This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There should be a money list and rankings for Scottie like all the other golfers Blaineriffic (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the money list ranking was added as part of the PGA Tour career summary, thank you Ajthom90.Dobblesteintalk 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@CNMall41 Do you know what the word "editorialize" means? You've used it as justification for reverting, but nothing in the edits you reverted were opinions, just statements of fact about Scheffler's arrest. You also re-added a current event tag, which does not apply to this article. Do you have any explanation for this? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. The inclusion of the charges without allowing Scheffler's side is a clear violation of BLP rules.
I do know the meaning. You are welcome to seek input and get consensus, but the tone is not appreciated. Wikipedia is not the courthouse, we are not the police report, we are not the eye witnesses. This is a new event where he did something, got arrested for it, and is now waiting arraignment. Charges are likely to be dropped so I do not see the need to include the intricate details of the incident. If charges are dropped, a simple sentence saying they were dropped is enough to close out the content. I do not even see the need to have a heading on it. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTNEWS. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you show me the specific edit where I added the "current event" tag? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@CNMall41 if you know the meaning, why are you misusing the word in this context? And it's very troubling that you don't know the content of your own edits. The current event tag was removed, and you re-added it when you reverted the edits. That is you re-adding the tag.
You also reverted edits by Tim Landy which cleaned up references and added archive links, you've given no reason for reverting those edits. And you reverted edits by Moralkiosk00 which updated Scheffler's major championship record, no reason given for reverting these edits and then another editor Tewapack had to reinstate those helpful, constructive edits you reverted. Presumably you didn't notice you did that, similar to when you didn't know you re-added the current event tag when you blindly reverted the other edits. This is harmful behaviour, you do not WP:OWN this article so you shouldn't blindly revert edits by other editors. Editors shouldn't be subjected to you blindly reverting their good-faith, constructive edits.
What you're doing is picking a prior version of the article, then edit warring to prevent any changes being made because you don't think the arrest is a particularly notable incident. So even with this logic, why not go further back and edit war so that the arrest isn't mentioned at all? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you discussed in a better tone. The accusation of WP:OWN can be addressed at WP:ANI should you feel it warrants it but reverting something that is UNDUE is not ownership in my opinion. My intention was not to revert the other edits you mentioned. If that is your issue, I apologize as again it wasn't my intention. As far as the other edits, I will keep it simple. It is WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If you are able to get consensus, feel free to add it back. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@CNMall41 I appreciate the apology and that you recognise you shouldn't blindly revert edits. It is harmful behaviour that discourages good-faith editors from contributing to Wikipedia, and you should expect an ANI report if it happens again. You haven't reinstated the helpful edits by Tim Landy [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottie_Scheffler&diff=prev&oldid=1224780203&title=Scottie_Scheffler&diffonly=1 ] which you reverted though, do you expect that editor to clean up the references and add archive links again himself?
Please respond to the substance of the argument instead of Tone policing. You haven't explained why you chose the particular version of the article to revert to and prevent any changes to it. You should've removed the topic of Scheffler being arrested entirely per UNDUE and NOTNEWS, if that's what you believe. But you didn't, you've left it in despite your numerous reverts. So you agree that discussion of the topic is relevant to the article.
What you disagree with seems to be the exact wording of the section, and you've not explained why the article shouldn't cover basic detail such as when Scheffler was arrested and when he was released, or when his arraignment is scheduled. Why shouldn't the article cover basic detail such as when Scheffler was arrested/released, and when the arraignment is scheduled? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and that you recognise you shouldn't blindly revert edits" - I said nothing of the sort. Please do not misquote me. It's no longer worth discussing conduct with you as your tone (now for the third time) is pretty confrontational. I also do not appreciate the threat or being talked down to so please go right to ANI if you have any more conduct concerns.
Now, back to the actual discussion on content. If we detail the arrest and release and arraignment, are we also going to detail the statements of the office, him, or witnesses. Are we going to state the road it happened on and the fact it was a cluster F due to a fatal accident? Do we include the fact that an officer was sent to the hospital or that Scottie warmed up for his round in a jail cell? No. Absolutely not. Again, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we do not put in all the finer details of the incident, just the summary. If you have wording you want to propose I would be happy to discuss. As it stands, there is no consensus to add anything more than what is there. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@CNMall41 You don't recognise that you shouldn't blindly revert edits? You stated your intention wasn't to revert the other edits, and that you apologise for doing so. That is a recognition that you made a mistake, and that you shouldn't have blindly reverted the edits. This shouldn't be a point of contention. I said I will file a report at ANI if you blindly revert edits again, as anyone should because blindly reverting edits is harmful behaviour that violates Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:REVERT
Arrest, release and arraignment are basic, factual details about an arrest. Not opinions, not hearsay. You haven't given any reason why that basic detail shouldn't be included, just a reductio ad absurdum argument that if we include basic detail about the arrest then we also have to include extraneous detail about Scheffler doing stretches in jail. No one argued for including that detail, you're creating a straw man.
Currently we present readers with information that he was arrested, but no information about what happened afterwards. An arrest is part of a legal proceeding. Was he released from jail after his arrest? When was his arraignment? Did he plead not-guilty? Were the charges dropped? Did the case go to trial? This is basic information about a legal proceeding.
I propose the article to say: "On May 17, 2024, Scheffler was arrested at 6:20 a.m. near Valhalla Golf Club, the venue of the 2024 PGA Championship. He was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer, a class-C felony, and three misdemeanors: third-degree criminal mischief, reckless driving, and disregarding traffic signals from an officer directing traffic. Scheffler was released on his own recognizance at 8:40 the same morning. His arraignment was scheduled for June 3."
With references supporting that information of course. Then we could add whether he pleads guilty/not-guilty at his arraignment if/when that happens, and/or that the charges were dropped if/when that happens. Do you have any objections to that proposed version? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
