Talk:Golf

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  [[strict rules]]

  +

  [[Rules of golf|strict rules]]

• Why it should be changed: Strict rules is an unnecessary redirect to Rules of golf that clearly was only meant to be linked to from Golf. I have suggested it be deleted on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion because I am unregistered and cannot directly nominate it, but I think this link should be changed to a direct link to Rules of golf so that Strict rules can be deleted without breaking the link.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): No references required

209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed reference to "strict rules" in this section. It was pointless being there because the reader is not told what "strict rules" means, and no source to support what it says is provided. And the rules of the game are explained in another section. It's also worth noting that the linked article, Rules of golf, neither mentions or explains what "strict rules" is either. So the wikilink was doubly pointless. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason I suggested this was because since the name "Strict rules" is ambiguous and redirects to rules of gold, it is pretty obvious that this redirect is unnecessary. I just wanted it replaced with a direct link. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The number of total golfers globally has increased from 61 million to 66.6 million in a five-year growth period, surpassing the previous high mark of 61.6 million set in 2012. ‘The R&A and Sports Marketing Surveys 14/12/2021’ 2001:8003:9450:4300:28AB:4E27:B411:EAD1 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand golf "does not" use a standardized area, by why "cannot"? Seems unnecessary if not incorrect, nothing about the game inherently requires the area to change. 70.162.40.51 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Strangely, current article lacks the word "expensive" even though golfing equipment, club membership and golf course construction / maintenance are all well-known to be very pricey. Thus golf, just like tennis, are more of social status symbols for the wealthy and influential people, rather than a sport of athletism in the olympic sense of the ancient greeks. Even as sports they are quite pathetic, compared to e.g. road cycling where races go on for up to 3 weeks under rain and heatwave and even the snow of mountain passes. Yet, the article fails to elaborate on the luxury / rich bragging aspect of golf. 94.21.229.156 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Provide reliable, non-opinionated sources and you can add the information yourself. Seasider53 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

After researching the price of a new set of golf clubs, I have found that for a new set, expect to spend anywhere from $1,500 to $3,500 on clubs alone. This does not account for additional equipment nor any membership fees. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewiljanen (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Below, I included several citations for price, and ecological/societal/economic impacts. A section to include all this should be made. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar search for "golf environmental impact" yields several peer reviewed publications. Would a section on the environmental impact of the sport be best as a stand alone category, or should we create a section on "controversies" where we include things like "Sexism," (which has a few sources like ‘Oh no, what are they saying?’: Women in golf reveal the ugly truth about social media) income inequality (one possible source There’s Income Inequality in Golf, Too) and as the IP editor above me commented, how expensive it is (one possible source What does sport really cost? A micro-economic study of the consumer cost of golf and soccer). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we should not have a "controversies" section (see WP:CRITS). Any content must be a balanced view of all sources, not just those that support a particular point of view, or worse, those that are clearly pushing an agenda or draw obviously faulty conclusions (e.g. some participants choose to spend lots of money, therefore participation is expensive). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The article does not reflect a "balanced view" of all sources. As it stands, the page looks like it is essentially written by Golf organizations and not considering the broader societal impact and criticisms of the sport. We include links to "Golf Digest" and "Golf Distillery," and "The Grateful Golfer," not exactly sources I think are presenting a non-bias view of the sport. How would you suggest including this content, especially the environmental impact of the sport? Golf takes considerable land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides to maintain monocultures of invasive grass. The page you link for Wikipedia:Criticism details "controversy sections" as one way to group the content together, with subheadings for each topic. I'm not asking if this content should be included, the fact it isn't needs to be fixed. I'm asking how we should include it.

I'm working on a section for environmental impacts, based on the peer-reviewed literature, and have compiled some sources below for that. In terms of Golf being "expensive," even if the participates aren't spending a lot of money, the sport is expensive from a societal and environmental POV, if you aren't paying a lot for it, subsidies are. See some sources below:

• Analyzing golf course pesticide risk across the US and Europe—The importance of regulatory environment
• A Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf
• What does sport really cost? A micro-economic study of the consumer cost of golf and soccer
• An exploration of golf and voluntary environmental programmes
• Golf, the environment, and development

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A few citations on economic impacts and and societal impacts for a separate section:

• Market Preemption and Entry Deterrence: Evidence from the Golf Course Industry
• What does sport really cost? A micro-economic study of the consumer cost of golf and soccer
• Who is the city for? Sports facilities and the case of Vancouver’s public golf courses
• Golf for all? The problems of municipal provision in the book Science and Golf II
• Do Urban Golf Courses Provide Barriers to Equitable Greenspace Access in the United States?
• Municipal Enterprises: Exploring Budgetary and Political Implications
• Expansion of Golf Courses in the United States*

Also, another citation for environmental impacts:

• Effects of nutrient subsidies from groundwater to nearshore marine ecosystems off the island of Hawaii

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure I would call it a "controversies" section, that would be pushing it to far: but there certainly should be an "Environmental impact" section: Golf manipulates the environment in geographies that normally wouldn't have lawns, that can have outsized impacts across the ecosystem. Maybe a subsection under "golf course?" or at least two meaty paragraphs (one on water and one on other impacts, such as chemical and non-native species use). Sadads (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that there are also sources about the societal and economic impacts of golf, as well as things like racism/sexism and other isms that should be included, in addition to environmental impact. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact way to ask for a change on Wikipedia, this my first time be nice :)

Doing some research and noticed some contradictions in the history of golf section with the some sources. It claims at the end of the section that two scotsmen set up the first American golf club in New York in 1888. However, source 8 states that the first club was in Charleston in 1786 called the South Carolina Golf Club. That clubs website (https://www.countryclubofcharleston.com/our-history) also states that fact.

Can someone with more wiki experience please look into this? 35.131.155.158 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Many golf courses are designed to resemble their native landscape....

Have you actually seen a golf course? They never look like native landscape. 32.221.197.108 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)