Talk:Bobby Jones (golfer)

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

Help or Mess?[edit]

I had written an expanded bio. on Bobby Jones and thus "...helped Wikipedia". I thought it was a fairly decent and well written article. However, for some reason it was deleted with the explanation that I had "...made a mess...". Could someone explain to me what is meant by "mess" and how I can avoid making "messes" in future. Thank you.

-> This entire article has a biased point of view. Much of it just makes wild claims about Bobby Jones being "the greatest" without stating any real facts or regarding these opinions as just that - opinions. Instead, they are made as statements. I fixed one of the last lines on the page to a more neutral point of view. It had previously stated that "Bobby Jones is without a doubt the greatest golfer the world has ever seen." Even though the next line says, "However some disagree" that still doesn't make such a bold statement any less ridiculous. That's something you'd find in a biography of Bobby Jones - not in an 'encyclopedia article' where people are looking for facts and figures and history... not silly opinions.

That text was just some bullocks added by an anonymous vandal. I removed it. If you see something that's just overtly wrong, don't hesitate to remove it. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-16 23:33Z
But how do you know he was a vandal? He could have just missed the point and become overly opinionated, a common trap here in Wikipedia world. I agree with the above dude. Statements like "Bobby Jones is without a doubt the greatest golfer the world has ever seen" are hardly encyclopoedia material because there is doubt indeed. Nicklaus or even Woods might too be so considered. Based on stats, it's undoubtedly Nicklaus. Based on current over-bearing media opionion and potential, it's Woods. Based on winning the Grand Slam (a feat still unacheived by Nicklaus or Woods), all-the-while getting two prestigious degrees, being admitted to the bar, and quitting on a high note, it's Jones. "Greatest" is a word that is hard to quantify. Accordingly, the author could have said that 1) some believe he is the greatest; 2) why some believe so; and 3) who else could be so considered; then included a small discussion about the commonalities and differences in the three golfers' greatenesses (hee hee - is that a word?).137.186.248.248 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jones also spoke six languages. It is like sports before drugs. Now the times have changed and it is hard to compare. Vandals delete, non-vandals add value. Robert Tyre "Bobby" Jones Jr was an adder of value. The movie shows radio evolving, and the first radio broadcast from the golf course happened following Robert Tyre "Bobby" Jones Jr. I am looking to find a Jones figure in Wikipedia. That is the new sport of note. Keep up the good work. RoddyYoung 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Wins[edit]

I really like the new table, but the colors are kind of hard to understand. What do red and blue mean? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the table for all golfers with at least 5 major championship wins, but my goal is to make the table for all major championship winners. If you click on the link for golfers with most major championship wins, you can see the tables for other golfers as well. The colors are somewhatt arbitrary besides The Masters, which is understandably green. US Open is pink, Open Championship is blue, and PGA is purple. The purpose of the colors is simply to differentiate them. I based the table off of the grand slam wins sections of the tennis players' pages. Hopefully you will join the effort to make the table for other golfers as well. Thanks. Supertigerman 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-bjones.jpg[edit]

Image:Stamp-ctc-bjones.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article ("one of the greatest golfers...") does not conform to the encyclopedic tone. Someone more familiar with Bobby Jones should rewrite it to summarize Jones' achievements without taking a subjective perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.165.106 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective statements need not be less accurate than objective ones; and Jones, who generally played only on Sundays, has never been left out of any 'greatest golfer' list I have seen. http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1070
Lists which place Jones down a way are based upon clearly stated, arbitrarily objective criteria, criteria which Jones didn't satisfy because of his remaining an amateur and because of his retiring at a very young age. (I found the charts confusing as well.)
However, Jones contributed significantly to possibly uniquely broad aspects of golf, while practising law and enjoying scholarly pursuits. If not one of golf's greats, Bobby Jones certainly qualifies as a great role model. Many great golfing specialists are respected for their specific contributions and feats, significantly less broad than Jones's. http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sports/golf/basics/best-golfers.htm
If there is any bias here, it would be the elimination of Jones's shocking & rude public rage attacks as a young man, which he successfully controlled before winning international tournaments. Unless improving one's personality is not admirable, the current bias stamp should probably be explained a bit more.
209.218.108.22 (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Geologist)[reply]

Neutrality ?[edit]

There's a neutrality warning on the article, but I don't see where there is a discussion about any particular issue in it. If there's no particular problem, the tag should be removed. PKT(alk) 14:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to keep the neutrality template either. Does anyone see any reason not to remove it? Meters (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If it was based on the complaint above, that was clearly addressed.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placed by anon IP, no talk page discussion started. I've removed it. Tewapack (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJones' major championship wins[edit]

i noticed you did not list an Amateur championship wins as "Major Championship Wins" for any of the other great champions as was the case with Bobby Jones . i.e.... Nicklaus, Woods, etc.

Please explain.

thanks Brian bwashi2@entergy.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.9.48 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Jones (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bobby Jones (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bobby Jones (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Jones (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category order[edit]

In a series of edits, User:FieldMarine added categories to the article and also moved the birth and death categories to the beginning of the list. When I reverted the movement of these categories he reverted, saying "Arrange cats to standardize - please take to talk page first before moving again - thanks." According to WP:CATDEF, "the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." There is no standard. My edit arranged them in a logical manner: golf categories first, miltary cats next, then occupation cats, then educational cats, then misc. cat, ending with born/died. These groupings are arranged by most important to least important, as per WP:CATDEF (although an argument could be made to switch the military and occupation groups). I propose my re-ordering is more logical. Tewapack (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend keeping the birth and death or living cats on the top. In my experience, this is consistant with the majority of articles I see in Wikipedua, and IMHO, consistency is good. I also see many articles with cats being alphabetized with numbers to the top. IMHO, alphabetizing also has merit, as i’m not an expert to judge which cat is most important, so it leaves personal opinion out of the sorting decision. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not consistent with other golfer articles, which have the birth/death/living cats at the end - they are the least defining cats. Tewapack (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, as a general rule and where appropriate, Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from consistency across the articles, so I recommend making golfer articles in a similar format as the majority. Also, IMHO, categories do not need to be sorted with the most important on the top. I do not believe that is a requirement for sorting cats nor do I see the value in it. Since doing it that way follows a subjective approach, I don't recommend it. Also, in terms of defining, who is to say birth and living / death cats is not among the most. These being the least defining cats is subjective. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll again quote from WP:CATDEF, "the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." Your opinion versus WP guidelines - guidelines win. Tewapack (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the rationale for why birth and living / death is least defining cat, and thus should be on the bottom. That is an opinion, that opinion does not seem to be supported by a large majority of articles in Wikipedia. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy - if you could only add three categories to this page, what would they be? They'd all be golf related because that is what Jones is known for - his defining characteristics - not when or where he lived/died/was buried. Tewapack (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion, and does not provide rational of why birth and living / death is least defining. Nor is that opinion supported by many articles throughout Wikipedia, where birth and living / death cats is at the top. Many would argue that the birth and living would provide context to the time period of a person, etc, thus very defining. There could be other arguments as well for why birth and living / death are not the least defining, but I'm not an expert. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:CATDEF - "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..." Why is there a Wikipedia article on Bobby Jones? Because of his golfing accomplishments - that is most defining characteristic. It is not because he was born in 1902 - millions of people were born that year but only ~5000 are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Tewapack (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per category schemes for people, there is no consensus about the order in which categories should be placed at the bottom of an article. By placing birth and living / death cats on the top of many articles, many other editors have determined that these cats are defining enough to place them on the top. Why are golf article different? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting birth and death cats first became popular when some users started alphabetizing categories. But bots that alphabetize category ordering have failed to be approved (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically, for example). The bottom line is that the birth/death categories being last has been the precedent on this page for many years. Tewapack (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, while I don’t necessarily agree, it is obvious you feel strongly about this article and the ordering of the cats, and I view that as good thing. Please order the cats however you think best. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

professional status[edit]

This recent edition is worth discussing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Jones_(golfer)&curid=434385&diff=1111406078&oldid=1110629681 —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Jones_(golfer)&oldid=1194097043"