Talk:Jack Nicklaus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJack Nicklaus was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 15, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 26, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 31, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

exemption rules[edit]

Nicklaus turned 65 in January 2005, which is the last year that he will be joining a PGA tournament as an exempt player.

I think that's wrong, since "one of the traditions of the Masters is that their past champions can play in the tournament anytime they want." See http://www.golfobserver.com/features/sal_casper.html

I also wonder about the rule this year for the british open. but Nicklaus would have been 66 and past champions are exempt only until the age of 65. is found at http://www.jsonline.com/golfplus/jul05/340591.asp But he was 65 in January of 2005, before he played as an exempt player in the british open.... --NealMcB 01:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nicklaus was invited back to the open on compleating his final round. This was perhaps deferance to an all time great and outside the normal rules.Djarra 12:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All Open champs are exempt from qualifying for the tournament through age 65. The article referenced above talked about how Nicklaus' exempt status for the Open would expire in January 2006, as he would turn 66. Thus for the 2005 Open, the tournament was moved to St. Andrews so that Nicklaus could play there in his last exempt year. In other words, the organizers wanted Nicklaus to finish his playing career on what they consider the best of all the Open courses and on what Nicklaus considers his personal favorite. This was a fantastic gesture to honor Nicklaus' amazing career! As for the above mentioned Masters exemption, there has also been talk among its organizers about their exemption expiring at age 65. Anyone who remembers Billy Casper's embarrassing 106 in round one last year will understand why. 68.154.148.99 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majors information[edit]

Question for Tewapack - I am amazed that you found the information to fill in the major championship table. I did extensive research to find the information about the specifics of his major championship victories, but was unable to finish it. Can you tell me where you got the information, so I can use it for other golfers? Thanks in advance. Supertigerman 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.golfstats.com - "The Majors" link for round by round scores. 54-hole info requires some calculation. Tewapack 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That site was very good, but I noticed a couple days ago that it stopped working.Is there another comprehensive site like that? Supertigerman 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Can we at least have an image of him playing golf?--Lucy-marie 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, but I don't know the procedure to get an image approved. Supertigerman 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article candidate[edit]

This article is currently nominated for GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Summary of major championship performances :" should be ==Summary of major championship performances:==. Real96 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Hold[edit]

I am putting this article on hold mainly for referencing issues. It passes all other criteria at WP:WIAGA. Fix these missing references, and I will pass the article:

  • Many paragraphs of "Record setter" section. Especially sentances or paragraphs that make assertions of fact (the section on orders of his golf clubs is one that is DEFINATELY needed, though it is not the only paragraph in need of refs in this section)
  • "Close of playing career" is entirely unreferenced.
  • "Records in major championships" makes several claims that are unreferenced.
  • "Other records" does as well

Other than all of that, it is a VERY well written article. Congrats, and I hope to see these fixes made so I can pass it. Please get these fixes done within seven days. --Jayron32 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass[edit]

It looks like nearly all of the major referencing issues have been dealt with. I am passing this article. Congrats! --Jayron32 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in 1st paragraph[edit]

Nicklaus is widely regarded as one of the best by all that play golf, this fact really does not need to be cited. The next statement about being highly competitive does not need to be cited also. The facts below, including 18 major championship wins and 8 senior majors verify this fact. I do agree however on the next two sentences. These need citing, but will be hard to find. They may have to be deleted sometime down the track. Grover 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts need to be cited or else they could be complete rubbish without a citation. It could be written Nicklaus once dressed up a the green eyed monster in a match against Lesley Neilsen and this is considered the greatest farce in golfing history. That statement would have as much place as the truthful but un-sourced assertion about being the greatest golfer. Citations are essential or both statements have as much right to be (or not be) in the article.--Lucy-marie 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nicklaus still regarded as the very best? I think it's becoming more and more a matter of debate as Woods pulls closer in terms of Majors won, given that Woods has had a shorter span of time thus far.

I also think that it cannot be asserted as fact that he's the best of all time. Is this a fan page? Mikevegas40 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording in the first paragraph is okay, as it does not assert that Jack is the best of all time...it merely asserts that Jack is widely regarded as the best of all time. The Nicklaus vs. Woods debate will probably last forever unless Woods wins 19 major championships (but even then I imagine there will still be debate...lol). Jtroska (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor ad should be deleted[edit]

The following sentence seems like it was inserted by someone associated with MacGregor Golf and should be deleted:

Nicklaus won the 1986 Masters using the Response ZT putter. Its manufacturer, MacGregor Golf, received 5,000 orders the next day; it had planned to sell only 6,000 copies of this model for the entire year.[12]

While this may be true, is it 1) at all important, or 2) not a blatant effort by someone connected to the company to drop their own name?

I would delete it right now, but I don't want to have to go back and reformat the rest of the article and footnotes. (The Masters is on today) Would someone else like to do it? 76.118.151.167 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually put that in about a year ago, and i'm in no way associated with the MacGregor golf company (i'm a uni student). Grovermj 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So why put it in there? I mean, I'm sure Mr. Nicklaus changed clubs innumerable times during the course of his career. And I'm sure some of those changes were made just prior to a major win. What makes that one change important? 76.118.151.167 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves a mention because of those statistics. The same sort of thing happened with Zach Johnson's win last year. They are fairly amazing stats. Grovermj 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style - taking measurements[edit]

I read somewhere that Jack poineered measuring each shot more accurately. He used more detailed coursae guides and paced each distance down to the yard. I think he was one of the first - if not the first - to do this. Either way I think its a relevant addition to the playing style section. Metallion (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Information Textbox[edit]

I think we're being very kind by showing Jack's current weight at only 185 lbs, but I guess we can be flexible regarding this minor detail...lol! Jtroska (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs personal information[edit]

The "amateur" section mentions where he grew up, but there's not much else. Even that doesn't mention how that led to his nickname. If I were reading only this article, I'd have hardly any clue about even such basic information as to whether he was married or had children. There is one sentence that mentions "his children and grandchildren". And then, of course, there is the mention of the 2005 Masters, which leads the article to briefly mention son Steve and grandson Jake. But that seems to be pretty much it. 216.10.193.21 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is little in this article to describe him as a person. ROxBo (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is patchy, maybe a 5/10.
The lead is quite short and does not really adequately summarise the article.
Every section from "Close of playing career" to the end is patchy and poorly written. These have to be organised and expanded to contain all relevant information on his retirement and personal life and they have to be written in organised paragraphs and properly sourced.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There is at least one [citation needed] tag. Also see above about poorly written and incomplete sections.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
See above about retirement
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your points have been satisfied, but tell me if i'm wrong. :) Grovermj 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, as I was reading through though I noticed that in the "Career downturn (1968-1970)" section there is a mix of citation styles, with one sentance referenced by (My Story) in parenthesis while the others have inline citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few more of these and you need to select one style or the other and stick with it. Convert one or the other so they are all consistant.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all converted. Grovermj 01:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements, this now qualifies for GA. There are still problems with prose and I think that for such an important figure in his sport there is probably a lot more that could be said about him, but it is at least good enough to remain a GA. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-course Career?[edit]

"Nicklaus devotes much of his time to golf course design and operates one of the largest golf design practices in the world."

Golf course design is very much an on-course career. Its not a major issue, but perhaps the title could be less misleading. Either that or make a separate section for course design.

--Potatobreath (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Jack Nicklaus infobox does not match any other golfer except Tiger Woods, 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 these two inconsistent ones on these two pages rather than change thousands upon thousands of others. Thanks Bluedogtn (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Golf WikiProject talk page is be the best the place to discuss this, rather than creating a discussion in several different places. (see Talk:Tiger Woods#Info Box). wjematherbigissue 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on this page and the Tiger Woods page are the correct ones, the others are not proper templates, so as stupid as it sounds, eventually the other infoboxes should be changed to the one on this page. Grovermj 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golf course list[edit]

I think the list of golf courses Nicklaus he designed could be moved to a separate article, such as, List of Jack Nicklaus designed golf courses. This would be similar to List of Tillinghast courses. - Tewapack (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a huge list to have in an article. Grovermj 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another format to use could be like List of Donald Ross designed courses - Tewapack (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please move it. It is far too large. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it should have its own page. very deserving! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihistoryusa (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Reassessment[edit]

Jack Nicklaus[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted per discussion below. This article passed a reassessment about 2 years ago, and at the time it was concise and well-cited. Since then, the article's size has roughly doubled, most of the new content is not cited, there are concerns about focus (3b), and the prose could be improved. This discussion has run for a month, no one has given a reason to keep, and including the nominator there are 2 votes to delist and no votes to keep. To the extent that the guidelines suggest waiting a couple more days, I am guided by WP:SNOW Aaron north (T/C) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article does not deserve to have GA status as it has nowhere near enough references for starters and also has quotes with no references. I will list the problems below:

  • "the fact is that he keeps adding to his legend, at the design table and in the business world. Despite a worldwide course development slowdown, Nicklaus’s design firm has over 40 courses in development around the globe...And he remains perhaps golf’s most respected spokesperson on a wide range of issues." This is a quote without a reference.
  • An example of bad prose is "and the top 10 67 times".
  • There is also another quote "When God created Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer, He turned to Nicklaus and said: 'You will be the greatest the game has ever seen.' Then He turned to Palmer, adding: 'But they will love you more.'" This has no reference

I will now put it against the Good Article Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article is defenitely not capable of GA in my view anyway but it's up to everyone else. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist If the problems were limited only to the quotes mentioned above, I might be tempted to just look them up myself to help this article pass reassessment, but those quotes are only the beginning. I'm not extremely picky about citation, but there are huge areas of the article filled with uncited claims. The work that would be required to get this back to GA status would require a dedicated editor. That is unfortunate, because when I look at the version of the article that passed reassessment 2 years ago, the article was more concise and well-cited. In the last two years the article bloated out to expand about two-fold, but whoever added all that additional content apparently did not cite much of what was added. Whether all that added content was focused on the subject or unnecessary fluff is also debatable. Aaron north (T/C) 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its a bit of a shame to see the article now. I was the editor that did the main push to GA status, but after that it got a little neglected, since I haven't been spending much time here. I should go through the article and improve it again. Grovermj 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge article[edit]

This article really has gotten too big. More importantly, what is being put into the article is not cited, which is what cost it the good article status. I attempted to shorten the article a few months ago but a few months later it was back over the original size. Just want some discussion here before I try and shorten it again. Please, if you're adding things, reference them. Grovermj 03:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is fairly large, even now. But it is admittedly for the public (and so what they desire... to a point, of course). The article has a lot of good commentary, and may just need some streamlining. I don't know if certain areas of the article are unduly notable, such as college studies, business interests, etc. ... Mr. Nicklaus is historically important as a Golfer, this should be kept in mind. John G. Lewis (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries with Individual Players[edit]

I do not think as much was said on this score as should have been. I was born in the mid-1960's, so I missed out on his early career, but do remember fairly well from 1977 onwards. In particular, though the "Duel in the Sun" was mentioned, Jack had other important competitions with Tom Watson, one I believe occurred at the U. S. Open. (...) Also, and of interest obviously on the rivalry point, was his contests with Arnold Palmer, much earlier on. It is my thinking, that both of these players deserve a sub-heading (their own section) under Jack's wiki article: such as "Early Rivalry with Arnold Palmer", "Late Contention with Tom Watson", and underneath each of these sections, the various tournaments would be so noted and commented on. It was thought, and perhaps rightly so, that Tom Watson was generally besting Jack Nicklaus in the latter 1970's, and that he was the 'Heir Apparent', as Golf's finest player. It did not quite work out like this, of course, but I remember the tension that existed, and the sting Mr. Nicklaus possibly felt from not winning more of his 'duels' with Tom. However, all three of course played as a gentleman and as a sportsman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Nicklaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jack Nicklaus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A good job. Is it possible to make Career highlights read less like a list of numbers and events and more like prose? Why does References and notes give only two sources? Could some Internet sources be added there? The article needs citations throughout. Some might say not quite there, but I am rating this B. The steps for at least a B class biography may be helpful. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) If you think it's deserving of higher than a B, submit it to WP:GAC to make it a good article. i can't rate it higher than B until then.--Wizardman 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Nicklaus. 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) 14:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jack Nicklaus. 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) 07:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Nicklaus. 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) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greatness RfC that may affect this article[edit]

Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why use an Infobox photograph of Jack Nicklaus that was snapped after he retired?[edit]

The Infobox photograph of Jack Nicklaus was taken after he retired from competitive golf. Why show Nicklaus as a senior citizen? The infobox should have a photo of the Golden Bear when he was in his prime. A classic example of this is Jackie Kennedy. When she died in 1994, her portrait was featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine. The photo was taken some time in the late 1950s (about 35 years before her death), when she was very beautiful and in her prime. Newsweek would not have been stupid enough to publish a current (1994) photo of Ms. Onassis. The media in this country is obsessed with youth and beauty. If you watch any of the major TV news networks such as CNN, Fox, CBS and others, all the female reporters and anchors are young and extremely beautiful. A young woman could have a magna cum laude degree in broadcast journalism from Harvard, if she's a "dog" she doesn't have a Chinaman's chance of getting a TV job with the networks.

Coincidentally, Arnold Palmer's Infobox photo also shows him as a senior citizen. On the positive side, Joe Namath's photo was taken in 1965, when he was in his prime. Let's get better Inobox pictures of Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.Anthony22 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find one that is free to use, knock yourself out. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many excellent photos of Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer when they were in their prime, but I can't upload them because they're copyrighted. You need permission from the owner of the photo in order to upload it. Most photos on the Internet have not been released to the public for general use.Anthony22 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political support[edit]

I think we should add some of Nicklaus's political support: he just expressed support of Donald Trump's reelection, and voted for him, something notable especially as Trump retweeted him, and called it a "great honor". I would suggest adding it to a "personal life" section, though seemingly all it has is "other interests", which somehow also include golf? ɱ (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems like WP:UNDUE WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia (amongst other things). We don't generally include the political affiliation or voting intentions of non-politicians/activists. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually totally false, we do usually include political affiliations, especially where notable - like presidential support, major news, and numerous reactions, all of which are present here. ɱ (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See stories like this, I don't have time for an analysis but so far their articles all mention it... ɱ (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no we don't – we only include such things when shown to be relevant to the subject, not just because it is vaguely relevant to the current news when they've made a single tweet, or remark in an interview. Many of the people mentioned in that newsweek article are political activists or renowned for sharing their political opinions, and even then current voting intentions are generally not mentioned in articles, which (for the most part) only discuss political beliefs/opinions in a general context as an encyclopedia should do. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, look at this from that list:

  • Lil Pump, expressed support for Trump in article, not an activist/renowned for political opinions
  • James Woods, expressed support for Trump in article, not an activist/renowned Republican
  • Jon Voight, expressed support for Trump in article, somewhat activist
  • Isaiah Washington, only conservative support mentions
  • Dennis Quaid, expressed support for Trump in article, not an activist/renowned for political opinions
  • Scott Baio, expressed support for Trump in article
  • Kid Rock, outspoken Trumper in article
  • Stacey Dash, expressed support for Trump in article, not an activist/renowned Republican
  • Dean Cain, expressed support for Trump in article, not an activist/renowned Republican
  • Ted Nugent, outspoken Trumper in article
  • Rosanne Barr, outspoken Trumper in article

So, yes, celebrities of all walks of life have mentions of their support of presidents, even if not an outspoken political activist. You trying to counter me here only makes it seem like you want to hide this fact? ɱ (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Pump (which has exactly the same issues as we're discussing here) & Cain, those articles generally have extensive discussion of their politics which provides sufficient context for such additions. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's one thing to say their political affiliation and it's another to say they voted for Trump. Do we need to go to everyone in Hollywood and add text that they voted for Biden? Do these articles say they voted for McCain or Obama? Or Bush or Gore? It's iffy to casually mention someone's political persuasion and it's reasonable if someone is a continual outspoken activist that is part of their persona, but to just suddenly pop in that someone voted for Trump or Biden seems ridiculously trivial for an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be trivial, sure, if that was the case, which it's not. This is a case of a lengthy political endorsement, an endorsement of the endorsement by the US president, and innumerous subsequent press coverage. ɱ (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the majority of those articles discuss the subject's political beliefs in general, because they are reported somewhat regularly, which lends context and relevance to statements such as this one. For those that do not provide that context, such additions are problematic. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, actually many/most of them are just one or two sentences. And your made-up standards here are ridiculous, not part of any policy or guideline. It's true that in practice, this happens all the time. ɱ (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policies are noted above. Just because bad article content (e.g. random contextless statements of "facts" or trivia) exists doesn't mean it should be everywhere. Perhaps there is historical coverage of Nicklaus' political beliefs with which to build a coherent paragraph to summarize them? wjematherplease leave a message... 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for a third time, your policies don't specifically state anything like these unbelievable standards that just popped into your head. Anyhow, what can we rely on if we can't rely on policies? How about precedent? Oh, I suppose you don't consider that either? There's well enough precedent here. ɱ (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for evidence:
  • 2017 WP article: "“I have known Donald for long time, through the game of golf. He’s been very supportive of a lot of things I have done,” Nicklaus said, again per Deadline. “I think he’s going to be good in the office, going to do a good job."" ...a search of the Federal Election Commission campaign-contribution database shows that Nicklaus has given financial support almost solely to Republican candidates, both for president and Congress."
  • Irish Times, 2020: "Nicklaus was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005, by then-president George W. Bush. Like Trump, Bush is also a member of the Republican party whom Nicklaus has been a longtime financial donor to. Trump and Nicklaus have played golf together several times"
  • 2016 Golf Digest: "In an interview with CBS Sunday Morning, Jack Nicklaus spoke on his relationship with Donald Trump. The 18-time major winner praised the presumed Republican presidential candidate, calling him "terrific." "I've done several things with Donald on golf courses, and he's absolutely treated me great"
I'm not asking for evidence – I'm asking for a coherent paragraph (or more) that adequately covers the subject of Nicklaus' politics, which from those sources (and I suspect there may be more & better) seems doable. What I do object to, are one-line soundbites without context that come laden with an array of issues. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's notable about Nicklaus is that he waited 80 years to say anything at all political, and then did so in support of one of the most polarizing figures of his lifetime. His lack of political identity up to now is what makes it noteworthy, not a reason to exclude it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.159.234 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the mention should be added and kept, MJ has provided adequate cites. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ɱ, User:Wjemather, User:Randy Kryn, so, years later can it still not go somewhere? 'Encyclopedic' is supposed to be 'comprehensive'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.125.136 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatness[edit]

Long standing wording has been "one of the greatest". This has been changed to "the greatest". Some time ago there was an RfC on Rod Laver's article pertaining to exactly this type of wording. The consensus there was clear that, for a variety of reasons (comparisons of different eras, criteria used, etc.), "one of the greatest" is fine and "the greatest" is not. Seems like explicit consensus here for the same is needed. Sources can easily be found to support a variety of candidates for the greatest tag (Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Snead, and a few others), considering a wide array of different criteria. There is no definitive answer so only thing they really agree on is "one of the greatest", so that is the wording I propose gets reinstated. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tewapack (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.140.224 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to the point made below) As you no doubt discovered, there is also an abundance of sources with Tiger Woods at the top of the list; not as many as Nicklaus, but enough for us not to say "Nicklaus is the goat". And that's without even considering the many sources with someone other than these two at the top. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what is online, it appears roughly ~75% of experts say Jack, ~20% say Tiger, and ~5% say someone else. Of course, 100% of people will never agree on anything, but consensus is what could be called "overwhelming" in support of Jack Nicklaus. Tom Brady is referred to as the GOAT QB on his wiki, Babe Ruth as the GOAT of baseball on his wiki, Wayne Gretzky as the GOAT of hockey, Michael Jordan as the GOAT of basketball. I don't see Jack Nicklaus being any less deserving than these athletes. Even still, "one of, if not the greatest" would be closer to accurate than "one of the greatest golfers of all time". People don't call MJ one of the best basketball players or TB12 "one of" the best football players. They have near unanimous approval as *the singular best*. But look, I've been outvoted. It's 5-1 against, so I accept and will move on with life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.140.224 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment from me - I just noticed I'm talking to the person who changed things (imo) for the worse. You're comparing Jack Nicklaus to Rod Laver. This is a wildly inappropriate comparison. I've quite literally never seen a single human being (other than Roger who was clearly being coy and paying respect) refer to Rod Laver as the GOAT tennis player. I'm an avid tennis fan: I watch tennis morning shows, I receive tennis magazines, watch the Majors and the 9 ATP 1000 tourneys, etc. Respect to Rod Laver, he is a legend and at one point in time was the king, but irrespective of eras, no legitimate tennis fan compares his skills favorably to the Big 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) and most lists I've seen place Samprass above Rod as well. This is unlike Jack Nicklaus who is viewed almost invariably by his peers as well as current pros as the GOAT of golf. On rare occassions someone will call Tiger the greatest, but again, that's quite rare (2 or 3 out of every 10 experts, roughly). The rest of the time, it is Jack Nicklaus who gets the nod. So to be clear, it is a disservice to Jack to refer to him as simply "one of the greatest" when the majority of experts, players, and fans see him as *thee* greatest. Calling any of the following "one of the greatest" - Babe Ruth, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Serena Williams (womens tennis), Michael Phelps, etc. - of their sport is a disservice to their legacy as public opinion, peers, and experts alike are above the threshold (50%) in agreement that these are *the greatest* and not simply "among the greatest". Okay, got that off my chest. Now I'll move on.
Then you are truly living under a rock because I've seen it many times in magazines, books, and newsprint that Rod Laver is the greatest. And I wouldn't call any one of those you list as the goat, and would challenge many of them myself. Heck I'm not sure Serena Williams is in my top 5. I do agree with Gretzky but that's about all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact that Fyunck(click) might enjoy, Babe Ruth is actually the most underrated baseball player of all time. As for Nicklaus, what caps it for many are his unprecedented 19 second place finishes in majors, when, added to his unprecedented 18 actual wins, we have a bingo. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 'either the greatest or' to the sentence "He is widely considered to be either the greatest or one of the greatest golfers of all time". Expert consensus shows that Nicklaus can easily be called the greatest of all-time, so the added words acknowledge that historical intent. If Woods can come back and win another major he may be worthy of that title, but most experts agree on Nicklaus' status. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That wording works for me. As hinted at, some "experts" don't look far beyond majors (which is lazy) but (as hinted at) they are far from the only measure; when other achievements are taken into account there isn't only one clear candidate. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but if majors and wins and a few other criteria are laid aside, maybe the greatest golfer of all time is Moe Norman. A case can be made. Yet majors are to many the measuring stick, the four long weekends every year that a great golfers' game is attuned towards, mentally and physically. If forced to choose just one it's easy to see how Nicklaus has earned the title. Yet Woods does have his champions, and well deserved. Phrasing Woods' page to say something similar would probably need to drop the word "widely", yet Wikipedia should probably recognize that he is considered the greatest by many experts as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: drmies[edit]

Your personal page is locked so I was unable to message you there. Anyway, what is the process for gaining consensus? I can find 20 articles on google all saying Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer of all time. Articles written by former pros, experts, and fans alike. I'm not sure why 3 people on Jack's talk page trump the views of pros and experts.

Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.140.224 (talk • contribs)

  • IP, first of all, new comments go at the bottom. Thank you. Second, "gaining consensus", that's what's happening in the section above, to which you added your opinion. The other two participants can probably 20 other articles for each of the other names mentioned earlier that say that they are the greatest golfer. (And articles are typically found through Google, not on Google.) And I think you are misunderstanding something: "3 people on Jack's talk page" are not going to "trump" what experts say: rather, Wikipedia editors, on article talk page, attempt to reach a consensus that fairly represents what reliable secondary sources (which either give or represent the views of experts etc.). It's not the editors who decide who is the greatest; it's editors who decide, collaboratively, which sources should be represented in which way to construct a specific statement. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question remains intact, why do 3 or 4 contributors on wikipedia trump the views of experts? It is a simple question, a legitimate question, and should be an easy one to answer. You posited a hypothetical without any evidence to support your theory (that someone can find 20 articles wherein Jack Nicklaus is not atop the list of greatest golfers ever...I highly, highly doubt you could find 20, or even 5). Sidenote: I'm not sure why a *new* question would go at the bottom of a talk page, that literally makes no sense, but okay, I'll accept, even though that is nonsensical.
Have added 'either the greatest or' to the sentence in question, which accurately represents expert consensus as well as those experts who chose Woods, Hogan, etc. This addition may best reflect expert opinion, and should adequately align the language of the debate. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name: John or Jack[edit]

Hello, most people called 'Jack' are actually 'John'. Does any regular contributor know if this is the case with Nicklaus? I think it might be. This book says so: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qmuCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=%22John+William+nicklaus%22+Google+books&source=bl&ots=Y2McBuzDDd&sig=ACfU3U2ujFCeoT0qRQZlKzn4aKGwWtHDxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8nNr8v_j4AhVjSUEAHYunDY0Q6AF6BAgCEAE#v=onepage&q=%22John%20William%20nicklaus%22%20Google%20books&f=false

And from this genealogy site: https://www.geni.com/people/Jack-Nicklaus/6000000135725697443

If these (or other) sources are enough, the correct name should appear at the very start as per CMOS. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nicklaus apparel[edit]

you forgot to include Jack Nicklaus line of apparel.I bought several of those around 40 years ago.It were very well made and it still last to this days,even I don't don it on the golf course now.I am almost bed-riddened,76 years old in Bangkok,Thailand.I also got one of that "Golf my way" fully illustrated golf teaching book that I still love to this day, even I lost it when I had to move to different places to work.May be I will try to buy a new reissued one to rekindle my love for golf....Thank you Mr.Jack Nicklaus. 184.22.100.150 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Nicklaus&oldid=1210468268"