Talk:1999 Ryder Cup

Fair use rationale for Image:RyderCup1999Logo.gif

Image:RyderCup1999Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Ryder Cup. 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/20141006074322/http://2014rcmediaguide.com/2014RyderCupMediaGuide/ to http://2014rcmediaguide.com/2014RyderCupMediaGuide/

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) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sections on controversy

I've always been uneasy with the way the "Pre-match tensions and aftermath" and "17th green incident" sections are written. They were added by an IP user in 2013, after which Tewapack cleaned them up somewhat and added references. There are still obvious problems with grammar, tone, and neutrality:

Jeff Maggert being one of the worst offenders when (at the time ranked 18 in the world) lavishly and outspokenly said "lets face it, we've got the worlds' 12 best players".

When Leonard's putt went in, almost the entire U.S. team and some fans ran onto the green to congratulate him being completely oblivious to the fact should Olazábal hole his putt then the match would technically still not be over. Many of the players and camera crew who ran onto the green to film the incident allegedly walked over the putting line of Olazábal which goes against the etiquette of golf, however no video evidence exists to prove either way.

I've never done anything to fix these sections because they seem like they need to be completely rewritten. Does anyone have ideas on how they can be improved? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 16:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We also have a section at Ryder_Cup#1999: Battle of Brookline. One of the problems is that some on both sides of the pond have different views on the matter. However, from our perspective we need to stick to the facts and remove the hyperbole like "lavishly and outspokenly" and "being completely oblivious to the fact". I would just go for it if you fancy doing a rewrite. Nigej (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)