Talk:Stephen Hendry

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Prize Money- at end of sheffield should it read something like £8,677.485?

The World Snooker website lists Hendry's prize money up until 2007/8 i.e not including season just finished as £8,396,485. He is also unless there is another player who us going to get a 147 in line to bank at least £181.000 from the 2009 World Snooker championship apart from anything else he won this year which might have been at least £100,000- so would be nice to know excatly how far from £9 million he is. Seems baring another 147 and if he is knocked out in 1/4 final, and won at least £100,000 during rest of season that at the end of sheffield he is at in and around £8,677.485 ? --78.16.6.45 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed Format of Wins and Runner Up's

I have changed the format for wins and Runner Up's to be more like the way it is done on tennis articles, see Roger Federer for a reference. I find this format much easier to read, as well as giving more information. I have finished all the wins that I could find for Hendry although there are several missing, as well as adding in who his opponent was and the final score where possible.

I have not yet done his Runner-up table, and if no-one else does this I will do so at some point in the next week or so.

I also added in a performance time-line for the three "major" tournaments (masters, world and UK), but should a line be added for the Grand Prix, since this is also a BBC televised tournament?

--ninman 11:07 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.249 (talk)

Deciding frame

Resolved

I assume the 'deciding frame' mentioned for the 147 was the last possible frame of the match? If not, the statement is incorrect, as Mark Williams clinched his 10-1 win over [{Rob Milkins]] with a 147. --MartinUK 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You assume correctly.--Kalsermar 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hendry not Bendry

Resolved

 – Typos have been fixed.

This article makes several references to "Stephen Bendry".

This is incorrect.

The player's name is "Stephen Hendry"

87.228.229.103 06:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC) This must have been corrected, as i find no referance to any "Bendry" --CrazyChip 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the format of the years?

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker.

Should we change all the snooker related years to represent seasons and not years?
Exs: a victory in 1992 could be a victory in the 1992/1993 season or the 1991/1992 season. --CrazyChip 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the article

Resolved

 – Article has been cleaned up and referenced

I am considering re-writing pieces of this article, as the article isn't well written. In particular, the "playing style" section and other bits seem to have needless,vague and possibly untrue statements. eg."In the final, however, a nightmare run of missed pots in the evening session shattered Hendry's confidence, and he went on to lose 6-10 to Peter Ebdon." Surely, Hendry lost 6-10 to Peter Ebdon would suffice here. Can a more experienced Wikipedian give me the go-ahead, as I am a relative newbie... Andy4226uk 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Just please understand WP:V and WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The references used here should be cited with the {{cite web}} template. It is VERY important that material cited from webpages includes the date of retrieval. -- CrazyChip 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I go about doing that with regard to the references I have recently added? Andy4226uk 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where you have <ref>...Details here...</ref> use <ref name="SomethingUnique">{{Cite web|url=...|title=...|and so on}}</ref>

It takes a little time to memorize the parameters of {{Cite web}}; please do read its documentation, particular on date formatting and other particulars. A good way to get up to speed is to go to the template and click on "What links here" in the left menu, and simply observe how it is already being used in other articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Triple Crown

A section has recently been added about Hendry winning the Triple Crown. I have never heard of the Triple Crown in snooker, could somebody please put a definition within the text, or create a wikilink to a relevant page? Andy4226uk 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

Words such as "poor" and "disappointing" have led to my addition of the tag. I'll likely edit the article to remove these at some point. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree + with Dudesleeper's NPOV tag. I've already toned down this article several times but will try and have another go this week bigpad 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Article now much edited and NPOV removed bigpad (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I have to observe that if people would quit ripping off WorldSnooker bios and instead use them and other material as sources to write new articles the way we are supposed to be doing, that the rampant WP:NPOV problems with snooker bio articles could be avoided, because most of the POV language is entering these articles by such blatant copy-paste plagiarism. It sometimes amazes me how many snooker bio articles have simply gone under the radar and not been WP:AFD'd on WP:COPYVIO grounds. Last I looked most of them have been rewritten enough to survive such an assault at this point, but really the vast majority of new ones over the last two years have appeared to be of such a form. We really have to do better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pic

Didn't we have a better pic of him before? The new one is pretty amateurish (no offense intended! I just mean that it is a bit washed-out, and not particularly illustrative, since we're only seeing him from the side and rather occluded). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I think that the "hey, I just won this trophy!" kind of picture, shot from the front, is better as the infobox pic on an article like this, with an "action shot" also helpful, but further down in the article. Not just for snooker, but as a general principle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And the current photo, which is clearly a television screenshot, can't be permissible. Is the uploader claiming it as their own work, meaning they sidled up right beside him as he was taking a shot? - Dudesleeper talk 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a screenshot, although it could well be. The person who claims the copyright is seemingly employed as a photographer. It's feasible that the copyright owner took this photo because there is always a brief photo shoot before the match commences where the player is photographed in cueing position. If the copyright is under question, I would at least contact the person who owns the website to make sure they are the person who uploaded it and make sure it hasn't just been scavenged from their website. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The record

Just "for the record" I would really like to see our new anon contributor suggest some compromise language on the world record material. It's been expressed in edit summaries that the "O'Sullivanful" language isn't appropriate for this particular article, since this is Hendry's article, not O'Sullivan's. I have to concur with that. Is there a middle-ground approach we can use? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, and I don't see the harm in pointing out that Stephen Hendry used the same cue when he was obtaining a lot of the records that he currently holds. He's only had a different cue for the last 4 seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.154.173 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it needn't get into a lot of detail about O'Sullivan. There is or was another passage in this article that also went into a lot of detail about some other player, and I think I flagged that for cleanup as well. It's not that various details and stories aren't important, it's that they need to be where they belong. Things about O'Sullivan that don't really directly relate to Hendry belong in O'Sullivan's article. I think that's the point that Bigpad is making (and I'm supporting), while I also think some of your cleanup of the passage in question was also useful. I.e., it's a compromise. I also don't think this is excessive nitpicking. WP articles on major sports figures get longer and longer and longer, and can eventually get to the point where they become nearly unreadable for the average reader. This is mostly because such people have many, many articles written about them in sports publications, more all the time, each of which reveals some "interesting" little details, and fans of the personage want to include all of these details here. It's a perspective matter: In an encyclopedia, a bio article needs to be lean and written for the general reader, not for fans. I'm sure an entire 300-page biographical book could be written about Hendry, but this article cannot be that book. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw I would just like to add that Stephen Hendry was the record holder of most maximum breaks and most televised maximum breaks until this season when O'Sullivan tied the record for most maximum breaks and broke the record for most televised maximum breaks. The way it's stated doesn't make it clear that the record WAS Hendry's alone but is not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.154.173 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough and I have updated the article accordingly bigpad (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Memory is telling me he's also the holder of the record for the number of centuries in a season, as well as being something like second, third, fourth and fifth (!) for his achievements doing this in different years... but I can't find a source for it. Can anyone else? Lovingboth (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Playing style

That part of the article has been tagged as containing too much jargon. I'm not sure I agree. Other than the redundant "methodically working through the majority of break-building opportunities", which could be removed, that section reflects accurately how the subject plays snooker and highlights the reasons for his success. One has to assume some knowledge of snooker or billiard sports when reading an article about a top professional player. It's by no means top heavy with jargon. Comments? bigpad (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On general Wikipedian principles I have to disagree to an extent. I'm not suggesting that we can't use proper snooker terms (!), only that they need to be used in non-obtuse ways, that {{Cuegloss}} be used at the first occurrence of terms, and that we not write in the style of snooker magazines which presume that the reader understands snooker terminology thoroughly already and will be familiar with jargonistic phrasing (i.e. it's not the terms, really, that are the problem, but colloquial usage of them in what I call "cute sports journalism phrasing"). You'd left me a note that the section was improved, so I'll take your word for it, and I wasn't meaning to pick on this article in particular.

I think my overall point is perhaps better brought up at WT:SNOOKER about snooker bio article style in general, and really, it can be thought of as an even broader issue - many others sport[s] articles suffer the same sort of problem, e.g. basketball and baseball and football (of any kind) bios often read like they came out of Sports Illustrated magazine instead of an encyclopedia, which may be read by people in Liberia (yes, they speak English there) who have never seen a game of baseball in their lives but have heard of Babe Ruth in passing and want to know who he was and why he is iconic, if you see what I mean. I draw this seemingly extreme comparison on purpose, because while people in the UK, probably nearly everyone in the UK, know who someone snooker-iconic as Steve Davis is and what he's about, practically no one in North America does, nor do they even know that snooker exists. Just last week I was hanging out with some people at a sports bar, and on one of the 7 or so TV screens there, a movie was playing, and it briefly showed a snooker table; someone said "hey, what kind of weird pool game is that?" I'm not kidding.

Anyway: So if the jargon cleanup tag is removed, I won't object. Nitpicking one particular section in one particular article isn't really the proper venue for resolving the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

79 titles

Will people please keep an eye on this. Hendry has won 65 PROFESSIONAL titles in his career, not 79. He has won more than that in his professional career but the others were pro-ams at the start. The record for professional titles stands at 73 with Steve Davis. He has won the Scottish professional championship three times as well, but despite the terminology some good amateur players were allowed to enter technically making it a pro-am (as with Davis' two English Championships and why his tally stands at 73 and not 75). If by chance I missed a pro title off his record, by all means update the total but please add the title to his tournaments sction. It is important that pro titles and pro-ams are not confused. Sometimes you will see sloppy journalism and fansites report that he has won more titles than Davis - this is true because Davis did not have distinguished amateur or pro-am career, but this is an article about a professional career so the total should record only professional titles. WalterMitty (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see article for what I hope is a final edit to end this 'controversy'. And, FWIF, Davis did win an English junior or age-level billiards title (and reached the equivalent snooker final), so it's not really fair to say that he was undistinguished as an amateur ! bigpad (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hendry's 'pack splitting from the blue' shot

I've never heard that he pioneered that shot. I was watching the game before Hendry came along and have seen Alex Higgins play that shot - or at least one like that, so unless Hendry does something unique with it I don't think he should be given credit for it, and it should at least be mentioned that a similar type of shot was already in existence. I'll leave it for the time being to give time to find a citation, but since it's a disputed fact it can't stay in indefinitely without a reference. WalterMitty (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough but Alex was so unorthodox that he tried everything at least once! Hendry is widely recognised as having pioneered that shot (or made it an established modern break-building shot), as per commentators' opinions and other info. You're correct that it needs sourcing and I'll do so but it's not that easy to find. Give us some time! If I can't nail it down, it'll be ok to reword that piece as per your points bigpad (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I don't know if we want a change of wording, but its not that the shot wasn't used before Hendry, you can look at plenty of footage from the 80s where it was. But Hendry perfected it and made it a much more standard shot. Possibly pioneered not the right word? He turned it from being a possible shot when you had to go up for the blue to a integral part of break building. Jleadermaynard (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Greatest player

The person who keeps amending the opening paragraph saying he is regarded as the greatest player of all time is getting very tiresome. While many people are of the opinion, there are plenty out there who would say the same about Ronnie, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Joe Davis and even Jimmy White. In the biography section can we just stick to the facts please, and that's relaying his achievements and records. There is a section on Ronnie's page called 'Status within the game' that quotes various players hailing him as a genius or the best player ever, so if you want to comment on how Hendry is perceived in the game I suggest you establish another section and make sure you give citations for the various comments, otherwise we will have half a dozen player profiles where the player is hailed as the 'greatest ever' in the introduction. WalterMitty (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- I wouldn't do it without checking (it reads that at the moment, btw) but I don't see the problem. In the past I have seen this article read 'Hendry is one of the most successful players of all time' which is plain wrong, he is by any measure, the most SUCCESSFUL, that can easily be put down as fact. And saying, at the moment, that he is 'widely regarded' as the greatest player of all time is surely absolutely fine - its not saying that he IS, but it accurately reflects the opinions of the majority of snooker spectators, players and pundits. This label has been used about players across a host of other sports, I see no problem with it being applied to Hendry for snooker. The statement as it stands at the moment leaves room for people to disagree if they want, but is an accurate factual representation of the way Hendry is generally perceived in the game. In no other sports do greatest players need a special section entitled 'status' in the game, and in the intro to O'Sullivan it likewise states that he is regarded as the most naturally talented in the game. So the entry as it reads now, saying 'widely regarded as the greatest' is absolutely fine. Jleadermaynard (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How is he the most successful exactly? Steve Davis has won the most professional tournaments in total, Joe Davis the most world championships so he is only the most successful in some aspects like ranking tournaments. The problem with saying he is widely regarded as the greatest player of all time is a subjective opinion because the same label has been applied to other players. Ask Ted Lowe and he will swear by Joe Davis. Steve Davis was only recently introduced on a TV programme as "the greatest snooker player of all time" and more and more people are standing by O'Sullivan these days. I'm sorry but subjective opinions do not belong in the main introduction of an article. You wouldn't find that sort of thing in an encycloapedia. If you want to document his standing in the game you should do the job probably and do a proper section on it with citations rather than just shoving in lazy statements.

If you check out one of the BBC debates here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/sports_talk/1019724.stm you will see that Hendry leads the way with 8 votes, followed by Joe Davis with 5, Alex Higgins on 4, Steve Davis on 3. Now to be fair Hendry's achievements are the most recent while the others and certainly Joe Davis have faded from memory somewhat, but it's far from conclusive. In fact the people that regard Hendry as the greatest are in the MINORITY. Is he widely regarded as the greatest - yes - but then so are the others. Now that is only a small poll but those are splits are generally displayed elsewhere. The BBC polled the players and commentators in 2000, and the names that came up were: Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Spencer, Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, Hendry and Jimmy White; so he isn't even considered the greatest by all of his peers either. You are trying to pass off an opinion - an opinion that is in the minority - as an opinion held by such a majority that it is a fact! WalterMitty (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WalterMitty, that's a spurious argument throughout. The poll you quote is not a poll at all but a selection of opinions submitted to the BBC, which by company policy are chosen to show a diverse range of views from those that are submitted - the fact that there is a mixture of choices is representative of this choice to present diversity, not an representation of opinion. Equally, as the comments make clear, many people are holding their opinion on the basis of who did the most for the development of the game - which is in reality a seperate issue (we could change the wording to 'best player' if that'd be preferred). When the BBC asked the players and commentators in 2000 the parameters were the same. In terms of objective facts Hendry is unquestionably the most successful player of all time - Joe Davis world championships were not even knockout tournaments for the most part, the defending champion merely had to play a single challenge match to hold his title. Even in Hendry's five consecutive world championships, he won more matches that Davis played in his 14. The world title was a completely different event at the time, which is why Hendry is universally recognised as holding the world record 7 world titles. Equally, if you want to do any kind of objective comparison on ablity, it's simply a non-debate. Joe Davis went a good deal of his career before he even made a century break, Hendry has made over 700. Hendry, as the entry already makes clear, has won more ranking titles, world titles, masters titles, Triple Crown titles, made more centuries, won more prize money and been World No.1 for longer than any other player. There should is no dispute that he is the most successful player of all time. 'Success' is a nebulous property but not a subjective one, in Hendry's case the categories are too clear to not place it in the article. I am restoring the wording back to its original, and providing four citations justifying the claim that he is 'widely considered' to be the greatest player - including the entry on Hendry's profile by the BBC, hardly a source which casually fills its entries with contentious subjective opinions. This is a factual statement, and I have provided citations as requested, far more indeed that on many of the sports entries on wikipedia which use similar phrases. If people wish to remove it, would they please provide justification not as to why other players may also be considered to be one of the most successful/greatest players (by all means say that under their profiles if you wish) but why an accurate representation of sourced opinion should not be included in the entry. But I trust that will not be necessary, and we can now treat this issue as settled.Jleadermaynard (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All of Joe Davis' world championships were knockout tournaments of which he always participated from at leats the quarter or semi finals. You clearly don't know that much of the history of the sport. And it's not for people like you or me to put a measure on his success. The records stand by themselves, and are adequate to show a players standing within the sport. The Guinness book of records acknowledges Joe Davis as having won the most world championships no matter how dismmissive you may be of pre-war snooker, and it is easily verifiable that Steve Davis has won the most pro titles, so Hendry doesn't come out on top in either of the important stats. The BBC selects comments that are REPRESENTATIVE of opinion, so if roughly half consider Hendry the greatest then half the comments would be in favour of Hendry. In the year 2000 poll, the players and commentators were asked "Who is the greatest?", and it is subjective how you interepret greatness, and the reality is there were plenty of people that picked other players. If you go by impact then Alex Higgins is the greatest; if you go off talent then it's Ronnie O'Sullivan, if you go off world titles it is Joe Davis; if you go off pro titles it is Steve Davis; if you go off rankings it is Hendry... Personally I think you need to grow up and accept that wikipedia is an online enccyclopaedia whose purpose is to document facts about Stephen Hendry, it's not a fan page. WalterMitty (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WalterMitty, comments like 'you should grow up' suggest that it is you who are not treating this site like an attempt to best construct these pages. The fact that you disagree does not make my comments immature, that comment from you however is unquestionably so. But I have no desire to start a diatribe on wikipedia, and so will let the comment pass. On the facts however, it is you who are mistaken. As said in my previous comments I am not claiming that none of Joe Davis world titles were knockout, and I am using that term to mean an actual knockout tournament along the lines that the championships later became, not just any tournament, even if its only semis and finals. I suppose that's innacurate semantics, my point is that to compare the pre-war tournaments to the crucible era is fanciful - the professional game barely existed, the tournaments at no point consisted of as many rounds as any of Hendry's world titles, as my comment about the number of matches won in World Championship's illustrates, a point you didn't address. Steve Davis' highest number of professional titles, which you keep quoting, is also a bizarre category to attempt to assess a player by, it is obviously a great record for Davis to have, but many of those tournaments in turn involved no more than eight players - which is why Hendry's ranking tournaments record is quoted far more often, because as ranking tournaments are all of comparable size and quality they make a better assesment method. Also, if you did want to make professional titles an equal criteria, you should surely also factor in the fact that Hendry's career is 8 years shorter than Davis? You are also incorrect in regards to the BBC, comments are displayed representatively not in the statistical but coverage senses of the term, half the comments doesn't equal half the opinions submitted. You are also incorrect in your continuous application of the term 'subjective', greatest qua success isn't subjective, its nebulous. You can't just claim any player on the planet is the 'greatest' in this sense, as its tied to objective facts - i.e. their achievments. But in any case all of this is somewhat missing the point. The point is not that Joe Davis is greater in one category, Steve Davis in another and so forth. The point is that while Joe, Steve, O'Sullivan etc. may all have a category of records they can claim, Hendry has about seven. Declaring the fact that, as such, he is widely considered the greatest player is entirely appropriate - it does not imply that Wikipedia is a 'fan site' as you put it, unless you think that the BBC should also be classified as such, clearly an absurd suggestion. Also, when a user like myself has gone to some effort to provide citations, please do not just arbirarily delete them while there is an ongoing controversy, its disrespectful to other users and irritating to reverse. If you completely disagree then move them to elsewhere in the article, rather than just removing them. And please keep ill-informed and unwarranted comments about the knowledge of other users of wikipedia or their supposed maturity to yourself. I am restoring my previous edit, but substituting the word 'successful' for 'greatest' on account of being the more indisputable of the two positions. Jleadermaynard (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of quotes around proclaiming Ronnie O'Sullivan to be the greatest, maybe I'll just let it ride the next time his over zealous fans incorporate them into the opening paragraph. The reality is it's a subjective term and not a statement that sustains an over-whleming majority so all edits will be reverted and if it continues past today I will apply for page protection. I am reluctant to lock up the page but I will do it it it's the only way to protect the integrity of teh article. WalterMitty (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WalterMitty you're now not even being clear about the burdens you want to be fulfilled. What does 'overwhelming majority' mean in this context, and what evidence are you putting forward to sustain whatever undeclared burden you are attempting to meet? Even if you thought greatest was a subjective term (it isn't, technically, in the sense we are discussing) 'successful' is not, so stop claiming it is. If you apply for page protection I will dispute it, and from precedent you should probably lose the claim - because at the end of the day, and what should be the deciding point in this whole controversy, your position is based on statement you continue to falsely put forward that the edit I have put forward runs contrary to the character of wikipedia entries. If you examine the existing entries for Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Jahangir Khan...amongst others, all make comments in the introductory paragraph of the type I have put forwards. There is no reason why Hendry's entry should differ, the claim is backed by extensive citations for reputable sources not just 'plenty of quotes around'. The claim it is making is fatctual, accurate and objective. Please come up with some new and clarified objection if you wish to continue this dispute. Jleadermaynard (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WalterMitty, you have once again reversed the changes, and this time provided no answers to the points I have raised in my last post. To repeat succintly, 'widely considered as the most successful player' is neither subjective, nor unsourced, nor innacurate, nor deviates from precedent set by a range of other sports articles on Wikipedia. It does not deny the views of those who differ, but accurately reflects the range of records Hendry holds. The citations supporting it are not random, but established authorities. Please offer explanation if you reverse the edit again. Jleadermaynard (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got the gist of the debate here. If I understand correctly, Jleadermaynard wants the lead to say: "Stephen Hendry is the greatest..." WalterMitty, suggests that this is not a claim that Wikipedia should make since there will be those who dispute it.

How does the above stand up as a short summary? Sunray (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite...I don't think it should say 'the greatest', I'm happy to accept that that can be interpreted as subjective opinion. But the fact that Hendry is the most successful player in the sport is empirical and objective. I'm even happy to say just 'widely considered to be the most successful player', though you'd have a tough time finding any pundit of the game who'd say he wasn't. The point is that Hendry is not merely 'one of the most successful', he's widely recognised by fellow players and pundits alike to be the most successful player there's ever been. That kind of statement has been applied to the likes of Sampras, Woods etc. in other sports, and Hendry has a similar standing in Snooker as they do in their sports. As such, for accuracy's sake and following that precedent, the same sort of line should be applied to Hendry.

Jleadermaynard (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is quite a good summary actually. The original statement as it has been for months is "one of the most successful" (although I would be just as happy with "one of the greatest" but as you can see from the history Jleadermaynard has been editing so that it says "Hendry is widely regarded as the greatest". Now he is changing his stance and is willing to accept "Hendry is widely regarded as the most successful". There is no objective criteria for that either. Most successful in one what respect? Joe Davis as acknowledged by the Guinness book of records is the most successful world champion - the fact that players of the modern era face tougher opposition and more rounds is besides the point because there is no objective criteria to ascertain that.

How about the most successful champion? Well Steve Davis holds the record number of pro titles, but Jleadermaynard dismisses this on the basis that some were only 8 man events. He would like us to consider ranking titles as the basis, but this is not a fair criteria since the ranking circuit was only introduced in 1982/83 season - and only 3 events at that - well into Davis' career. When Hendry was at his peak he would often play 8/9 ranking events per season. Joe Davis never won a ranking title because he had retired by then so that criteria actually precludes consideration of most of the great players.

What if we go off prize money then? Well there is a tenuous link between earnings and greatness, but more so between earnings and success. Hendry has earned the most prize money, but adjusted for inflation he and Steve Davis are probably more or less level.

What about centuries? Well break building has come on a lot in this respect in recent years, and Hendry holds the record for the most centuries, but ultimately the objective of the game is to win the frame. Is a great pot more 'successful' than a great safety shot if both win the frame? One displays potting ability the other tactical. At comparitive stages of their careers O'Sullivan has made more centuries than Hendry so what do we put that down to? Faster cloths??

What about break building technique? Well Ronnie O'Sullivan now holds the record for the most number of maximums. What about tactical ability? Most people agree that Steve Davis is the greatest tactical player the game has ever seen.

What about peer review? Hendry has been 'player of the year; most times, not surprising since the award usually goes to the world champion and the fact that the award is a relatively recent thing. However, Steve Davis was the national Sports Personality of the Year (basically the sporting world's 'oscar') which Hendry never achieved. A good portion of people regard Hendry as the greatest ever, but his achievements are more recent than that of Joe Davis. You see the phenomenon with O'Sullivan who more and more people are proclaiming the greatest ever. Regardless of the fact there are many fans who perceive Steve Davis, Joe Davis, Alex Higgins to be the greatest and O'Sullivan's case is fast gaining support. I think if you asked the average person in the street they would pick: Higgins, Steve Davis and Jimmy White since they are the most well known.

As you can see there are many different ways to perceive success, some objective and some not. Hendry comes out on top in one or two, and his case is ARGUABLE in others, just as in the case with sevral other players. Jleadermaynard would like us to discount the criteria that doesn't suit him though, even though many other followers would consider them barometers of success in the game. Any reasonable person would accept "One of the greatest/most successful" best captures his standing in fair comparison to other players. WalterMitty (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jleadermaynard: How does one measure success? That is, how does one determine which player is the most successful? Sunray (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief comment via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts:

The issue here seems to be neutrality: that WP:NPOV requires all significant views to be represented. I don't doubt that some sources, maybe enough to count as "widely", say that Hendry is the greatest - but to report the view of these sources without qualification isn't neutral if other significant sources think otherwise. Given the difficulty of any kind of universally agreed metric, "one of" looks a reasonably neutral assessment.

I'd advise getting more input on this - particularly via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All good comments. Gordonofcartoon suggests that saying "one of" would be a neutral way of phrasing it. That is one way of dealing with the matter. I can think of others. However, before we decide on a solution, I would like to hear more from Jleadermaynard, I've asked him a question and would like to get his answer. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the opaque nature of the phrase that troubles me most. For someone to be considered 'the greatest' then you have to have a single criteria that encompasses all eras and is universally accepted as a definitive criteria. If you base this statement on Hendry having won more ranking titles than any other player why not say:"Hendry is the most successful player that has ever played on the ranking circuit" or "Hendry is the most successful player in the modern world chamionships" both of which are factually accurate statements. If you say he is the most successful in the 'history of the game' can can you quantify his success in relative terms to Joe Davis? There is only one measure: the world championships which Joe Davis holds the record in! WalterMitty (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits made by Gwernal. I've been following the arguments with some interest with good points made by both sides, but Gwernal has removed some of WalterMitty's statements on the basis he is 'banned'. Following up on this I checked that Waltermitty and Jleadermaynard had an edit conflict in which the 3RR rule was violated by both parties. I notice on WalterMitty's profile he has been banned for 6 months (after being instructed to take it discussion, and from the dates he he already had done) and Jleadermaynard wasn't banned at all, so some nice balanced judgment, there. I see Gwernal didn't make any attempt to mediate the conflict so I think he was irresponisble in this respect. I also think it's irresponsible how he's deleted valid points made here to weaken the debate so I've undone the changes so all points are included, and then decisions can be made on the strength of a full debate. 81.131.64.241 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You comment about the need to have both views presented. I agree with that. However, one thing I need to clarify is that while the two were edit warring, as Jleadermaynard points out, below, he did not break the 3RR. That is why only WalterMitty was banned. Nevertheless, you make the point that both views need to be addressed. I will be contacting Gwernal to get his views on this. Sunray (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, various people to respond to, it'll have to be a long answer - apologies. Firstly, in response to the previous post, Gwernol banned WalterMitty and not myself because WalterMitty also violated wikipedia rules by deleting posted citations and had received a previous warning for violating 3RR, whereas I had not, not knowing about it at the time. In doing so he followed standard wikipedia practice as I understand it. Sunray - I'm not sure what question you feel I haven't responded to, if its to the question 'is it a fair summary', as I say, largely yes, but my contention is that it should read 'most successful', not 'greatest'. WalterMitty seems to believe this is 'changing my argument', which is odd - as it is my attempt to compromise. I don't agree with WalterMitty's perspective on 'greatest', but have been happy to compromise to 'most successful', a compromise he evidently rejects. If there's a different question you want me to answer then sorry, I must have just missed it, can you re-post?

As for WalterMitty's arguments, I approach them with some difficulty, since (and I don't mean this offensively, I genuinely find it problematic) he shifts between burdens he wishes to see and objections raised. To Hendry-Steve Davis he says its not fair to use prize money or ranking titles because the status of these change over time, then to Hendry-Joe Davis he wishes to apply the World Championship burden which is vastly more subject to that very criticism - self-evidently a contradictory argument. But regardless, he now claims above that his central problem is 'opacity'. I suppose my response to this is that I don't see how any of the objections raised apply to snooker in a way they don't do to other sports, and we have witnessed no problems (see other wikipedia pages) applying 'most successful' (or even, 'greatest') to other leading sports figures. Take for example the current entry for Jack Nicklaus. Nicklaus did not win the most golf titles, nor the most prize money, nor does he hold the most records or hold the lowest scoring average. But his entry states that he is widely regarded as the greatest player. The same is true on a good half dozen other wikipedia pages, I have mentioned many above, a point WalterMitty has not responded to. Such comments are useful as they enable the casual observer to get a sense of the player's status within the sport. Gordonofcartoon states that it is irresponsible to make such a statement without qualification - I am not proposing otherwise, saying 'widely considered' implies that it is not universal, but is 'widely held'. This is an accurate representation of opinion within snooker, even if it is not WalterMitty's opinion. It contains within it the fact that some people may disagree, like WalterMitty, but remains the most accurate description of opinion within the snooker world, and it is the most accurate description that Wikipedia should be endeavouring to put forward. Do we really think if this opinion was absurdly contentious the BBC or Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker would quote it? Or Steve Davis or Clive Everton? These are not random citations, they are central authorities within the sport, and are good evidence for general opinion - WalterMitty has offered nothing to suggest otherwise. This is a lot more proof than has been required to make similar statements for other sports figures on Wikipedia, so I don't really see what the ongoing problem is.

Finally, if the debate is really (though I don't think this should be the debate) who has achieved most, can I just end the perception WalterMitty is attempting to create that Hendry's level of success is somehow contentious within the sport. NOONE in the modern game seriously compares Hendry's world titles to Joe Davis, I've literally never heard this done before, everyone accepts they are completely different contexts, and Hendry's 7 world titles, whatever Guiness say, is widely, and on television, quoted as the record. That is, it should be clear, the ONLY record of success we could attach to Joe Davis. For Steve Davis we may likewise quote one success record - most professional titles. To Hendry we may quote, as often has been done, the following: most modern world titles, most ranking titles, most centuries, most prize money, most ranking titles in a season, most consecutive match victories, most consecutive tournament victories, most centuries in one match, most centuries in one tournament, most centuries in one season, most consecutive wins in one tournament, most total tournament wins, most consecutive years world No.1, most total years world no.1, most Triple Crown titles, most prize money in one season and most consecutive seasons in the top-16 (plus possibly some more, plus some irrelevant ones success wise such as youngest world champion and youngest world no.1). Hendry's dominance of the snooker world was far greater than the equivalent dominance of a huge number of sports figures to whom the phrasing I am suggesting has been applied, and on wikipedia, so the question is not 'what is wikipedia language'. Consistency and accuracy are surely with applying a similar, and not misleading statement to Hendry. 'Widely considered to be the most successful' does not exclude those who disagree, but it does accurately reflect the opinion of the snooker world. That's my argument. Jleadermaynard (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of compromise (though I seem to be the only one doing it), if WalterMitty's objection is really the Joe Davis comparison, would he accept 'Hendry is widely recognised as the most successful player of the modern game'? Jleadermaynard (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunray - I have now seen your question, 'how does one measure success'. I will not expand vastly on my statement above, I believe the quantity of records Hendry holds (I actually missed out most times Player of the Year by peer review) relative to any other candidate who would have one or possibly two records, is such a considerable gulf to demonstrate the applicability of the statement. But to deal with the theoretical question I have three responses which I will try to keep brief and simple. 1) WalterMitty is being far more inconsistent in his application of problems with the criteria of success that I am in defending it. My suggestion can't be simultaneously wrong because World titles can be applied across time to show that it is in dispute, but ranking titles (or prize money or whatever) cannot be applied across time because that's 'unfair'. This is evidently contradictory - either we take things in context or we measure them across time - whatever answer you give to that Hendry would still rank as the most successful due to the volume of records he holds. 2) While I think the criteria of success could be based upon the number of categories in which Hendry is dominant, I don't think that has to be the 'correct' criteria for my standpoint here to be valid,as the phrasing 'widely considered to be' makes the question more about opinion in the sport rather than whether my own personal argument is valid. I have sourced authorities to back it up, WalterMitty has not. 3) If the criteria of success is the problem, this is a problem for any sport we could think of. But on wikipedia the kind of comment I am suggesting has been applied to a plethora of sporting figures. The real question, which WalterMitty has still not answered, is why should snooker be different? I can think of no reason, as such, the comment should likewise be applied to Hendry if it is a fair reflection, and there are citations to show that it is. Jleadermaynard (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Haved provided a new edit with my compromise suggestion. Views on that too? Jleadermaynard (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that people will never agree on. Even if you were to proffer material in which journalists proclaim Hendry as the the sport's greatest player, it's still someone's opinion – they're just paid to do it. Let's just leave people to make up their own minds as to who is top of the tree, and hopefully we can help them along the way by providing articles that befit them (but without becoming overt fan pages), rather than arguing about trivial matters (that's not to say I haven't argued about trivial matters myself, but it's quite pointless in the end). In short, the terms arguably and widely recognised will only hinder articles in this respect. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise some key points, IMO. As an encyclopedia we need to keep to verifiable facts rather than opinions. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dudesleeper, that has not been the resolution we've used for similar sports figures in the past, Hendry should be no different. Comments like 'widely considered' do help people, precisely because they give an impression of opinion and accord that opinion appropriate, but arguable, status. Such statements do not make things fan pages - see all the other examples on wikipedia I have mentioned. Also, please anyone do not REVERT the edit I have just made, as I have made other uncontroversial additions to the article too. If you must please provide a new edit, not a reversion. Jleadermaynard (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't base one Wikipedia article on another. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but there are article standards. I will pick up on this below. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. This, however, smacked of "Other articles are kissing ass, so why can't we?" - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

hey, have no desire to get involved in this debate in a big way but for what another opinion is worth jleadermaynard is quite right on what i think is general opinion in the snooker world. nobody these days seriously compares joe davis and stephen hendry, their world titles are totally different. what's wrong with the current edit, saying he's the successful one in the modern game seems fine. dudesleeper, we base articles on each other all the time and we should - if all the other sports pages say one sort of thing and snooker doesn't, that's pretty misleading in my book. other sports indicate which of their players is considered most successful, snooker should too, its information that should be conveyed to people, especially if its got references. Just my views. 86.135.88.219 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we do base articles on each other and should. Sourced opinion from the sport is not irrelevant or subjective material and should be included in entries, that's why it has been elsewhere. Jleadermaynard (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles are based on other articles, but no, they shouldn't be. They should be based on the Manual of Style. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the general controversy, if we want further proof, here's a direct quote from the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker, the encyclopaedia of the game if there is one: '[Hendry] set new standards and became widely regarded, even by Davis, as the greatest player of all time' (pg. 60). Rather stronger than my compromise suggestion, not exactly a 'fansite', and why its not a good quote for wikipedia or a good guideline for its style is beyond me. Jleadermaynard (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And what did the book cite as evidence to back-up the claim? - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Jleadermaynard has not produced a criteria by which all players can be fairly compared. Still he is resorting to quotes which may be informed opinion but are still opinion. These quotes he provides relate to opinions on who is considered the 'greatest' not the most succssful. If Hendry was universally considered the greatest why would they have polled the players and commentators and why were there varying answers? You cannot use one criteria to evaluate success, you use them all and present the players success within that criteria - some players have achieved different levels of success across a broad range of criteria. Here is a link highlighting the issue: [[1]]. This article highlights the argument: "If popularity could be converted into silverware, Jimmy White would have outstripped Joe Davis, Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry as the greatest player ever to pick up a cue." The reality is that success is measured across various criteria and since they provide objective measures they don't need to be reinterpreted and 'greatness' is a subjective term. If someone has won the most ranking titles then it speaks for itself, it is misleading to interpret that as 'the most successful' whereas the "most successful player on the modern ranking circuit" would be statement of fact. "The most successful ever" or "the greatest in the history of the support" are not supported by facts, just opinions. WalterMitty (talk) (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WalterMitty: If you keep evading the block you will not likely gain support from the general WP community. Would you be willing to e-mail me to discuss this? Sunray (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my question, Jleadermaynard. I think that the crux of your response is in your points #2 & 3:

2) While I think the criteria of success could be based upon the number of categories in which Hendry is dominant, I don't think that has to be the 'correct' criteria for my standpoint here to be valid,as the phrasing 'widely considered to be' makes the question more about opinion in the sport rather than whether my own personal argument is valid. I have sourced authorities to back it up... 3) If the criteria of success is the problem, this is a problem for any sport we could think of. But on wikipedia the kind of comment I am suggesting has been applied to a plethora of sporting figures...

I have two comments on your reply:

1. You refer to the 'correct criteria'. This seems to me to be a significant point. We as an encyclopedia cannot establish the critera—that would be original research. Thus, the way forward would perhaps be to find a reliable and verifiable source and use that: "The [impeccable source] has called Hendry "the greatest... since the first human turned a spear into a pool cue" (or words to that effect).
2. If we want to compare this article to other sporting articles, lets set our standards high: good or featured sporting articles would be good benchmarks. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree on these two points? What do others think? Sunray (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I agree to both counts - though I'm not sure what sporting articles of comparable type do meet that burden, I don't know. But on the former point I agree, and as I've said that's why I don't think the real matter here is whether I can prove that Hendry IS the most successful, its whether that's an accurate representation of opinion. The BBC, Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker, Steve Davis and Clive Everton are literally the most authoritative sources I could think of, I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, so do they not meet precisely this burden? I really am doing my best to compromise - I don't see what is wrong with 'widely considered to be the most successful player of the modern game'. These sources demonstrate it is widely considered, and we can make it about success not greatest and modern not all time to accomodate the issues raised over Joe Davis. Surely this is a fair and accurate resolution?

Would you please give the links to the sources you mention? As to the way a featured article handles this, check this one [2]. Sunray (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very briefly to respond to WalterMitty - your points ignore the responses I've already given to these arguments. I have provided a criteria of success above (a dozen records held by Hendry is not equivalent to one record held by Davis or another individual player), I just don't think its the central point. And what constitutes success is only opinionated in the way that the vast majority of the meanings underpinning facts on wikipedia can be disputed and so rest upon some kind of belief - that doesn't make them opinionated (as in 'non-cognitive') in the way required to exclude them from encyclopaedic style. Again, I don't see why the compromise outlined above is unreasonable. Jleadermaynard (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Widely considered is a bit much when half of the four references provided are from the BBC. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we quote from a highly reliable source (see my comment to JL, above). Sunray (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, a 6 month ban is not justified in any respects. If you check the edits I made after I received the warning about removing sources you will see I amended the article to alter the wording but left the sources in. Gwernal actually banned me on a false pretext. A 6 month ban is completely unreasonable so it won't be honoured. If the wiki community want to make a decision 'against' me rather on what is in the best interest of the article so be it.

The records that count are: world championships (Joe Davis); pro titles (Steve Davis); ranking titles (Hendry); these are the three criteria that separate winners from losers. Only titles can provide criteria for a player's success, after all winning is the goal! Prize money can be considered like in Pool but would have to be adjusted for inflation. These are statements of fact: "Joe Davis is the most successful player in the history of the snooker world championships"; "Steve Davis is the most successful player in pro snooker tournaments"; "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player on the snooker ranking circuit"; These are not opinions but statements of fact. You cannot dispute these because there are hard stats backing them up. To follow jleadermaynard's reasoning we have to discriminate between criteria. Seriously, when one player has won the MOST PROFESSIONAL TOURNAMENTS or the MOST WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS how can you seriously select another player to be the definitive "greatest"?

It's as clear as day that jleadermaynard is trying to introduce fan bias into the article. It's not like Dudesleeper or myself are arguing that Hendry should be precluded from consideration as the greatest, we are just trying to avert a wording that precludes other players that have a legimate claim to the article. WalterMitty (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please e-mail me. Sunray (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the bans so I will say nothing of that. But I really don't know how many times I have to provide answers to these points for WalterMitty to stop just repeating them. So i'll just reflag them briefly. a) If its fan bias why is it acceptable to the non-fan sources I have quoted and other wikipedia entries - check the Michael Jordan page that Sunray has flagged, which makes a similar statement in its lead and yet is a featured article. b) Your objections are internally contradictory. The line I am suggesting cannot be wrong simultaneously because there is no criteria for success and because this is the wrong criteria for success nor because other records can't be used to compare records across time but world championships and professional tournaments can be used to compare records across time. I think my criteria is a valid one, but that is not really the point as it is about what is reflective of the snooker world, not whether my view or your view is correct. If you think success cannot be defined adequately then you should oppose it even being in the article at all.

To others, Dudesleeper - only one of the sources is a BBC source, the other is a story on the BBC about the publication of a book, the story is the evidence, not the opinion of the BBC. I don't know quite what burden beyond four seperate sourced authorities is required. Sunray - I agree, I've also gone back and checked the Sampras page and that is a quote too, so that does sound like a good solution. Only problem is that I don't have a quote saying 'successful', only 'greatest'. So how's this for an idea: simply resolve this by moving the line at the bottom of the article as it stands to the lead, where it notes Hendry being named the greatest player in Masters of the Baize? It's already in the article anyway, this is just a movement, and it circumvents whatever objections WalterMitty now has on the question of 'success'.

Ok wait, no, just found something that hopefully could really settle this. Following the format of the Michael Jordan article how about simply this: "Hendry's profile on the World Snooker websites labels Hendry 'generally considered the greatest snooker player ever'". This, to be honest, is stronger wording than anything I've suggested, but this is the governing body of the sport, what more evidence can I possibly give that this is general opinion within the world of snooker? If it's good enough for the game's official website and organisation, surely its good enough for wikipedia? And its now a quote, which I agree is better, as you suggest. Jleadermaynard (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The format in the Michael Jordan article was: [An impeccable source says] "... [He] is the greatest [sport] player of all time." In Jordan's case, the source was the National Basketball Association. You need a source like that. Sunray (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunray...yes, that's what I'm proposing. World Snooker is snooker's equivalent of the National Basketball Association, as I say its the sport's governing body. Its the identical situation and authority in regards to Hendry. There's literally no source that could be more impeccable. So would we be happy with that? I'd like to provide an edit to solve this issue once and for all if possible. Jleadermaynard (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the new edit would simply replace the last sentance of the lead with: "His official World Snooker profile labels him 'generally considered the greatest snooker player ever'" with correct citation. The quote can be found here: http://www.worldsnooker.com/players_head_to_head-8583.htm. This is an EXACTLY comparable situation with the Jordan article, so can we take it as acceptable? Jleadermaynard (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others have to say. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that quote being included as long as it's presented in that context i.e. a quote by an organisation, but with a couple of caveats: it follows the Ronnie O'Sullivan format where only his achievements are presented in the introductory paragraph, and his standing in the game is included in the second paragraph. Also if we are using worldsnooker profiles as the criteria O'Sullivan's should be updated to say he is "snooker's most naturally gifted player". Likewise Joe Davis' profile should be updated to say "No one since has dominated the game like Joe and his like may never be seen again." WalterMitty (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok well this is promising. I do think these statements should be included in the opening paragraph - as I've said they are for most other sports figures, so that's one reason. The other is that part of my background in this is journalistic writing I've done on dominant sports figures in the past, and for those that aren't familiar with sports but want to find out which player might be the 'Tiger Woods' of a sport, or at least be in contention for that title, they will often skim the introductory paragraphs looking for precisely these sorts of statements. As I gather, that's why they've been included in the intros of players from other sports, and it was certainly useful to me in the past when I've been doing research into sports I know little about. I actually think having a statement from a player's official bio in the intro is quite a good accompaniment to the other central facts presented at that stage. I am, however, perfectly happy to see similar statements put in the entries for O'Sullivan and Joe Davis - indeed I'd encourage that for precisely the same reasons (also evidence, I hope, that my motivations are not to introduce bias into these articles but to include more information that I think brings them up to the level of those for figures in other sports on wikipedia). Jleadermaynard (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should proceed with the change, Jleadermaynard. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Phew...glad to have reached agreement. Many thanks Sunray for your help, and hope WalterMitty has no hard feelings on intense discussion. I do appreciate the number of people trying to just hero-worship via wikipedia, and no surprising presumption to worry I might be one of them, but was never my intention. Will contact the Gwernal to get him to unlock the page and then will put up the edit. Am happy for anyone to put up similar quotes on other Snooker player pages. Jleadermaynard (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of ranking wins compared to Davis

Should ti not be acknowledged that some of Davis' wins, especially in the UK championship were not ranking victories merely because of the ranking systme not including them, and yet they all were for Hendry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hendry's not from Perth & Kinross

Resolved

 – Information was corrected.

Why is Stephen Hendry added to this Category? He's not from Perth & Kinross, he's from Lothian. I know he lives just outside Auchterarder now but that doesn't change where he is from. Thoughts? Grievous Angel (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He was born in South Queensferry and moved to Edinburgh at a young age

Nicknames

I have never heard of any of the nicknames attributed to Hendry and it would seem that other suggestions have been removed without explanation. I would think for consistency that unless a name can backed by a citation than they are not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedlumper (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, because several people here use the ice man nickname. I'm not one to post messageboard references, but in this case it's necessary to demonstrate the nickname's usage. I don't have time to look up the other two, but a Google search should prove adequate. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hendrys nickname in snooker was indeed the Iceman during the 90's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishpokertour (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

# 1.4 Recent years (1999–present)

"In the next 3 professional tournaments (UK Championship, Masters and the Welsh Open), Hendry lost in the first round to Stephen Lee, Neil Robertson and Martin Gould respectivley. He found some form in China Open, beating Robert Milkins and Ricky Walden, only to lose in quater-final with Peter Ebdon, the future winner of the tournament."

Can someone run a spellcheck over respectivley and quater (sic), and perhaps rephrase the last couple of clauses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.246.161 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

MBE Honour

I can't find Hendry's MBE in the London Gazette. Is there an editor more familiar with the subject who can provide the citation? Have searched for "Stephen" & "Hendry" and "Order of the British Empire from December 1990 to November 2012 at the London Gazette without a result.

---

Karl Stephens (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The New Year Honours List 1995 at the London Gazette record those appointed to To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order however Hendry does not appear as expected in the alphabetical list on page 19.

---

Karl Stephens (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Political Views

No mention of the fact that he threatened to leave Scotland if the Scots voted in favour of Devolution, or that he apparently still lives here? It was widely publicised at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.67.44 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Recently left his wife

Does this really belong in the lead? I say it doesn't, it's recentism and hardly a very important fact about him. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition of "one of greatest" to the lead

An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding that Hendry is "considered to be one of the greatest snooker players of all time" to the lead. While this is undoubtedly true, epithets should be attributed specifically to people who regard him in this manner per WP:FLOWERY and preferably not to snooker forums and blog comments on a BBC article per WP:BLOGS. I am not opposed to such claims being included in the article, but ultimately they are just opinions and need to be attributed to people qualified to make such assessments. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Per my previous comment, I did not realize that the editor had replaced the sources with his most recent revert. The latest set of sources are compliant with WP:RS so I have no problem with the information in that regard, but the content still isn't framed correctly. Therefore I have added the relevant attributions (opinions are not facts, no matter universally they are held) and moved the comments to the status section so I hope this resolves the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Based on what Betty Logan wrote above I added what the world governing body of the sport (who are most definitely qualified to make such assessments...) says about Hendry being "generally considered to be the best snooker player ever", with reference and all, only to be reverted by them again, twice. The lead should per WP:LEAD be a brief summary of what the article says, and include enough information, including defining characteristics, to be able to stand alone as a compact version of the article, and being the best snooker player ever is the defining characteristic of Stephen Hendry. Number of world titles and ranking titles says very little to most readers, but being described as "the best ever in the sport" by the world professional player's association of the sport does. Thomas.W ^talk 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead makes it clear he was the youngest world champion, that he has won more modern day world championships and won more ranking titles than any other player so I think the factual record does a very good job of conveying his standing in the game i.e. there is no-one who had more success on the modern circuit. Adding that he is the "greatest" just introduces subjective bias into the lead. The thing about sport is it provides its own set of metrics for evaluating its practitioners. WP:LEAD also states that the lead should observe Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL policy and that there should be relative emphasis. There are other contradictory opinions on who the greatest is; yes, undoubtedly many regard Hendry as the greatest, but commentator Ted Lowe regarded Joe Davis as the greatest and we are increasingly seeng Ronnie O'Sullivan recognized as the "greatest" too. I have no strong opinions on whether he is the "greatest" or not; he is clearly in the top three or four regardless of where anybody stands on the issue. If we had a bunch of opinions in the status section assessing Hendry's standing and they all placed him in the top five for example, then "relative emphasis" would be to say that the consensus of expert opnion within the sport places him in the top five greatest players, but I still question whether this would add further understanding of a man who won more world championships and more ranking titles than any other modern player which effectively says the same thing anyway but in a completely factual way. I guess the point I am ultimately making here is that there are some that would argue that is not the greatest, but on a factual basis you cannot argue against the claim he is the most successful player on snooker's ranking circuit so the factual record does a better job at establishing his credentials. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, which since my opinion is as valid as yours means we have a deadlock here, so let's wait and see, maybe other editors show up here too. Thomas.W ^talk 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And as luck would have it, literally two minutes later one does. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to imply anything by that... Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where Thomas is, Betty, but I'm in rather hazy Walton-le-Dale. By the way, you may want to add Lowe's comment at Fred Davis (snooker player), because there is no mention of it. And the only quote on Ted's page about Fred is his description that he was "getting on a bit and is having trouble getting his leg over". 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm editing from my usual location, which since I'm an expat and left the UK many years ago is in another country. I'm originally from Sussex, though. Thomas.W ^talk 18:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The European Union sounds very interesting. Lancashire must try and join someday. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I could be more specific, and say where in the EU, but since I've spent a few years here fighting very aggressive POV-pushers of all kinds, I've chosen not to. Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your absolute prerogative, Thomas. But "very aggressive POV-pushers"? whatever can you mean. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Both left wing and right wing political extremists, nationalist bigots from half a dozen countries, religious fanatics and ethnic fanatics, plus a bunch of people who were just plain weirdos. Most of my time here has been spent on dealing with people who weren't here to build an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W ^talk 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis of Hendry's achievements convinces me that the comment by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is fully justified. In fact, as that is the governing body of men's professional snooker, there is no-one better placed to make this judgement. Yes, Ted Lowe's personal judgement about Joe Davis is well documented, but both gentleman are now gone, Betty. Times move on. If you have an equally robust source for the same description about O'Sullivan please share it here, otherwise that just sounds like your own personal view. It's not a matter of "understanding", it's a matter of a well-sourced accolade by a sportsman's professional body. Of course it belongs in the lead. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering that we don't actually know who wrote those profiles (probably somebody in World Snooker's I.T. department) then I would say it has no more credence than other qualified opinions out there. Unless World Snooker undertook a poll of its membership then the opinion is just one person's opinion, not a reflection of consensus among the membership. Anyway, I will be adding some further expert opinions to the article shortly to make the statement a bit more even balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure, why don't we re-organise the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association to make it all a bit more democratic, while we at it. And wow, really, you're gonna drag up some stuff to slag Hendry off a bit? 86.175.172.143 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"And wow, really, you're gonna drag up some stuff to slag Hendry off a bit?" — Yeah. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? You can have whatever opinion you want about the man, but there's no denying that he's the best snooker player ever. Even O'Sullivan has said that he's not on the same level as Hendry. Thomas.W ^talk 19:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

O'Sullivan is obviously not going to proclaim himself the best is he, but the general consensus now by commentators, players and coaches is that he is an objectively inferior player to O'Sullivan so if you are going to insist on inserting subjective bias into the article then it should at least be accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Betty, you told us early that "The thing about sport is it provides its own set of metrics for evaluating its practitioners", and that people's "subjective opinions" can't be trusted. So how do Hendry's and O'Sullivan's tournament achievements stack up? Let's forget about what "people are saying". You can't have it both ways, can you? 86.175.172.143 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that subjective opinion does not belong in the lead but if we are going to have it then it should observe WP:WEIGHT, and the general consensus is somehwere between divided on the issue and O'Sullivan now being regarded as the greatest. I agree that we should let teh facts speak for themseleves, in which case the subjective claim should be removed from the lead. But if you want a stastical overview: Joe Davis won the most world championships, Steve Davis won the most professional tournaments, Hendry was world number 1 the longest and won the most ranking tournaments, while O'Sullivan has made more centuries and maximums. There is a statistical debate about who is the greatest player, and it comes down to four names. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

WTF!! What the hell is all that about Ronnie O'Sullivan doing in an article about Stephen Hendry?? You need to start your own article called World's Greatest Snooker Player. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It is verifiably sourced content addressing the question of whether Stephen Hendry is the greatest or not. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're out of your tree, Betty. Good luck, Thomas. 86.175.172.143 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You yourself requested above that "If you have an equally robust source for the same description about O'Sullivan please share it here, otherwise that just sounds like your own personal view." I have produced sources that counter-act the neutrality of your claim so what exactly is the problem now? Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're free to remove warnings and almost anything else from your talk page, but it's still in the page history, which is what counts, even though you seem to know the ropes, judging by your talk page history (and block log), having a habit of edit-warring to force your version of things on others. But I can assure you that the warning I gave you was seriously meant, not "trolling", as you wrote in your edit summary... Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to acquaint yourself with the definition of edit-warring. It is defined as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Will you please explain how I have over-ridden your contribution? Every single word of it is still there; all I did was add further sourced content to counter-act a non-neutral claim which last time I checked was entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion Looking at the Tiger Woods biography the lead labels him "among the most successful golfers of all time". We could use similar wording to that in the lead here which is objectively and factually accurate. All the quotes and comparisons can then be confined to the "status" section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423174044/http://www.worldsnooker.com:80/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131001012039/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0,,13165~2234503,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0,,13165~2234503,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/snooker/Hendry-wins-battle-of-the.5785346.jp

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) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2743663%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806150325/http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-Shanghai-Masters-Draw.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-Shanghai-Masters-Draw.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914031450/http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-World-Open-Final-Venue-Results.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/2010-World-Open-Final-Venue-Results.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227003158/http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-tournaments-china-open-2011-final-stages.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-tournaments-china-open-2011-final-stages.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PlayersAlphabeticalArticle/0%2C%2C13165~2234503%2C00.html

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) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wscreal.com/hendry.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224004542/http://www.scottishsnooker.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=772 to http://www.scottishsnooker.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=772
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220123111/http://uk.yahoo.eurosport.com/snooker/person_prs28971.shtml to http://uk.yahoo.eurosport.com/snooker/person_prs28971.shtml

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) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Hendry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523071632/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136261/index.htm to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136261/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150729232500/http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/BIG-READ-Ronnie-O-Sullivan-Stephen-Hendry-snooker/story-26716694-detail/story.html to http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/BIG-READ-Ronnie-O-Sullivan-Stephen-Hendry-snooker/story-26716694-detail/story.html

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) 02:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

5 consceutive World championship Wins

Hendry won 5 consecutive World Championships from 1992-1996, is that a record in the modern day, I know Joe Davis one more consecutive but he was not the modern day. Can someone verify this as I would like to add it if it is true. Amy foster (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Hendry the greatest?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We should probably talk about this rather than getting into an edit war. Even to say he's "one of the most successful players in the modern era of snooker" is pushing it, but to state that he's actually the greatest is blatant puffery and a matter of opinion. OK, World Snooker made that claim in an article four years ago, but it is still only the opinion of a body of observers who all have their individual opinions. Hendry's success is clear and can be measured in terms of number of wins, career earnings, etc. But is he the greatest? People might look back in a few years and say that about O'Sullivan. But everyone's entitled to their opinion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable to stick that in the lead. I am aware that World Snooker put that in his profile but that was essentially puffery for his career obituary upon his retirement. We have a whole section on his status in the game and the lead should reflect that without taking a position. "Greatness" is a poor word choice anyway for an enyclopedia because it is completely subjective and we are in the business of documenting facts. He is indisputably one of the most successful: has won more world titles in the modern era than any other player (albeit like Joe Davis he won them in a slightly less competitive era). He is second on the triple crown list, second on the century list, second on the maximum list, second on the prize money list (although inflation has devalued his earnings), second on the overall titles list (behind Steve Davis) and joint first on the ranking titles list. By every measurable stat he is in the top two. I am big fan of letting the data speak for itself because we devalue Wikipedia's snooker coverage by indulging opinions over facts. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. It's clearly one source against a lot. We can talk about it in the article, but not just fire it into the lede because a source says so. Pinging Alwaysrightman for comments. I can't revert due to WP:3RR, but I think it is quite serious to have this in the lede of a vital article WP:BLP Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the disruptive behaviour of one editor has created an aversion to common sense and good practice. I am a snooker fan with great respect for both O’Sullivan and Hendry. I do not think it is appropriate to call either “the greatest” in their own right as other editors have attempted as their achievements are not directly comparable. Rather both should receive equal recognition and consistent language used to describe their achievements. I have no association with any other editors and to suggest that my intentions are not honourable is disrespectful. Please can we apply some common sense here to avoid ongoing edit wars between both pages. I have applied consistent language to that used in the O’Sullivan page. If you have objections please ensure you apply the same language between both pages. Thank you, Mark Barness MBarness1234 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: MBarness1234 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: . MBarness1234 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

First, you seem like you know your way around, so I shouldn't have to explain the WP:BRD process to you. After your changes have been reverted, you must discuss them. To reinsert them is edit-warring.

Second, if you don't think either should be called "the greatest", go to Ronnie O'Sullivan and be bold. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Best, —Rutebega (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view, qualitative statements like "the best", "the greatest", and even "the most successful", belong in the main body of an article and need to be fully attributed to the source(s). They do not belong in the lead section of any article unless they have been unanimously agreed, by all commentators. Even statements like "widely agreed as the greatest" need a wide range of sources to justify them. But such statements rarely have encyclopedic value. We are better off just sticking to facts and leaving honorific descriptions to the popular media. I'm surprised there is no WP policy on this. Perhaps there is? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, Martin. A comprehensive summary of Hendry's achievements in the game speak for itself. He is literally in the top 2/3 for everything. Apart from the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies, there is also the WP:EDITORIALIZING guideline. I doubt anyone familiar with the game would argue that Hendry is not one of the greatest, but the sensationalist tone us unencyclopedic IMO. I would argue the same point at Ronnie O'Sullivan too. In sport you have clear statistical records of performance so clear, objective, language is available to us. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that User:MBarness1234 has been blocked by ST47.

Also, for the record, I agree with Martinevans and Betty Logan on this issue, though I'm not sure there's really any dispute here. —Rutebega (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There isn't. Clearly POV pushing. Is the wording perfect? No. ut saying he's the greatest is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Useful newer interview (2018-10)

There's a detailed interview in The Guardian [3] that we're not using yet, which not only summarizes his book but has some unique-to-that-publication material that is pertinent to how/why his pro snooker career came to an end. In it, he also actually dismisses the claim that he just had a case of "the yips", but rather was suffering a more serious set of problems, a general loss of focus and faith in his playing ability, and anger/embarrassment issues when losing to low-ranked younger pros. Even says his final maximum break was pretty much by accident. Lots of interesting stuff in there (albeit for use within WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE limits). I'll leave it to regular editors of this page to decide what to integrate. Oh, and it also goes a little bit into his transition into pool (though I'm not certain whether they mean eight-ball or British style eightball pool / blackball, being an "ambassador" of the game in China. I'm not sure what that entails, in detail, though it's worth looking into further so we can update his article and lead and categorization as it pertains to pool. Hendry's not actually retired, he's just no longer competing in snooker on the pro circuit, while he is doing other cue-sports-related things instead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

my understanding is that he played regular Eight-Ball and Chinese Eight-Ball. I don't think he plays blackball, but I could be wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Eve Muirhead comment

Last month Mrloop removed Eve Muirhead's comments from the "status" section on the grounds that her views were not relevant. An anonymous editor subsequently restored the comment on the grounds that the views of different sportspeople are relevant.

I have no particular view on that, and you can make the case for either position. However, the comment was not particularly well integrated with the existing prose. Both O'Sullian and Bingham had essentially considered the same point earlier in the paragraph, so I simply relocated Muirhead's comment to alongside O'Sullivan's and Bingham's, and tidied up the reference (which was not correctly formatted).

The editor subsequently reverted my edit with the immature edit summary accusing me of "downplaying" Hendry's "achievement". I think an objective appraisal of my edit would indeed agree that this is nonsense. Here are the three competing versions:

• IP:

  O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. However, the Olympian Eve Muirhead considers the status of the World Snooker Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record settles Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player.

• Betty's:

  O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. Likewise, former curling world champion Eve Muirhead considers the prestige of the World Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record as decisive in determining Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player. However, Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone.

• MrLoop:

  O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone.

References

I have a personal preference but I can live with any version. Can we get a quick straw poll please and settle this issue quickly. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The first version (by IP) gives undue weight to Eve Muirhead's opinion, by placing it at the end of the paragraph and implying that it is the most important and definitive, trumping any previous views given earlier in the paragraph. Your version seems more neutral and logical. However, I'm not altogether sure why Muirhead's opinion is relevant, as she's not a notable snooker player or commentator, most likely just a huge Hendry fan, hence she's bound to say he's the "greatest ever" and I'm therefore not too comfortable with including her in his BLP. So I would prefer to go with Mrloop's version. (I would say Desmond Kane's opinion is slightly more relevant with him being a sports commentator.) Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer MrLoops. I'm unconvinced that her comments are any more worthy of note than mine or yours. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Muirhead was perhaps making a general point about how most sports have a defining event upon which these debates are settled. To be honest though I am not fighting to retain the comment, I was just trying (and clearly failing) to avoid an edit-war with an editor who historically has a POV issue on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it's true that the World Championship is top dog by a country mile, but that doesn't mean all the other events can be dismissed, or treated as equally important. Bit different for curling perhaps where the Olympics is the only thing we ever see. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see why we are even naming her. The views of a (somewhat) unrelated sportsperson isn't of all that much note. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not in favour of including Muirhead’s or Kane’s comments. The points about Muirhead have been made and I think the same can be said for Kane - he is not particularly well known in the world of snooker and his views don’t hold much more weight than anyone else, including Muirhead’s. Views from professional snooker players carry more weight. This section is also on the long side. I’d suggest ending the section on Bingham’s comment and removing Muirhead’s and Kane’s comments. This should also hopefully remove the tension from IP about positioning. Sportismygame (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a new account to go with a new day. This discussion is about Eve Muirhead's comment, not Desmond Kane's. If you want to initiate a discussion about that be my guest, but please start a fresh section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were looking for input? Sorry if I came into the wrong conversation - I’ve just joined and am updating sports related pages. Anyway, my point was that I think you need consistency here and in that sense Kane’s and Muirhead’s views need to be treated in a similar manner. I’d suggest sticking with views from well known sources (as my first year of sports studies have taught me so far). Alternatively, if you permit views from lesser known people/sources you open it up for a bit of a free for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportismygame (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: It is me, the IP who made the edit. I disagree with Nigel, Lee, Sportismyname, and you. There are some absolutely nobodies who are referenced there like Desmond Kane. Who is that!? He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Eve Muirhead is a professional athlete. She understands the importance of the big events. Like the Olympics and in snooker’s case the World Championship. Get rid of her reference and it’s just a one-sided ramble. And FYI - you were the one who was trying to edit war until I highlighted the importance of talking it through. (IP Guy) 92.233.89.74 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally think these "he is the greatest" commentaries should be banned from BLPs as they can never be truly unbiassed and fairly sourced. The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals who play the same sport (e.g. O'Sullivan and Bingham in this case), but their comments should be framed as "this is what so-and-so says" without reading any more (or less) into it than that. A statement of records and stats can be provided, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions about the "greatness" of the sportsperson in question. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rodney Baggins. We're an encyclopedia and shouldn't be getting into this area. Hundreds of people have compared Hendry/O'Sullivan/Joe Davis etc., picking a handful is almost certain to be biased. The Eve Muirhead remark needs to go, even the whole section. Nigej (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it’s me. The IP guy! I have decided to make an account as it makes contributing to this page easier. You will see I have edited the status part of the Stephen Hendry page. Having reflected on this, whilst not wanting to drop it, I can live without the Eve Muirhead comment in the interests of finding a solution. However taking it away leads to a rather anti-Hendry and pro-O’Sullivan position. I’ve therefore made an amendment to remove the Eve Muirhead line and reordered the content of the status section. I think we should get rid of the Demond Kane comment (who is a bit of a nobody) but can live with it in the interest of moving on if the ordering I have put forward works for others. Hope this is a satisfactory solution. MrLogan666 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Very much appreciated Mr Logan (assume no relation to Betty!?) I have read through the new status section and it reads pretty well now, maybe a little long-winded and could probably be pared down slightly, but fine by me for now. I must congratulate you on registering a user account, because it makes it easier for people to recognise you and communicate with you. If you create a user page, your name will appear as a blue link rather than a red link, which would be even better. Thanks for discussing and helping towards reaching a consensus. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the previous ordering was superior so I have restored it. If you would prefer to restructure the section then start a fresh discussion and obtain a consensus please. The purpose of this discussion was to determine what should be done about Eve Muirhead's comment and that appears to have been resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am highly sceptical of Betty Logan’s approach, which seems to be pushing a pro-O’Sullivan POV. In any case, I won’t engage in an edit war. I think the Desmond Kane comment merits removal so will raise a separate discussion about that. MrLogan666 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section

A comment from Eve Muirhead was recently removed from the Status section. The consensus for this was found primarily on the basis that it was from someone who is not a snooker professional. Following the same logic, I believe the comment from Desmond Kane should also be removed. This is on the basis that he is a bit of an unknown source (e.g. doesn’t even have his own Wikipedia page) and is not a former player. I concur with the view of Nigej, stated in the Muirhead discussion, that “The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals.” I would like to follow this approach and remove the Desmond Kane comment. I think this logic should also be applied to any future additions to this section of the page, otherwise it risks becoming unwieldily with comments from relative unknowns.

In further support of this, I would add that the section is on the long side, is rather pro-O’Sullivan and is not particularly neutral, and because of this is likely to be susceptible to edit wars.

Please can I get a canvas of views on my proposal to remove the Desmond Kane comment and hopefully find a consensus? MrLogan666 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Desmond Kane is an established professional sports writer who wrote for Eurosport at the time. In fact he regularly wrote snooker articles. His credentials in snooker journalism are easily proven. There is no valid policy based rationale for removing his opinion, especially as it is given as a counterpoint to the statistical argument that Bingham and Ronnie himself make. Betty Logan (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Kane is a snooker writer. His opinion as a journalist is very important. I think we make it very clear who he is, and why this matters. There's a big difference between a person known for a (somewhat) unrelated sport, and someone who writes about snooker. It makes sense thematically to talk about journalist thoughts, as well as other players. Not so much for people unrelated to the game.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I can understand those points but would argue if we keep the reference then we are looking at a rather biased pro-O’Sullivan section. Furthermore, we can’t add every point of view on this issue as there are hundreds and this section would become unwieldy. I would question why Desmond Kane should feature given there are much better known sources who could be added to the mix. Therefore, in the interests of finding some balance to the narrative and to make this section manageable, I suggest the Desmond Kane comment should go. MrLogan666 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a biased section. We have neutrally presented relevant opinions. The opinions themselves don't have to be neutral. By that logic Hitler's article is biased. Maybe we should cut down his genocide a bit and spend half the article talking about all the good things he did. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is that there are more pro-O’Sullivan opinions than pro-Hendry, thereby lacking balance and overall neutrality. MrLogan666 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Desmond Kane is probably a better source than Eve Muirhead but it can be reasonably argued either way whether his opinion is relevant enough to sit alongside professional snooker players. However I agree the section is slightly lacking in balance if the Desmond Kane opinion is retained. To address this, you could add another comment. As Ronnie’s views have been covered, it would probably merit adding in something from the man himself. Sportismygame (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m still against the Desmond Kane comment but will work with Sportismyname’s suggestion in the interest of trying to find a solution. MrLogan666 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean here - there being more of one thing than the other doesn't make it biased. The article needs a bit of an overhaul (it's on my to-do list), but this section should really cover what the media, journalists and other players think. It should probably include others (I know McManus, Joe Johnson and Clive Everton have both measured up on this). It's a little ridiculous to remove a well respected journalist/snooker writer because you haven't heard of them.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that Desmond Kane’s opinion is completely irrelevant, just that there are better sources.

In any case, I’ve added a comment from Hendry which I think adds value and overall a bit of balance to this section. We now have comments from Ronnie, Hendry, other players, and a snooker commentator. A good mix. I agree the section could do with a bit of an overhaul but hope people are happy with this in the meantime, that we have consensus, and can move on. Thoughts? MrLogan666 (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad my suggestion was helpful. I think your change strikes the right balance for me between O’Sullivan and Hendry on the highly contentious ‘greatest’ issue. I still think the section is on the long side and you would have been better cutting it at Bingham’s comment but won’t revisit the Desmond Kane debate. So overall happy with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportismygame (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed as "Unsourced"

The following text was removed as "unsourced". I find this curious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"In this way, he has compiled more than 700 competitive century breaks."

I removed the whole section as it was unsourced, original research. This sentence, citing a non-reliable source, includes the phrase "in this way" which is OR. The statistic already appears elsewhere in the article.

If you can find well-sourced material on his style of play, it might be useful. --hippo43 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me be plain about this: my objection is pure and simple to your wholesale removal of sections, including cited material and all. It's not acceptable, specially with the edit comment "unsourced". Please be more careful in future. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have well-sourced material for this then?

Please be less patronising in future. --hippo43 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Chris Turner's archive has long been considered a reliable source. Removing anything as "unsourced", when it is in fact sourced is a bit odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Lee, I removed the whole section because it was unsourced, apart from the 700 centuries stat, which was already in the article, and not relevant to his style of play. The sentence supported by the Chris Turner source included the phrase "in this way", which was unsourced. Sorry if my edit summary was not clear. Best wishes. --hippo43 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Greatest ever

I've been bold and taken a stab at re-writing this section. The World Snooker reference was out of date. As O'Sullivan is still playing, quotes from 15 years ago are not much use. --hippo43 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned in the main page, there is a live discussion already on this issue in the talk page under the section of ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. As it’s a live discussion, please contribute to that and even state your suggested changes in the talk pages rather than making wholesale changes to the main page. MrLogan666 (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the above, further comments shouldn’t be added to this section of the talk page. MrLogan666 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion here isn't about the Desmond Kane quote. It's about the whole section.

Please stop adding the incorrect World Snooker quote. It no longer says that Hendry is considered the greatest ever, so if we want to include that we need another source. --hippo43 (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Have another look - the section of the talk page is entitled ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. The discussion is focused on the Desmond Kane comment and the whole status section generally. The discussion you have raised is therefore duplicating on an existing live discussion so please raise your comments under the aforementioned section. Just to note that I am not totally against your proposed changes (subject to some small tweaks) but we need to find consensus before making changes to long-standing content. MrLogan666 (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Mr Logan, if you are so keen to discuss something, why aren't you discussing it? And why you keep adding a source that is out of date and doesn't say what it used to say? --hippo43 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve raised 5 comments in the section of the talk page mentioned. If you wish to add to that discussion then please do so. MrLogan666 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've discussed it in this section. Reply, don't reply, it's your choice, but please stop playing games. --hippo43 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure there is a benefit to having a separate section in this talk page on the same topic but in the interests of moving things along, here it goes.

I was generally in favour of your previous edit of the status section as you rightly highlighted the sources were dated. The section was also too long. I’d be happy to go with what you suggested, subject to a minor tweak to remove the retirement point. This is because it suggests the view of Hendry being the ‘greatest’ was only held at the time of his retirement but not at any time before or after. A new new source/sources will also be needed for the first reference:

“Hendry's achievements led many to consider him the greatest snooker player ever.[48] More recently, this has been challenged by Ronnie O'Sullivan's continued success, and some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry.[49][50][51][52]” MrLogan666 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hippo43: Your thoughts would be appreciated. MrLogan666 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the text - many did/do consider Hendry the greatest player - but I don't think that source is enough to support it here. We need to find other sources which say it. For me, secondary sources which say he was considered the greatest are preferable to individual opinions, often mentioned in other contexts. When I have some time I will try to find more. --hippo43 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the section is too long. It's an important part of his career. If anything, the discussion could be more nuanced. We also shouldn't be using WP:CITEKILL. This section should probably be written more like a reception section, outlining the specific opinions. The line: some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry. doesn't really cover the deal at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? I think a load of quotes from players is a problem - almost everyone has commented on this at some point, and most of the quotes we have are well out of date.

One reason for having a line like "some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry" (or whatever text we agree) is because this is the article about Hendry, not O'Sullivan or anyone else. //// Hippo43 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Advanced apologies if this isn't in the correct part of this Talk, however, in my opinion I'd question as to whether we should have a 'Status' section at all for both Hendry and Ronnie O'Sullivan. There isn't one for Joe Davis who, prior to Steve Davis' dominance of the game in the 80's, was universally regarded as the greatest ever, nor for Steve Davis who, during his dominance of the game was seen as the only 'challenger' to Joe Davis' 'greatest ever' tag. How do you consider someone as 'the greatest'? I would say it's purely a subjective matter of opinion. I also think the section on this page is too long - how many past or current players do we source quotes from? Do we list them all? If the consensus is that there should be a 'greatest' status section then I actually prefer the text from MrLogan666 above. Maybe consideration needs to be made as to having a 'Greatest Snooker Player' article in it's own right. Steveflan (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm against such sections, such is the tendency to just include (a) journalistic opinion(s) as (a) reference(s). Just because someone is paid to give their opinion, doesn't make it more valid than the layman. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above two comments. Better to remove these sections completely. They're generally not encyclopedic, just listing a seemingly random selection of other people's opinions. Nigej (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be a status section given how important the GOAT debate is to snooker. The current wording is too long for me and I like the brevity of what MrLogan666 has stated as it removes the need for constant flipping between different views. Sportismygame (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Modern era

The lead section mentions Hendry's records within the modern era but doesn't define what the "modern era" is. When did it begin? --Jameboy (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

As it's a big undertaking, I've not got round to this one yet... Modern era is 1969 onwards, but does need an explaination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's jargon, and probably should be added to Glossary of cue sports terms so that it can be linked to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looks like there is a citation for this at 1969 World Snooker Championship (last sentence of Background section) but it's behind a paywall so I can't verify it. --Jameboy (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

1990 plan to win all ranking tournaments in the season?

I distinctly remember Clive Everton in commentary (many, many years ago!) describing how Stephen Hendry attempted to win all ranking tournaments in the 1990-91 season (and subsequently suffered from exhaustion, contributing to the Crucible Curse). However, this alleged plan is not mentioned in this article or in the article on that season. Are there any references for this? Is it even true? Clearly he did win the first four ranking tournaments, and his streak was broken by Jimmy White in the final of the 1991 Classic. But then, Hendry was actually pretty good :-) and this may not have been a part of any premeditated plan. KarlFrei (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Having a separate 'Seniors tour titles' section for snooker players

Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)