Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/Archive 1

Conversion to Islam
Ronnie denied having converted to Islam! [] []
 * I am sorry. You are totally right. Thanks for the info. Cheers -- Svest 00:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * No need to apologise - it's a wiki! In any case, as I recall, his conversion was presented as fact on the BBC at the time, so it's not a foolish error to make. RMoloney 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard that but never checked the facts or whatever. I was editing List of Muslims tonight and found him there. That's the reason why I added the cat to his article. But, thanks anyway for the update, otherwise I'd maybe've died thinking he was a convert ;) Cheers -- Svest 00:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Whilst he clearly isn't a Muslim, I think this article goes too much in the opposite direction by simply saying "In 2003, he was wrongly said to have converted to Islam". That makes it sound as though the story was entirely invented by a British tabloid, whilst it does have some basis in truth. He didn't convert to Islam, but he's stated that he's strongly interested in the faith and might convert in the future. His stance was that he simply wasn't ready to commit at that time. See this (not the best source but the closest to hand) for instance -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/snooker/ronnie_osullivan_interview.shtml Blankfrackis 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder
I've searched and searched and can't find any reference to Ronnie's supposed bipolar disorder on the internet. It's a pretty significant thing to infer, so I've removed it pending its reinforcement with a reliable source. BigBlueFish 17:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/other_sports/snooker/world_champs_2002/1964282.stm

This is Clive Everton, who describes Ronnie as being a "manic depressive". Obviously, Manic depression is the old term for Bipolar disorder.
 * Can we get additional sources, and include it in the article? It's a strike against the Cat when there's only one source, and 'fact' can't be appended to the Cat... - BalthCat 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, Dr Clive Everton, the renowned psychologist. If he diagnoses bipolar disorder then it must be true. BennyFromCrossroads 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clive Everton has also referred to clinical depression. Christopher Connor 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per BennyFromCrossroads, Everton is not a reliable source for this alleged information. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But who are we to decide Everton isn't a reliable source? He makes some of these claims under reputable newspapers so you should probably assume he is right. Christopher Connor 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are Wikipedians with clear policies and guidelines, including Verifiability, Reliable sources and Biographies of living people. Everton is not a psychiatrist, and is not in a position to make a "clinical" medical diagnosis. The newspapers could source that Everton made such a claim about O'Sullivan, and nothing more.  However, since this is a bio of a living person, policy would arguably forbid adding it anyway, since unsubstantiated rumour like that isn't encyclopedic and is potentially defamatory. If O'Sullivan himself can be quoted on this manner, then no problem. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He has discussed his depression widely particularly in 2001 when his doctor rang him during the world final in connection with his dosage of anti-depressants. A Quote- ' People are quite ignorant about mental illness. They think “you moany old sod, why don’t you just cheer up.” Sometimes I think, "yes I am a moany old sod" and I play that character and get a sense of happiness out of it. The worst thing someone can say is “jack yourself out of it”; in the end I tell them “do you think I enjoy being like this?”.

--212.2.173.75 07:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Last/current season
I wonder if it is necessary to use half the page writing about the 2006 WCs (it wasn't THAT interesting on Ronnie's part)? (unsigned comment)


 * You're probably right. Only the cue business should be mentioned. 194.150.177.9 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Ronnie
Don't think that picture is very fair, and changing it should be considered in my opinion. I know he didn't have a picture before but another should be found. BTW are pictures from the bbc website copyrighted? as that current image is identical to the one found here   - HyperHamster 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's hardly appropriate and seeing as it doesn't show his face, it's not very useful as the main image. I'll change it. If someone wants to put that photo in the 2006 section that would be fine. 84.9.13.85 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also strongly agree and thought the original image was very inappropriate the mooment I saw it. Thanks for changing it (above). I know the image was updated, but I've changed the image to be the same as that used on the German wikipedia page. I believe Ronnie is fantastic player and it's much better to have a picture of him playing fantastic snooker than of him in a moment of stress. Ronnie, if you ever read this, I wish you well. Those moments come to us all at times. James. —The preceding comment was added by 82.6.98.77 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Birthplace
Where was Ronnie born? Most websites seem to say that he was born in Chigwell, Essex, but some sources (including the BBC's snooker coverage and http://archive.stourbridgenews.co.uk/2001/5/8/50772.html) say Wordsley, West Midlands.

He certainly grew up in Essex, but of course that doesn't mean that he was born there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bazonka (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

He was born in Wordsley, West Midlands, as his autobiography says so. (unsigned comment)
 * And can you also provide a citation for this, please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/6180811.stm

http://www.answers.com/topic/wordsley

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9430258

(unsigned comment)


 * Thanks, so put them in the article. Extremely sexy 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Link removed
I removed an external link (147 break from Ronnie vs. Drew Henry 2001 LG-cup) because it is broken. Sorry for not identifying myself, as I still don't have an alias here :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.45.101 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Living in Dalston, Ilford & Chigwell
Ronnie's first home was a towerblock in Dalston (Holly Street)the family then moved to Ilford when he was still pretty much a baby and he lived in Ilford until he was 16 and then moved with the family to Chigwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.30.232 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above info was added by me and I am a relative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Mike 147 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be flippant, but no one cares or can even prove that. Any information added to this article has to be verifiable with a reliable published source, since anyone in the world could show up here, claim to be a relative, and make false assertions. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What has happened to this page?
I'm not a regular contributor to wikipedia, by any means, but I feel that there have been some recent edits to this article (over the past month or so) that have really diminished its quality. I don't think it's too controversial a thing to say that what O'Sullivan is best known for, in terms of his game, is that he is a naturally quite brilliant player, but also very erratic one. The previous draft of this article conveyed that rather well. The more recent version, quoted below, comes pretty close to vandalism, in my view.


 * He is considered by many to be one of the most naturally-talented players in the history of the sport.[2][3] His highest level of play has been argued to be unmatched in the history of the game of snooker,[opinion needs balancing] though the fact that players such as Stephen Hendry, generally accepted to be the best player of all time, and Steve Davis, have won significantly more makes this view rather dubious.

The two clauses of the second sentence do not follow on logically from each other; the previous version said something like "His highest level of play has been argued to be unmatched in the history of the game of snooker, though players such as Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis have won significantly more." That seems to me to be perfectly balanced and adequate.

Also, a large portion of the top section of the O'Sullivan entry has been moved to the bottom of the page and filed under 'Other'. This includes the Robidoux complaint (which is an extraordinary story that tells you a great deal about O'Sullivan as a player and as an individual) and the fact that he holds the world record for the fastest 147 break - that at least should clearly come near to the top of his wikipedia entry.

Can someone with more wikipedia experience than me revert these recent edits, please? Thanks! (86.135.124.209 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Um, no. :-) They were made for good reason, at least with regards to the WP:NPOV changes.  This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine.  It is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to label this player or that "best", "great" or other superlative, opinion-laden, subjective terms.  The clean up of this article actually hasn't gone nearly far enough yet.  Please read WP:NPOV closely.  It is one of the Pillars of Wikipedia.  "Unmatched in the history of the game"?  Even most magazine editors would nix that as far too biased.  Please also see WP:WEASEL: It is not encyclopedic to use phrasing like "widely regarded", "considered by many", "some say", etc.  These are known as "weasel words", and they are used to make broad, sweeping, generalizing claims that cannot be sourced.  That entire paragraph needs a radical overhaul, because it makes weaselly personal point-of-view claims about THREE players.  The fact that someone can cite two articles that may say something similar about one of them does not mean this language will survive.  At very best, a specific article by a specific person in a specific publication could possibly be directly quoted as saying something like this, but many would still object on NPOV grounds, especially if the quoted person is not him/herself notable.  As for the "Other" edit, I don't know what's up about that.  The article needs to be restructured anyway, to talk about his professional career in chronological order, and to discuss his personal life and problems at the bottom, and finally to have an overview summary at the top that really tells the readers the basics of why this person is notable.  I'd been working on doing that, but number of people came in and added a bunch of more stuff, and that kind of got lost in the shuffle.  I'll look into it when the editing calms down.  May be a while, anyway, as we really need to have a standardized structure for these kinds of articles.  I'm sure WikiProject Biography has some material that may be helpful.  We'll see...  PS: New talk page messages go at the bottom, not the top. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me who created the Other section. I felt that the previous version's Career section was not in order so I ordered it and put all the information that wouldn't fit there into the Other section (although I now see that the left hand ability and fastest maximum break can actually fit into the Career section). It was made as a temporary measure.


 * I agree that some the other edits have been rather biased and a little careless; reference 4 was added for his temperamental streak but it is now at the end of 'many question whether he has the temprament to go with the talent, to enable him to win another four or five world titles, putting him on a par with Hendry and Davis'.


 * I get the impression from the snooker commentators that Ronnie O'Sullivan has played some of the best snooker ever (but this seems too controversial to be added); I suppose that was why someone added that 'His highest level of play is arguably unmatched in the history of the game of snooker'. What is less controversial is that many think that O'Sullivan is the most naturally talented player ever.


 * Another thing is that there is too much on the most recent years, even factoring in that these years have probably been even more eventful than previous ones. No mention of his first World Championship win in 2001 for instance. Christopher Connor 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would generally concur with all that (with one quibble); this article can't even get to B-class much less Good Article status without fixing the overall "magazine style" tone and "he's just so great! nonencyclopedic stuff. The quibble is that even if commentators and snooker reporters and so forth think he's the bee's knees, they themselves and their opinions are not notable.  If the Snooker Hall of Fame said he was the most naturally-talented player, different story.  It might be possible to salvage that part by changing it to something like "widely regarded as one of the most naturally-talented..." and then cite multiple sources that establish this (not that he's naturally talented, but that he is widely regarded as'' being so; i.e., articles that assert that this is a widely-held view, not articles the authors of which simply say he's naturally talented, if you see what I mean.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I added part recently about him being regarded as the best, it is a fact that nearly all commentators and experts as well as players agree with this statement, and there is alot of evidence to support this. Widely regarded is not weasel, if you can prove that the majority of the snooker world agree.  I think, if you look att he evidence and numerous articles of players like Steve davis, Lowe, parrott and jimmy white, you can quickly prove that Ronnie is widely regarded as the greatest.  And...he is. &#91;the previous unsigned comment was posted by, 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)&#93;


 * Irrelevant. No one here has even claimed that the assessment isn't true/correct.  That simply doesn't matter.  It still has to be sourced.  Please read WP:NPOV as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It is not a magazine.  —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rewrote the lead, including some views on Ronnie (with sources). A lot of this is said in commentary which can't be sourced. Christopher Connor 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is indeed most of the problem provided. Extremely sexy 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. People love to quote this person or that saying that an article subject is so wonderful, but it simply isn't encyclopedic.  Save it for your blogs, folks. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Source verification dispute
Where in source number 3 does Stephen Hendry say that Ronnie is the most naturally gifted snooker player in the history of the game? He doesn't even say anything remotely like that. He says that at the time (2008) Ronnie was playing the best snooker. - Absolutely pathetic, sycophants will do anything including deliberatley misquoting professional snooker players, just to make their idol look better. The intro for this page is pure subjective tosh, servile opinion masquerading as fact. -JW- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.132.58 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated article assessment under WP:BIO
Assessed the article as a Start-class rather than Stub-class. See Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/Comments. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Name
His father is Ronald John O'Sullivan, so, to describe him as Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan Jr. is wrong. (unsigned comment)
 * That's already been taken care off in fact. Extremely sexy 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the article is wrong in a different way. Fixing. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
The paragraph beginning "O'Sullivan made it to the semi-finals" appears to contradict itself about the 2000 SWC. First it says he was bumped out in round one, then it says he was bumped out in round 2. The language is also way, way too colloquial in there, using slangy Briticisms that even I don't understand, and I was raised in the UK until junior high-school age... I've flagged the problem bits with HTML comments. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a contradiction. It states that he played David Gray in the first round and that he lost 10-9: who came from 5-1 and 9-7 down to edge out O'Sullivan 10-9 for a place in the second round. Appears to have been clarified since your post. Christopher Connor 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Style of play" and "Career rankings" sections
I created two sections: style of play and career rankings. Style of play isn't complete and can do with more contributions. Sourcing requirements must be relaxed due to difficulties. Most of this discussion occurs in commentary and not much in print. Tournament wins and career rankings can perhaps combine to save space, with the rankings table to the right.

Concerning the comments nested in paragraph After Dott's win: yeah, I mistakenly named '21tips' and 'cue' in each other's places, now fixed. The fortnight claim is correct as the championship started in 15 April and the report was dated 28 April, so near enough. Also, I think Ronnie's mother being jailed is relevant here. Perhaps to show how this 'messed him up' at an early age. And widely covered in the media. I could not find the source for his home club. Christopher Connor 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sourcing requirements are never relaxed. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Dennis Taylor quotes from TV
I do know he quipped the way he did at the end of that particular final, but how can a television quote be proven? Extremely sexy 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite episode (if you have enough details, and it's a real quote not an "I think I remember..."; i.e. if you have it on tape/DVR and know the broadcast date, the station, etc.) For something like a sportscast that isn't part of an episodic TV series, the template has to be adapted a bit. Made-up example off top of my head, with comments in italics:


 * is in that format

Basically, as many details as available, just as with Cite web and Cite book. That example's so cool, I think I will add it to Cite episode's documentation.

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

PoV disputes
Various Neutral Point of View Policy disputes keep arising. I figure we ought to have a section (meta-section, really) here for resolving them to avoid any more editwarring. I have way better things to do that argue with Wikipedians I actually like and respect, over a few sentences in a paragraph. I am a snapping turtle about this kind of thing because I actually pore over the WP:GA (and WP:FA) criteria, and read (and write!) assessment /Comments pages of articles, and remember why articles achieve or fail these gleaming milestones. Neither WP:SNOOKER nor the more general WP:CUE have produced even one Featured Article [as of the date of this post; WP:CUE has since then. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)]. Not one. It's positively shameful. I'm sorry; this probably belongs more at the project talk pages. But come on. What do we have, something like 5 Good Articles between us all in total? After this much effort. That's very disappointing.

The short version: If people insist on adding emotive language, personal opinions, "novel syntheses" of independently sourceable unsourceably related bare facts, "gonzo" journalist turns of phrase, and tabloid-style "juicy detail" obessession, this article will never be a Good Article, and Featured Article status is just unbelievably out of the question. If you are not editing this article to see it get to FA status then you are here for the wrong reasons.

Just absorb this and get on with the work: This article will never, ever be the "ultimate" Ronnie O'Sullivan piece, from an overall point of view (which necessarily includes emotional, spiritual, and other avenues barred to us as an encylopedia with verification standards; a novelist or biographer can theorize about such things, but we cannot). The WP article on Ronnie O'Sullivan will lack heart-string pulls and pulse-pounders; it will not make your eyes widen, as you can practically feel his cue in your own hand. That is not why we are here. Wikipedia is not a blockbuster, or even a made-for-TV movie. It is here to present the unadorned trustworthy facts as best we can collectively determine them. I'll be first in line for Bravecue: The Ronnie O'Sullivan Saga, but this article emphatically is not that movie. NB: I think it is remarkably unfortunate that Wikipedia chose to use the term "article" to refer to its constituent parts, instead of "piece", "work", "paper", "project", "folio", or anything other than "article", which for 99% of people conjures up the idea of the magazine or newspaper article, not an encyclopedic constituent body of reasonably ascertainable knowledge. Maybe I'll bring that issue up on the Village Pump at some point...

PS: I apologize in advance for the "alphabet soup" that's coming, but I think anyone reading this at all either (95%) knows precisely what long-titled documents the shortcuts mean or (5%) is interested enough to find out &mdash; or wouldn't bother reading. Same goes for the length of it: I hope this is the last time this stuff needs to be said explicly, and this talk page just happens to be the focal point.

Father's saga
I know (my faith, if you, will is) that this section needs to be pared down by roughly 75%. My opinion (i.e. subjective feeling) is that it's simply unencyclopedic, tabloid magazine-style detail-dwelling and negativity, with the apparent (and understandable but misguided) intent of producing the most complete article on R.O'S. rather than the most encyclopedic one. Why this is misguided is clear: Wikipedia is not "an indisciminate collection of information". My more objective (as possible) analysis of it (i.e. dispassionate observation), from a WP policy point of view, is that 3/4 of it are not relevant to the Ronnie O'Sullivan article (WP:NOT, among others), are non-encyclopedic, marginally transgress WP:BLP (while sourced, yes, their clear point is to dwell upon negative details or simply dwell upon details that have little to nothing to do with the article subject). The negativity of it in turn makes it way beyond marginally a WP:NPOV problem.

The only reasons to dwell on family scandal of questionable encyclopedic relevance that I can think of (thus I admit, and will entertain, that there could be others) are a) to cast aspersions on the article subject, or b) to drum up a "sympathy vote" for the subject - "he acts this way because of a troubling family life". Both of these are, in the plain light of day and with their bare faces hanging out (a phrase I borrowed), clearly WP:NPOV issues and then some, without even going into the underlying assumptions. Per WP:BLP and WP:V (which have the force of policy) and per derived exploratory guidelines like WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and many, many more, this kind of Entertainment Tonight / Hard Copy content does not belong in any kind of encyclopedia (even if it might make a great source of fodder for my proposed Bravecue movie). Yes, the general circumstances of his father, and generally what both sides of that debate alleged really happened are relevant.

But the overwhelming detailia are just so not pertinent to this article. Really short version: Yes, it probably has had a profound effect on Ronnie, but that's neither here nor there. Prove it. And regardless, the nitty gritty belongs in an article about the senior R. O'Sullivan; if WP:N can't be satisfied with such an article (I note that no one has tried, despite the strong interestingness of the case...), then, oh well. That's maybe a shame, but move on, I beg you.

If even half the time spent on digging up family dirt on Ronnie and going to great lengths to source at least some of it to keep it in the floundering article (despite the fact that we have a clear principle around there that just because something can possibly be included, does not mean, by any stretch, that it must be included), had been spent on even finding out basic stuff (see all the missing core information at the totally unsourced 1981 UK Snooker Championship; I made it prettier with recent edits, but I can't make it better in the core sense by doing so), we might have a healthy grove of key articles intead of an increasingly large mound of flopping, gasping stubs.

Anyway if no one else feels up to it, I can probably edit that section down to 1/4 of its extant size (I'll "assure" a 2/3 triage, and "promise" a 1/2 chop >;-). If we like it, we do, if we don't we don't. I'd prefer to not have to go to such rather parliamentary lengths and just agree amonst ourselves that the loss of minutiae in this section would be a net gain and wouldn't be reverted reflexively - if it gets boiled down to the gist that his dad got railroaded and this remains a big deal even today, then we've already gotten the point across; "who might've stabbed whom, why, at what moment, and with whomever standing exactly where" details notwithstanding.


 * The passage shown above is extremely long and it is not possible to respond to all the points raised. It concludes on the basis that there is wide spread acceptance that the section dealing with his father needs to be edited. There is nothing shown on this talk page to indicate that this is in fact the case. Any defect in other passages in the O'Sullivan article or in other entries on Snooker are not relevant. O'Sullivan is a professional sportsman who is bi-polar and an outline of his disruptive family background is appropriate. This is not ' digging up dirt'. As a matter of fact his father is in prison, and has been since he was 17. His mother served a term in prison and his sister was arrested. None of the passages complained of are in fact negative or aim to detract from or garner sympathy for O'Sullivan. They outline incidents that happened. --213.202.180.142 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to interject here that I was proven right by the Good Article Nomination process demanding the removal of that tabloid material before the article was approved for GA status. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Extremely"? Hyperbole is unbecoming. It is a fallacious argument to suggest that my position is faulty in some way because you cannot bother addressing it.  Pretending that didn't happen, let's get to what you did have time to respond to:
 * The passage about his father has not only been edited many times for PoV, it's even been removed in its entirety; this obviously indicates a dispute about its noteworthiness (but I remind you I did not question its noteworthiness, only its excessively detailed length)
 * You introduced "widespread acceptance", not me. I've never argued for, and never base my opinions on, popularity (doing so is itself another form of logical fallacy). I have asserted (and backed up, to such an extent that you seem to be overwhelmed) an opinion of my own (albeit expressed by others here as well in various ways in the last few months, not only in posts here but more saliently in edits and their rationales in edit summaries).
 * The "Any defect in ..." sentence has no relevant meaning to me. I was not trying to draw any connection between recent defects in this article and former ones, nor between defects you seem to defend as non-defects, and other defects. To the extent that defects that you defend and those that others ignore are disguishable yet interrelate, I do not see them as independent problems. Either there is a WP:NPOV problem, and/or there is a WP:V problem and/or there is a WP:NOR problem, but in my Weltanschauung there is no such thing as a Jane NOR problem or a Jimmy-Bob NPOV issue. There is nothing individually distinguishable about the concerns I raise at all. Either this article is likely to pass the Good Article/Featured Article criteria, or it isn't. And that's all there is.
 * Re: "who is bi-polar" &mdash; well, that's just the rub. You and someone or other else keep asserting this, with no basis other than the estimation of one of his keenest competitors. I don't think I've ever seen a more screaming need for "mutiple, independent, reliable sources".
 * That an incident happened does not make it encyclopedically noteworthy at all (as such).
 * Re: "This is not 'digging up dirt'. As a matter of fact his father is in prison..." It is absolutely digging up dirt, and you are smacking straw men again (I very explicitly said that his father's legal situation is not in question; the relevance in/to this article of every last detail of his father's situation, or his siter's, etc., is very much in question.  You have no references of any kind whatsoever, period to show that this grown man, Ronnie O'Sullivan, has been palpably psychologically shaped by, or (as the implication may really be intended) that he has been or will inevitably be shaped by his genetic or increasingly tenuous familial relationships; even if we did have sources that these issues did strongly affect him as a child, the often blatant insinuation in the the article that these alleged factors are causative of his peformance are totally unsourced original research (read: orginal assumption).  A radically different way of putting it: It's very, very easy (and trite) for someone who does not come from such a background to make (and very questionably, in an encyclopedic context) insist upon the retention of such inferences. If you yourself did not come from a broken home of messed up people, the assumption that such an un-ideal family life is behind O'Sullivan's tournament placings is tempting, even powerful and hard to question, but it is an utterly, unmitigated, inescapably blatant personal, subjective theory with no basis in ''reliably sourceable and neutrally-presented (as we know them today) facts, absent solid sources that present this conclusion entirely without your theory even arising.
 * PS: A completely different way of looking at this: If you think anyting reported about Ronnie's family member is somehow shocking and noteworthy, then you must be living under a rock or something. Every family has its black sheep, usually more than one of them.
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bi-polarity
He is bi-polar. It is widely accepted, see inter alia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article765395.ece [– unsigned]

Sister's arrest
Different matter. There's no proof of a damned thing of any relevance to anyone other than police department paper-filers. The tabloids are in a position to pounce on such things, but Wikipedia is in the diametrically opposite position; we have standards for what is encyclopedically meritorious and this just doesn't come close. It's nothing but emotionally-laden noise. This is not her article, and there is absolutely nothing notable about a WP article subject's independent adult relative being suspected of something. Sources that confirm that the vague suspicion occurred, notwithstanding. This dismally fails WP:BLP with regard to both Ronnie and his sister on a somewhat different level. In terms of defamation law, Ronnie is a "public figure"; his sister is almost certainly not. Further down the line, even charges and a trial would not necessarily be notable; people get charged and tried all the time for things they had nothing to do with and are cleared of. If there were some encyclopedic purpose to the mention - such as direct quotes from Ronnie that his sister's legal trouble had a direct deleterious effect on his performance this season, then it would certainly be relevant. But we don't have that. At all. The notion that this is relevant because it "must" have had (or some random BBC journalist come up with idea that it had) a professionally palpable effect on him, is blatant [[WP:NOR (policy, not guideline) and advancement of a POV (policy, not guideline). It's a personal theory assembled from disconnected data points about what "must" be affecting Ronnie; this is pretty much the very defintion of forbidden "novel synthesis" at WP:NOR (last I looked at it anyway).  Such is the work of a tenacious investigative journalist with a hunch, not an encyclopedist.  In ten years we might, if we're lucky, encyclopedically "know" (have multiple, independent, reliable sources for) what effect if any the issue has had on him. Until then and without such sources it is nothing but supposition, hearsay, and "novel synthesis" of independent information, forbidden by policy.  And it has the effective result of the article being a PoV-pushing attack piece, regardless of the intent.  No chance in hell of even Good Article status.

He's a grown man; his sister is a grown woman. They have their own lives. It would take some seriously reliable sourcing to draw a connection between his sisters' troubles and his professional snooker tournament performance and poorly sourced personal-life problems, allegations of which raise related and perhaps even stronger issues.

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference to defamation if it suggests that it is legally inappropiate to include this reference is wrong. Again the length of the above passage makes it difficult to respond in the round. There are from memory passages in his autobiography which deal with his relationship with his sister and his performances. --213.202.180.142 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "From memory" is half of the problem here. From memory is not acceptable, that's it, game over, the end, please drive through. Either source it, or it doesn't go in. Period.  That is what what WP:V means. No reader of this encyclopedia can possibly be expected to think "hmm...Well, this sounds well written and, despite the lack of sources that demonstrate that this could possibly be factual, it must be true because someone is pretty darned sure they have a good memory for something they read once." Or, from a different stance: It does not matter how absolutely certain you are of the truth of an assertion, even if you have personally seen that assertion sourced umpteen times; if you cannot reliably source that assertion, it is fair game for deletion-with-extreme-prejudice here under WP:V and more saliently WP:BLP. That's just the long and the short of it, however harsh it may seem. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am extremely happy that there are the said passages in his book- I just don't have my copy to hand.

--213.202.149.232 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai Masters 2007
He did not get 700 ranking points for this event as he withdrew - this has been updated and should not be changed (check the official world snooker site for confirmation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.153.199 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken/injured foot
Just curious as to why there is no mention of the televised incident during a match when Ronnie kicked a plant pot and broke his foot. Seem to remember he had to play in plaster for a while after that. I suppose it was in the mid to late 90s but unfortunately I can't find any decent sources on the internet to confirm details of time, place and injury. Came to the O'Sull wiki page to actually find out about the incident and obv found nothing so was wondering if anyone had any details they might be able to add to the article. Worthy of inclusion as being a particularly notable event occuring during a snooker match and as one of the earlier episodes in Ronnie's long history of tournament controversies! Sassf (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably not included because editors don't know of it or can't find references for it. Basically if something is reported in the media then the case for public interest has been made IMO and should be included for the sake of completion. WalterMitty (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm flagging this "resolved" because no one's cared to source this in over three and a half years, and the WP:GAN process already stripped this article of tabloid-style, non-encyclopedic claptrap to begin with, so it is unwise to add more of it. O'Sullivan hurting his own foot in a moment of pique has not risen to the level of media scandal that would make this encyclopedic (contrast things like Mel Gibson's anti-semitic drunken outburst incident, for example). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranking
Some one keeps changing Ronnie's ranking (under Tournament wins and career rankings). This list is the Snooker world rankings 2007/2008 were he is 5th NOT 1st as someone keeps changing it to, BUT this is the 3rd time I have had to change it, am I wrong? I suspect the bloke who changes the rankings is refering to the Provisional Rankings, were Ronnie is indeed 1st. [This message was posted by, 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC).]

China comments
I've removed these due to BLP policy, as they were not adequately sourced. If a reliable source can be found then the section should be reinstated. Catchpole (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy to find sources on the web; for example a simple Google search brough up the following link from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/27/snooker.davidhendon.


 * It includes a description of the incident, and also a link to a video (which I haven't watched). I don't want to criticize someone who is clearly trying to keep wikipedia in order, and I know it's important to have things properly sourced. But in a case like this, perhaps doing a quick Google search and including a link is more productive than removing the paragraph in question altogether? 87.113.11.104 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then add them. The fact that sources exist somewhere doesn't make this article sourced. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated this section. Since a link is included to actual footage of the incident itself then it is more than adequately referenced.  It's a newsworthy incident, so is acceptable for inclusion on Wiki.  We don't need a nanny on here, just contributors who can give an unbiased and full facts. There simply isn't a case for not including this information.  WalterMitty (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please cease in your vandalism of this article. You have been removing information without making any sort of argument for doing so.  You first remove the text asking for a reference, and when it is pointed out that the YouTube footage provides adequate validation for the comments you remove this link.  If you have a problem with the section then I suggets you make you case for it here and we will have a vote on it. WalterMitty (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To whom are you writing? "Your vandalism" has no referent. Insisting on proper sourcing and following WP:BLP, one of the most iron-clad policies on the system, in deleting controversial material is not "vandalism" (meanwhile, labeling other editors "vandals" simply because you disagree with them and are involved in an inappropriate editwar with them is uncivil, disruptive, and likely to be taken as a personal attack).  I'm marking this resolved, since the incident has been sourced, finally, and is covered in relevant, not salacious detail. The section's been stable for some time. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullet points
Can the person who keeps bulleting this article please stop doing so? Juux (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Transposed performance table
I transposed the performance table then decided it's worse than the original so didn't actually edit the article. However, here's the transposed table in case anyone wants to use it. It still needs some formatting changes. – b_jonas 18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * - = Did not take part
 * W = Winner
 * F = Finalist (Runner up)
 * SF = Semi Finalist
 * QF = Quarter Final
 * xR = Lost in Round x.
 * DQ = Disqualified
 * FF = Forfeited

Introduction section
Dos the article really need to say he asked a Chinese journalist to perform fellatio on him in the opening paragraph? The incident is covered later in the article in full context. I don't think the introduction need go into specific details. It just needs to outline his standing in the sport and maybe comment that he has been involved in some controversial incidents. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life
Can someone please tell me why my edit of the original reasonably priced car has been removed when it is fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.40.18 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It says "In 2004, he appeared on Top Gear as the "Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car", and finished with a time of 1:47.3 around the test track." The sentence already states that the car is "reasonably price", and this shouldn't represented twice in the same sentence. Armbrust (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well surely it can say in the original car or have some differentiation between current and earlier car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.40.18 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Added that the car was a Suzuki Liana, so we don't need further differentiation. Armbrust (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobbies
I think something about his hobbies could be added, namely running, as that is the one they always mention on the TV. It has some significance in his change in temperament I think and hasn't he done a few marathons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.65.18 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources, no addition. And just because it is sourceable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic (hint: just state the basic facts and don't go into rambling details). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

2007/2008 Section
Mark Williams didn't make a 147 in a deciding frame in the 2005 World Snooker Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.71.17 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was made in the last frame of the match. Armbrust (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/GA1

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)