercial on Sunday, during the end of 2008 U.S. open, emphasizing Tiger's immense mental fortitude. The commercial had video segments of Tiger playing golf with his father and etc. The commercial continuously pounded the viewer with phrases and images that represented Tiger as mentally indestructible. Immediately after the airing of the commercial Tiger hit his second shot on the 18 into the sand bunker. Tiger's reaction: He threw his club down twice and exhibited some very immature behavior. It reminded me of how my father would spank me for throwing baseball equipment when I was 9 years old.

Great spot there Nike; Was this Tiger's mental fortitude? Or a revelation of a spoiled Brat? Apologies for the POV.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here and this is just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure the above editor should have read the very first sentence displayed on this page (within a template) before posting this comment. – ICDaniel (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career Victories on One Course

The "Career Achievements" section of the Tiger article now includes the following statement: "In winning the 2008 US Open, Woods became only the sixth person to win it 3 or more times, and the first person to win a PGA tournament at Torre Pines Golf Course 7 Times."

The last half of this sentence, while technically accurate, is incomplete and misleading. In winning the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines, Tiger became the first person to win 7 professional tournaments at a single course, with Torrey Pines being that course. It is true that he is the first player to win 7 professional tournaments at Torrey Pines, but his accomplishment is much more significant and interesting than that -- on no other course has any single player ever won so many tournaments. Jdcowart (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, improve it. Supertigerman (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't yet. I'm too new a user. Jdcowart (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, I changed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Supertigerman (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Comment

A few weeks back, Tiger made a contreversal comment saying ".....no one watches hockey anymore". I know North of the border, hear in Canada, all over the news he was critiued on the comment. Now I didnt read over the article througly, but I dont belive it is mentioned. Is this revelent?Fedarated AK74-u (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed, and we reached a consensus that it was not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the article. That information was not deemed encyclopedic, as the article does not need to include every detail. Thanks for the comment. Supertigerman (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nobody cares about hockey. Damn Canadians... TripOnMyShip (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ afp.google.com, Tiger Woods undergoes knee surgery
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_Woods&oldid=219831273"