Talk:Jimmy White

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Snooker, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of snooker. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

1 Recent victory
2 Jimmy Brown
3 Disambiguation and NPOV dispute
- 3.1 NPOV edit
4 Suggestions for improving article

[edit] Recent victory

Didn't Jimmy win another ranking tournament a couple of weeks ago? Anyone know the details? --ALargeElk 09:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right, he won the Players Championship. I'll add it in. --Auximines 09:24, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Brown

He's just changed his name by deed poll to 'Jimmy Brown' (BBC). What's the consequence for this article, then? Hig Hertenfleurst 21:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regardless what's done, if anything, note that according to that article, it may only be a temporary change: "White, who changed his name by deed poll, plans to keep his new title for the duration of the Masters - and possibly even the World Championships". -- Jugalator 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation and NPOV dispute

I have removed the ref. to the above, as the "JImmy White" involved in it was certainly not 'the' Jimmy White and, anyhow, has no separate article page. Administrator has been asked to remove neutrailty dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigpad (talk • contribs) .

I reverted your edit. The purpose of these disambiguation notes are that somebody may be looking for information on the men involved in the GTR and come here to see if there's anything about Jimmy White the train robber. If we don't put the message there, people may assume that the one and only Jimmy White is this one, both snooker player and train robber!

I put the NPOV template up there because the article is nauseatingly complimentary of White. It requires quite a lot of work - I could delete all the biased sentences but the article wouldn't flow properly. What's needed are some properly sourced facts demonstrating his success. BigBlueFish 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV edit

Resolved

Hi, I have edited this article substantially to cut down on the eologising tone. I hope that's enough to justify me also having removed the NPOV: ok? Regards, Patrick

Didn't go far enough. It is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to use a phrase like "the finest". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think the use of "the finest" is ok, as it says "the finest never to have won the World Championship". The rest of the article details the subject's achievements, which most players would die for, to illustrate this point, and the use of "is widely regarded as [the finest..]" is unquestionably true. Overall, I don't see a real POV issue here? All the best, bigpad 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Negatory. The breadth of the assertion is irrelevant; it is still totally beyond the pale for an encyclopedia article to label someone superlatively, even if only in reference to their local neighborhood, or that year, or among 1-armed, blind players, or whatever. It is not for WP to say who is finest; that is solely, totally, for external sources! This isn't even questionable, it's hard-core WP fact. See WP:NPOV. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Patrick, no criticism whatsoever intended of your cleanup edits so far, just to be clear. I'm not in any way attacking your edits, which I think have been a boon. I'm simply replying here under "NPOV edit" because it's the relevant extant topic (in lieu of creating a new redundant one) for the issue I'm raising. "Didn't go far enough" was meant to be ironic, not critical. Hope that clarifies. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Bigpad, regarding my latest edit summary: "Restoring "POV-section" tag per talk page comments; won't fight re-revert, but hope that it would be well-discussed on talk page; article DOES need improvement in this regard per WP policy/guidelines." — It's not that I want this "warning" tag to be in place, it's that I want the article text to improve here. I could "just do it", but I prefer to defer to longer-term editors of an article. I.e., I'm asking you to fix it, more or less. If you decline, please let me know and I'll add it to my to-do list (or if you strongly object to what I'm proposing, say so here, of course. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, no worries. Have a look at most recent edit and see if you and others think it is now toned down enough bigpad 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good show! ~~Only~~ NPOV thing I can think of remaining is the term "gripping". There is probably a less emotional way to say that, such as "edge-of-the-seat" or "neck-and-neck" or something (i.e. something that describes the spectators or the action, not the encyclopedia "narrator"). The rest of the material looks great! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Update: The article has been subsequently edited to introduce more POV. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, ok see what I hope is close to a final revision. All the best, bigpad 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

~~It's~~ It was really shaping up. NB: There's no such thing as a final revision at WP! Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Update: The article has been subsequently edited to introduce more POV. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improving article

I've noticed a great deal of sensitivity and debate regarding any update to this article. I would therefore make a couple of suggestions - which you can take on board if you so desire. My particular issue is with the article's heading.

1. James "Jimmy" Warren White, MBE (born 2 May 1962) is an English professional snooker player often considered one of the most popular players in the sport, past or present.[attribution needed]

White IS considered "one of the most popular players in the sport, past or present" - arenas are usually sold out when he plays and he is often given a wildcard to participate in events which he doesn't qualify by right - proof of his popularity. Think that should be accepted as attribution / citation.

2. He first played snooker at a very young age and a natural aptitude led to a successful amateur career culminating in his victory in the world amateur snooker championship in Australia in 1980 at the age of 18. Turning professional soon afterwards, his crowd-pleasing style and ability made an immediate impact at this level

I thought the heading to a biography is designed to give a brief summary of achievements (see Tiger Woods for example) and the World Amateur Championship win is not what White will be remembered for. This section in the heading could be chopped to further down the article and replaced with a summary of his career eg He was the youngest player to win the World Amateur Snooker Champion in 1980, aged 18. He went on to win many ranking titles and reached the World Professional Championship Final on six occcasions but has so far failed to win the most prestigious title of all.

3. Bit of a re-write would be my suggestion, I'd be interested on other's thoughts - but I'm not editing the article because I know it'll be immediately reverted. Seedybob2 09:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot make claims of this sort without reliable external sources for them; it is forbidden "original research" under WP:NOR/WP:ATT, and it is also a violation of WP:NPOV. This exact issue was just discussed at one's talk page or other recently (or somewhere related; it could potentially have been at RfC or the VPump, or at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion; I've been bouncing around a lot lately) but there was virtually no counter-debate at all against the clear consensus that WP is not, ever, itself in a position to declare someone (or anything) "one of the most popular ever", "the world's greatest", or any other such laudatory, sweeping claim. Another way of putting it: You assert that arenas sell out, that he gets wildcard placement in tournaments, etc., but these claims (the selling out, the commonness of wildcards) are not sourced (last I looked; maybe they are now). And neither of them prove he's popular. Crappy bands with one hit single regularly sell out shows for a year or two and then vanish forever. (And sell what out - what are the sizes of the venues? And so on...) What if he simply has friends on the inside that ensure he gets a wildcard? Or whatever. It's blatant OR without credible sources. Such sources might be Snooker International magazine (or whatever; is there a major snooker magazine?) giving him a "Most Popular Player of the Year" award, or a poll in which he ranked very high as one of the most popular players. Where is a source for why he keeps getting wildcards? See Irving Crane for an example of a properly-sourced cueist biography, by counter-example.
Agreed! That cruft needs to be in a standard ==Early life== section, or if not enough material is available, at the very beginning of a standard ==Career== section.
Agreed! This article needs a lot of work. The facts are mostly there and are getting more and more sourced but NPOV has crept in again and parts of it are starting to read like a magazine again. The narrative flow is choppy. I think this is very much a Good Article candidate after some cleanup, but it will have to be dedicated cleanup for NPOV and NOR/ATT problems, and some of the cleanup may seem like losses of fun stuff to editors in this articlespace who have been ignoring these policies and guidelines (and there are far, far worse articles from this perspective in the cue sports article pace. Many of the Filipino pool player articles, I'm frankly surprised they haven't been AfD'd.) To get back the point, the edit you suggest in particular, I firmly support. We are not a particularly contentious lot around here, when it comes to article flow, so I say just be WP:BOLD and have at it.