Jump to content

Talk:Rafael Nadal/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rafael Nadal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of wins by Rafael Nadal

The wiki page is showing rafa's total winning stats as 806-173 since a month in the box below his photo.The details of Brisbane international is not included. It's 814-176 as per 30 Jan 2017 after Aus Open 2017. Rajankur100 (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of ESPN rankings

PrincetonNeuroscientist, please discuss why you think the ESPN rankings that you presented should be included in the article instead of starting an edit-war. I personally agree with James343e's point that there's a risk of being an element of bias there, because it's a predominantly American channel and not just based there, but more because it covers all sports and isn't a tennis-only kind of venture, and it wouldn't seem fair to include analysis that doesn't come from somewhere solely focusing on tennis. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ESPN is the largest and most valuable sports network in the world. It owns the broadcasting rights to all four grand slam titles. John McEnroe, Chris Evert, Daren Cahill, Cliff Drysdale, Brad Gilbert and countless other American and international tennis legends have exclusive contracts with ESPN. The ranking was decided on by 40 ESPN experts in the field of tennis. Claiming ESPN is not a preeminent and credible source (if not the most credible source) amounts to Anti-American bias, which seems to be your argument at the moment. The editor 4TheWynne has an overt bias for Rafael Nadal as noted on his talk page. That is the sole reason we are engaging in an edit war. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is something that could be included in the article, though not in the lead. It would go under records or perhaps a legacy section such as the Rod Laver article has or a Recognotion section like Björn Borg. ESPN is a legitimate source and in a legacy section it could be balanced with other opinions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Damn – I didn't think of that. OK – let's put all arguments and claims of bias aside for a second. I was personally against having it in the lead as well, not so much the article in general, and I apologise if my previous statements suggested otherwise. If a Legacy section could be created and these rankings could be added to that, instead of standing out where more readers are likely to see that and little else, that seems fairer and would make more sense. I'm all for that idea – it's just difficult considering that such a section doesn't exist yet. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
For me the main thing for all players that fall under this subject is that yes, most of the all-time ranking sources are legitimate sources like ESPN or players. But they are all extremely subjective, most feel current era is best (ceib), most are written by people that didn't see players play in the 1920s-70s, fail to take into consideration what was most important to tennis players during the era they played. The comparisons are really fun and they sell magazines but it's tough for an encyclopedia of facts. But putting these items for Borg, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, etc.. in a section on their place in history, keeps the lead the summary it's supposed to be yet allows some wiggle-room near the end of player articles. Not everyone agrees with me here at Wiki Tennis Project, but it's my opinion. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, it is a good reference and I included it. Thank you for increasing the quality of the article PrincetonNeuroscientist. I added PrincetonNeuroscientist's reference at the final of the sentence "His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest players in tennis history". Anyway, I still think it is likely biased, they will obviously put Sampras over Nadal because of his American nationality. But the main point is not whether it is biased or not. An American TV Channel is not an authority to determine who is the greatest. It is just their opinion, but not enough relevant to put it in the first paragraph. Specially when it is a highly controverted opinion and issue. It is not like 2+2= 4. It is a controversed issue, and they are not an authority. And even if they are an "authority", it's a logical fallacy to claim that their ranking is true just because they say it. Specifically, it is the logical fallacy known as Argument from authority. They didn't write any article or essay explaining their decisions on the ranking, and we have to accept its validity because of their names? "Authorities" have to prove their claims like anyone else.
Nadal vs Borg. There is no way Bjon Borg is greater than Nadal. Borg only won 11 Grand Slams while Nadal 14. Plus Borg never won neither the Australian Open nor the US Open. Nadal has the Career Grand Slam, he won Grand Slams on any surface, meaning he is more complete than Borg.
Nadal vs Djokovic. Djokovic has 12 GS and 0 Olympic Gold Medals while Nadal has 14 GS and 1 Olympic Gold Medal. In the 2008 Olympic semifinals Nadal won over Djokovic in hard court. Nadal also has beaten Djokovic at his prime in the 2013 US Open final when Djokovic was 26 and playing in his favorite surface hard court. Djokovic first have to arrive to 14 GS to be on the same league than Nadal or Sampras.
Nadal vs Laver. Laver was playing in an easiest era. Today there are more professional players. Nobody thinks Wilt Chamberlain is the best for scoring over 50 points per game in an easiest era. Same with Laver. He was playing in an era with less professional players in tennis. And he only has 11 GS. Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, all of them have more than 11 GS, therefore they are arguably better than Laver.
Nadal vs Sampras. As everyone knows Nadal (14 Grand Slams (on any surface), 1 Olympic Gold Medal, and 28 Masters 1000) is better than Sampras (14 GS (never Roland Garros), 0 Olympic Gold Medals and 11 Masters 1000). Nadal doesn't "suck" on any surface, while Sampras "sucked" on clay. Therefore he is a more complete player than Sampras. And with the Olympic Gold Medal that Sampras failed to win. And with 17 more Masters 1000 titles than Sampras.
Sampras SUCKED on clay. He NEVER arrived to a Roland Garros final in his entire career. Even Agassi was a more complete player than Sampras but with much less GS titles. Agassi has the Career Grand Slam. Agassi won the RG and arrived to the finals of RG several times. Plus, Sampras ONLY won 1 Masters 1000 on clay. Only one, while Nadal has won 12 Masters 1000 on hard surfaces. Federer has 6 Masters 1000 on clay and Djokovic has 8 Masters 1000 on clay. There are no possible excuses. Sampras sucked on clay.
You can't eliminate Rafa's Roland Garros tournaments. If Sampras is better why hasn't he achieved the Career Grand Slam (all types of GS) and the Olympic Gold Medal? Because Nadal is better and more complete player, he has won GS on any kind of surface while Sampras never did that. Sampras sucked on clay, while Nadal doesn't suck on any surface.
World Tour Finals are widely considered less relevant than an Olympic Gold Medal. An Olympic Gold Medal is only played every four years. How could anyone compare that to a tournament played every single year on hard surface? No way. Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic, Murray or Tomic say the Olympic medal is so prestigious or even more than a GS. Source:
http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/8213
I wouldn't put an Olympic Gold Medal as relevant as a GS, but for sure is more relevant than any ATP World Tour Final, a tournament played always on hard court and every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years and in different surfaces. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give you any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. You play for your honour and your country, every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal is like the World Cup of Football.
World Tour Masters 1000 are also arguably more relevants than World Tour Finals. World Tour Finals are played every year on hard court, while Masters 1000 are played both on clay and hard court. A player with more Masters 1000 is more complete than a player with more World Tour Finals. A player with World Tour Finals only shows to be dominant in one surface (hard court), not a a more complete or better player. A player with more Masters 1000 shows to be dominant in two surfaces (hard court and clay), therefore more complete.
Grand Slams> Olympic Gold Medal > World Tour Masters 1000> World Tour Finals.
By the way, the number of weeks in the #1 are far less relevant than the number of titles. One player can be the entire year the #1 in the ATP ranking without winning a single Grand Slam, while another player who has won the same year 2 GS doesn't arrive to the # 1 position. Nadal is the only player in the history of tennis who has been ten consecutive years winning at least one Grand Slam. That requires more consistency than 6 consecutive years at the # 1.
So, Nadal (14 GS, 1 Olympic Gold Medal and 28 Masters 1000) is obviously better than Sampras (14 GS (never Roland Garros), 0 Olympic Gold Medals, and 11 Masters 1000).
This is, in my opinion, the historical ranking right now:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
Everyone can have a different opinion. But we cannot put the highly polemic claim that Nadal is worse than Sampras (?), Laver, Djokovic or even Borg (?) just because the "experts" from ESPN say it. It is a logical fallacy, the argumentum from authority. They published that ranking without giving any reason or argument. Therefore I think it is interesting to include their reference (as I did), but not enough relevant to put it in the main text. Thank you again for improving the quality of the article PrincetonNeuroscientist. James343e (talk) 3:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
GOAT is not something one can always calculate with an abacus. There are so many factors such as equipment changes, surface changes, quality opponents, rule changes, tournament importance, etc... Bottom line is you can juggle Federer and Nadal in with Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, Sampras, Budge, Gonzales, and Borg, and they could come out on the top or bottom of that bunch based on different things. They are the best of their respective eras against their peers in the events that were important at the time. Tennis has a rich and long history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to see someone like PrincetonNeuroscientist propose how to word a separate place in history section as opposed to adding the same stuff to the lead that has been reverted by multiple editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. He also needs to stop claiming that every single editor who disagrees with him is edit warring, and telling other editors what to do ([1] [2] [3]) when he's more than capable of doing it himself, as if he owns the article (as harsh as it may sound). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
One thing I would do is to change the sentence in the lead from "with some like Andre Agassi or John McEnroe considering Nadal to be the greatest player of all time" to simply "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest player of all time." The names and quotes I would put below the Personal Life section into perhaps an extra Tennis Legacy section. There I would mention Agassi and McEnroe with the caveat that McEnroe has flip-flopped several times on goat. It's easy to find greatest of all time articles about Federer, Nadal and even Djokovic, yet the same publications can change their tunes with the wind. Federer wins a major after 5 years and boom, the teeter-totter swings back his way. Before that there was much more talk of Nadal and Djokovic. So in legacy sections of any of these players I would make sure that fact is not lost. One may be kinder to the player whose article it is in the fact that you don't list accomplishments of other players in a Nadal article, but you make it known that not all sources agree, even with themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@James343e:, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't conduct original research, nor do we synthesize data into our own conclusions. Deciding which player is the greatest of all time is really outside the scope of the Wikipedia project. So your discussions of Nadal vs Borg, Nadal vs Djokovic, Nadal vs Laver, and Nadal vs Sampras, while they may be absolutely on-point and very insightful, really have no place in this discussion. Ours is merely to say, "Abcde Zyxwv is widely considered to be the greatest Calvinball player of all time", and then to source that statement with multiple of the most reliable Calvinball-coverage sources that back it up. Or perhaps to say, "Fghij Utsrq, a Calvinball legend in his own right, has said that Abcde Zyxwv may just be the greatest Calvinball player of all time." This may help to skirt some of the issues and arguments that are currently being brought up. J♯m (talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New intro and legacy section

I'm playing around on my Nadal sandbox page, trying to make the intro a better summary and moving the majority of info and sourcing into a legacy section. Some administrators here have complained about the length of our tennis player lead sections. Feel free to comment. Maybe everyone will hate it, but I thought I'd try again to help out with the situation. I made the assumption that since all the material is sourced and presented in the legacy section that we would not need all the sourcing above in the summary. I don't do a lot of Nadal editing but I do admit to liking his mental toughness on the court. I figure the legacy section could go just above or below the rivalry section? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would think between the Playing style and Public image sections, as the Public image section is when the article begins to focus less on tennis and more on his other endeavours. That's just my opinion, though. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a minor issue. I'm more concerned with wording, style, balance, fairness, sourcing, etc... I might have to look at the Federer article next since that espn stuff and a few other items should be his his legacy section also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rafael Nadal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

Please change the sentence: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won nine times at Roland Garros

Correct one is: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros Diritol (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Under the 2009: Australian Open title and loss at French Open section, the end of the second paragraph states:

"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the fourth male tennis player—after Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Andre Agassi—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces. This win also made Nadal the first male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time. [85]"

This is incorrect, and the cited article ([85], "Record-breaking Rafa Notches Up Another First". Tennishead. 4 February 2009. Archived from the original on 9 April 2009. Retrieved 4 February 2009.) is also incorrect, as Jimmy Connors never won the French Open, and thus only won a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces. Mats Wilander never won Wimbledon, and therefore also only has a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces.

Please change it to the following, and delete source [85] described just above:

"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the third male tennis player—after Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open)—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces in the Open Era. This win also made Nadal the second male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time, the other being Rod Laver in 1969."

Supporting information: As of the 2009 Australian Open, the only other players to have won a Grand Slam on 3 surfaces in the Open Era are: Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open). Additionally, Nadal is therefore actually the 2nd male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time in the Open Era. As Rod Laver accomplished the same feat during his 1969 Grand Slam. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

While this is outside the scope of this article (as it does not pertain to Nadal), since the 2009 Australian Open, 2 additional players have accomplished this feat: Roger Federer has won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2003 Wimbledon, 2004 Australian Open, 2009 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2008 US Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon). Novak Djokovic has also won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2008 Australian Open, 2011 Wimbledon, 2016 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 French Open).

 Not done Connors won the 1976 US Open on a clay surface and Wilander won the 1983 and 1984 Australian Open on a grass court. --Wolbo (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
And Rod Laver never won a slam on hardcourt... Gap9551 (talk)
In fact, Jimmy Connors also won the US Open on a grass court in 1974 and on hard court in 1978, 1982 and 1983. This means he has the unique achievement of having won the same grand slam tournament on three different surfaces.Tvx1 20:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete or not references.

Hi everyone.

The user Tvx1 did some changes to the page. Of course, I assume good faith and the fact that he is trying to improve the article. He wants to delete the section that initially said "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time". He deleted that initial sentence and according to his new changes now it only says that Nadal is "one of the greates players in tennis history" like Nadal is on the same league as Lendl or Agassi instead of Laver, Federer or Rosewall who are usually in the GOAT discussion. He deleted the sentence "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time" because it only included 2 references of Agassi and McEnroe. McEnroe's reference was incorrect since he said "Nadal and Federer are the greatest tennis players of all time". So in that sense his change was correct.

But then I found other references (author's opinions) and I added them to the page. Somehow, he still managed to deleted those new sources. His main objections are 2.

1) Those authors are "nobodies" or "random people" therefore Wikipedia cannnot include them as reliable evidence.

2) Wikipedia cannot include blogs as reliable sources.

Here is my answer to those objections:

1) That is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument. Specifically, an Argumen ad Hominem is made when a person critizes only the person who makes the argument, instead of his argument itself. In other words, just by critizicing the person who makes the argument, you are not refuting the argument itself. The user Tvx1 just says that they are "not experts" or "ordinary people" in a typical example of Argument ad Hominem.

2) Wikipedia policy allows to cite blogs as reliable sources. Check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. Here you can read that blogs as statements of opinion "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". The Wikipedia Nadal's article only says that ACCORDING TO SOME Nadal is the best, it's their opinion, so of course those are a reliable sources.

In the Federer Wikipeida page it is said that MANY (not only some like Nadal) consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time. But it is their opinion of course. Ken Rosewall can also be considered the GOAT since he has 23 Majors (8 Grand Slams and 15 Pro Slams) while Federer has 19 Majors. The same goes in this Wikipedia article. We are citing the opinion of some authors on Nadal. James343e (talk) 21:04, 50 July 2017 (UTC)

How on earth can you think Wikipedia:Blogs as sources is a policy? It literally states at the top of it that it's a failed proposal. So, the permission of using these kind of sources has actually been rejected by the community. The actual policy in effect is WP:RELIABLE. It contains the following passage in the WP:RSSELF section: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable." That clearly indicates that blogs should not be used. Secondly the WP:UGC section says: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. and Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs). Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. Lastly the WP:RSOPINION section contains the following partially bolded statement: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.
For all these reasons, your sources are utterly unacceptable. They are NOT reliable. Since you are already at WP:5RR, I suggest you revert your edits which are in breach of policy as a proof of good intentions if you want to avoid getting blocked.Tvx1 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Section, "2012," re: Olympics favorite

I propose that the statement "Prior to his withdrawal, Nadal had been touted as the favourite to successfully defend the Gold Medal he won in Beijing four years earlier, despite his early loss at Wimbledon" be omitted. The source is a Bleacher Report blog. MysteryTed80 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your request. Source does indeed not meet our standards for reliable ones. An obvious opinion piece from a fanboy, crucially written before his defeat at Wimbledon.Tvx1 13:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In the header the link for the world number 1 is wrong, use the official atp one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players

It was the one used for the previous world ones such as andy murray, novak and roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.206 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The one listed IS the official ranking site for the ATP. What you proposed is the wikipedia site which is not official at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Paragraph 1 should read " His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players ever, with some considering him the greatest player of all time." Abhisetia (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/five-reasons-rafa-nadal-is-the-greatest-of-all-time/article/2008433 http://www.powersharesseries.com/agassi-says-nadal-could-be-the-goat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/01/28/tennis-podcast-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-greatest-time-says/

Paragraph one should actually have no mention of his subjective placement in history. That should be further down in the narrative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
One rule for Rafa the other for Roger, the debate is still wide open. With Federer's injuries he may never compete competitively in another major again as far as we know. Rafael Nadal at this point has regained the number 1 and only needs 3 out of the 4 major next year or 2 out of the 4 over the next year to pass Roger. It is highly pertinent Rafael Nadal is still openly in the debate about who is the greatest player of all time, not just the greatest player of his era. Even the media is discussing this again since his return back to the number one. Either have this discussion in the lead of both articles or neither article, not one or the other. It's really that simple. One of the greatest of all time puts Rafa in the same league as Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, and Stefan Edberg to name a few and it is clear to everyone at this point in time that Nadal is better than all of those players listed aforementioned. All commentators and serious pundits on the matter attest to that matter also.


I add the timeless Agassi argument:
"If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, 'I'm the best ever,' my first question would be, 'Well, then how come you didn't beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics]"

https://www.si.com/tennis/beyond-baseline/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal

--120.154.164.83 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, in the Federer's article those opinions on his place in history are allowed. Wikipedia rules are universal. You cannot have some rules for the article "Federer" and others for the article "Nadal". I will change it again as I see no reason to delete it. Even in the Spanish Wikipedia article for "Nadal" this sentence that some consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time, is included. I don't see why the English Wikipedia article must be different from the Spanish one in that sense.
I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis. The user Tvx1 changed it the 16th of July of 2017.
I don't see any valid reason why this was changed by the user Tvx1. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dictionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some
Also, the user Tvx1 is starting an edit war. He changes constantly the lead paragrapgh without explaining the reasons of his changes (if any) here.
James343e (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
None of those things should be in the lead sentences of any player. They should be in a legacy section in the player's bio. In that section Nadal's info should certainly say "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time" since we have several sources saying that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You are the one edit warring over this for months and you were even blocked for it. I made just one revert now which does not equate to an editwar. I have explained my edit in my edit summary months ago and I was thanked for it. Not every edit needs a talk page consensus.Tvx1 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Jim Courier and Mats Wilander have also entered into this debate again. Now really just stop with this pure fanatacism which services no benefit to Wikipedia... Fox Sports Australia. --2001:8003:645C:9200:110:86D1:9A87:C526 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That talks about his total of majors, not goat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm going to assume bad faith because you clearly have not even bothered to read the headline... --2001:8003:645C:9200:900C:D8A8:F167:CB64 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You can assume any moronic thing you like, but the headline tells us nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I was blocked only one day, because one day I made 4 editions. I wasn't blocked for the content of my change itself, but for the amount of editions in one day (4). You cannot edit a Wikipedia page more than 3 times every day. On point, the user Tvx1 hasn't discussed why should the lead sentence "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time" be deleted. In response to Fyunck's remark that "none of these things should be in the lead sentences of any player." Well, if you read my intial maessage I say Federer's Wikipeida article includes that statement on the first lines. Wikipedia rules are universal, not different for Nadal and Federer.
As I said, can you Tvx1 explain why do you make your changes. You never explain you changes. You don't debate my reasons for the lead sentence. These are my reasons for the lead sentance:
In the Federer's article those opinions on his place in history are allowed. Wikipedia rules are universal. You cannot have some rules for the article "Federer" and others for the article "Nadal". I will change it again as I see no reason to delete it. Even in the Spanish Wikipedia article for "Nadal" this sentence that some consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time, is included. I don't see why the English Wikipedia article must be different from the Spanish one in that sense.
I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis. The user Tvx1 changed it the 16th of July of 2017.
I don't see any valid reason why this was changed by the user Tvx1. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dictionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some
Can you Tvx1 debate these reasons that supoport my edition? Or will you continue editing without discussing my reasons? You always say "you were blocked". I was blocked for making 4 editions in one day, not for the content of my edition per se. So stop with this excuse. Please explain why do you disagree with the reasons that support my edition.
4TheWynne Please, reply to the specific reasons I write on this message. No one answered the specific reasons I posted here some time ago.
James343e (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content

Also, we have some sort of trolling or sockpuppeting going on here in this conversation. We have user James343e, who was blocked for edit warring this same topic months ago, and a bunch of first time editors (Abhisetia, 120.154.164.83, 2001:8003:645C:9200:110:86D1:9A87:C526, and now 2001:8003:645C:9200:900C:D8A8:F167:CB64). First timers citing rules of wikipedia. Very interesting to say the least. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am Neither a troll nor a sock puppet actually. You can scan my IP record for any other Wikipedia editor you would expect and you will find nothing, zero and zilch. The exact reason why I don't edit on Wikipedia (under a user space) is because of blind fanatics such as yourself. It doesn't matter what the facts are you will find yourself a way to argue yourself back into your jack in the box. You should also try using the edit button to make changes to your own post just like this. I would rather be a second class citizen than redress your incoherent rant. Not to mention your bad faith edits run the risk of failing privacy. Continuing down this line of argument will require me to fill out a request for mediation. I should warn you that calling me a moron does nothing to add to the weight of credibility of your thoughts on this or any other matter on Wikipedia. I attest to the fact above of calling me a moron and throwing your weight around with edits has you coming across as an angry mastadon. --2001:8003:645C:9200:38B1:28:86A8:728B (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to remove this non-helpful trolling post but it was brought back, so I'll leave it to others to deal with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Your attempt to remove my posts is another sign of bad faith. Further disruption on your behalf will find yourself nominated for an ANI. --2001:8003:645C:9200:38B1:28:86A8:728B (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
LOL... quaking in my boots troll. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it's certainly very interesting to read your prolonged rant about consensus here on your talk page. But at the same time your unable to show any signs of good faith that there may be other alternate viewpoints to your own. You also seem to be failing on biting the newcomers. At this point your bad faith accusation that I am nothing more than a troll is even more reason to flag my grievances at ANI to let the community deal with your behavior. Please continue with your behavior so I can get even more evidence of the type of editor that you actually are. --2001:8003:645C:9200:38B1:28:86A8:728B (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck: Read WP:HUMAN & WP:NOTHUMAN before you escalate this any further. You are not being very civil. After one or more editors have disagreed with you, you have automatically assuming that they are 'First Timers', 'Trolls', and 'Moronic'. You attempted to remove a post made by another editor on a talk page discussion you are involved in, and made unfounded claims of Sock-Puppetry. (there is a process for investigating sockpuppets). You should be aware an edit war requires two sides, I'm not making judgment on which side is correct, I suggest you take the opportunity to get a 3O to find out. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Aguyintobooks, take it from me – we've actually found a few sockpuppets at this article and other player articles in the last year or thereabouts, so Fyunck(click) has every reason to feel suspicious (along with anyone else who was involved at the time, like myself). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The one who is not being civil is 2001:8003:645C:9200:38B1:28:86A8:728B...2001:8003:645C:9200:900C:D8A8:F167:CB64... He is the one escalating it, he is the one assuming bad faith... he is the one calling on fanaticism... he is the one saying incoherent rant...nor do I believe he is a newcomer. I could be wrong on the newcomer but his links make me doubt it. When an editor makes personal attacks with a post that does not help the article, I remove it as either soapboxing or trolling. I did not remove it twice but it should be removed. And you are making a judgement on who is being civil and who is not. Also your "edit-war" statement is very confusing as I'm not on a side... I just answered some posts by other editors and then this anon IP starts attacking. So pardon me if I have no clue what you are talking about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
All I am saying is that any Sockpuppet concerns should be followed up, It may be a good idea to file an investigation. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think a trip to WP:SPI is unavoidable at this point.Tvx1 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I have filed an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James343e. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think its incredibly demeaning at this point to claim incivility on my behalf. I have well founded feeings and reasons to claim that the aformentioned poster is acting as an angry mastadon when I have simply stated that there is well founded counter-evidence that Rafael Nadal is either now the GOAT or that he could well be on the road to becoming the GOAT. As I have stated previously this evidence is substatiated by a number of highly regarded former players. I should state at this point IPs are humans also and that you are also an IP. Throwing your weight around and removing my contribution just because I am editing on an IP is also an extreme exemplification of incivility. Either show some good faith or remove yourself from this argument entirely. My patience is wearing thin. This accusatory phase of calling me a troll should have wound up awarded as an ANI contribution by now. However, I am not generally at leisure to go through the process that generally winds up as a bunch of hot air with nothing being solved.
You can run a user check at this point to determine if I am a sock or meat puppet but you will find no such evidence on this IP to found your case. I look forward to the outcomes of this trial and will use the outcome of this case as even more evidence to support my views of the incivility displayed by a certain aforementioned user. --2001:8003:645C:9200:B541:B9D1:32:96CF (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We will see, but if those user accounts also have IP's from Telstra's East Australian IPV6 pool then you could be in trouble. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
If anything its indicative that I have the same ISP, you should read the article that was posted about humans and IPs. Because someone has the same ISP does not mean that they are a sock puppet. I have no idea who this guy is that you are claiming I am -_- You also can't blame my router or my ISP for changing my IP address at any point. As I said in the SPI, this is how the internet works, even for users also. Actually having the same ISP MAY actually be indicative that I am not whoever this James person is.
I have already stated I have no interest in creating an account because of the general incivility of Wikipedians who think they know everything. As someone who is an academic who has created a significant body of work (by myself) I can attest to the fact that there is rarely (if ever) a complete consensus on these sorts of matters that are to do with the biographies of living people. However, each time I think about coming back to edit in Wikipedia I am met by a bunch of people who assume they have the complete answer to everything there is to know about anything.
I am also met wit the incivility/I am not a real person/sock puppet. Now let ourselves think for a second about all of this. If this is how people get treated that don't have "a mate" that is already a part of "old mates Wikipedia club," then do you wonder why people don't want to come here and waste their time editing only to be reverted by "a mate" that's part of "old mates Wikipedia club." At best this is a case of assume no clue at worst its a pure case of incivility. Moreover just because I am smart enough to access Wikipedia:RTFM does not mean that I am a regular editor on Wikipedia. Most places have a friendly manual, you should take that as a point of advice next time you want to make "extremely suspicious" remarks about people you don't know.
I see lots of assumptions and assertions not much proof of anything but hot air.--2001:8003:645C:9200:B18A:B0B5:C3D1:3C88 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

James343e, read the below section – your query was answered more than a month ago. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

James343e, do not add the information back without reaching a consensus. You were already told that the sentence should be placed further down in the article, and that it shouldn't be in the lead section of Federer's article, either. What more do you want to be told? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Article too long

This confused me – while I definitely think that the removal/summarisation of the rivalries section could at least be considered, as each rivalry mentioned already has its own article, I was under the impression that articles for most big-name/long-time tennis players were supposed to be quite long. Every other section – from the section on his playing career to the sections on his image and off-court stuff (heck, we still haven't even added a legacy section yet) – seem pretty essential to me. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say big-name tennis player articles are supposed to be quite long, but the fact is, all of them are. My biggest beef in length is the detail of each year. Because they won a major they get a seasonal article for fine detail. That's fine and dandy, but when the detail is moved to the seasonal article it should be REMOVED from the main article. 2010 for instance should be highlighting Nadal's victories in a couple of paragraphs instead of being 18 paragraphs long! That's why we have a seasonal articles for players who have won a major. Sections can be longer in years they don't warrant an extra seasonal article. Federer, Nadal and Williams should be more in line with Navratilova, Evert and especially Steffi Graf. Graf needs seasonal articles created for all her best years, but we wouldn't expand her main article because of it. To be honest, this article could be cut in half. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
There currently is 86kB of readable prose. That's a lot, but not yet what WP:SIZE considers too much.Tvx1 13:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia also says that "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries." But it isn't just page size. We have an article Fountain pen with 33k of readable prose. Sure we could fill it with bloat so it's 86k and it would be under the WP:SIZE limit you described, but the the fact would be it has way too much bloat. The Nadal article is similar, especially since the sections in question have articles of their own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who tagged the page as too long yesterday, hoping to incite some discussion. I'm glad we are talking about this; what I would say, is look at irrelevant information and then chop that. As many of these sections have their own article, indeed, there is much here than can be felled. Obviously, it is worth looking for some informal consensus about what to get rid of, starting with irrelevant content which already has a separate article. Don't cut down an article because it is too long, cut down on the bloat and irrelevant crap. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: As a matter of consideration, I would have liked to been pinged about this or informed in some way. (am I not invited to the party?? ) My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, since you added the tag it would be assumed you are watching the page. I wouldn't have pinged you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
And that's exactly why I didn't. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright. No worries. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe that we should start with the rivalries section, then, as that was the first section put on the table (when I started the discussion). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

GOAT

It is very clear from the sources that the debate over GOAT revolves around two men: Nadal and Federer. Therefore, i see nothing controversial with noting this in the article for Nadal, especially when Federer's lead has the following: "Many players and analysts consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." Wikipedia shouldn't support double standards. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It was the case that it was on both pages for quite some time (it still is on the Spanish Wikipedia), until a series of edits by some parties including those listed above sort to remove it from the records without discussing why on this talk page. At this point I am at paints to set up a third opinion or RFC because everybody involved in the process that doesn't get their way ends up jilted and there is always someone out there that comes back some time later to try to create a new consensus. This in turn gets nowhere and everyone gets angry, and all we end up with is more popcorn vendors getting their money worth.
In a simple world I see no problem with stating this. The most common pseudonym for this is Fedal and it is more a love affair for both players than a rivalry. Unfortunately, some people have a particular agenda leading to Wikipedia:NPOV qualms and even if a respected third opinion such as Andre Agassi, or John McEnroe, or Mats Wilander raise this possibility as prominent TV presenters it gets shuffled aside by people who can't catch a trick that there may well be another opinion out there other than the one that agrees with their cognitive bias. So this in turn is why we go round in circles and why people like me get labelled as a troll, or sock/meat puppet for pushing an agenda where there is really no agenda to be had. Just a bunch of people who are more credentialed than most people here to answer the question who are raising it to begin with.
As much as I state that the voices be heard, the more aggrieved the other party seems to want to get above. In practice we should accept through editing that we come to a natural conclusion, but in as much of the hypocritical nonsense above this is rarely the case. Where questions are raised about how the GOAT could lose so often to Nadal or even Djokovic they get shuffled away. Where questions are raised about how the supposed GOAT has never won the most prestigious individual sports award in the world (an Olympic gold medal in singles tennis) they also get shuffled away. Where a personal question of intrigue of how the supposed GOAT has only won the French Open once gets raised it gets shuffled away. Where a question of actual major and pro tour wins v. the actual GOAT Rod Laver is raised, it gets shuffled away.
You see some people have a hard time dealing with cognitive dissonance and other people's opinions I can waive the pacifist flag around and state we should include the aforementioned people in this discussion but I can't force that horse to drink water. They have to want to drink it for themselves. --2001:8003:645C:9200:257C:3423:CE57:E691 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's a thought: if you have such a problem with the way Wikipedia works and the people on here – people who are trying to do the right thing – then why are you still here? Your arguments are valid, but you need to drop the attitude. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Even though the premise is wrong (there are certainly more than two in the discussion), I have always said it should be mentioned. My beef is only where it should be mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the premise then discuss it rather than engaging in tendentious editing, calling people trolls, and sock/meat puppets. Life would be so much simpler if people did not engage in such behavior. We would all be glad to here you cite your case with credible evidence.
As to my being here, the only reason why I'm here right now is this ongoing dispute. The sooner this is dealt with properly, the sooner I will have no real reason to be here --2001:8003:645C:9200:1C3D:F0D0:3440:E85F (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's get back to the discussion at hand, then. The reason why I reverted the most recent addition is because the source that was added was a blog, and wasn't reliable – by the looks of things, the other sources that were later added were quite similar, however they talked about the dispute without addressing who they thought was the greatest. The statement itself has now been removed by another editor but the sources remain, so now we're back to where we started. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Above attack trolling aside, I came here to answer a set of queries by first time (only time) editor Abhisetia, and brand new editor 120.154.164.83, and then James343e. We have some sources that have called Nadal the greatest ever. All these greatest ever water cooler topics are fun but unbelievably subjective when you talk of tennis history. It is not very encyclopedic. They can surely find their way into legacy sections, since that's what the legacy sections are for, and I think Nadal deserves one like Rod Laver's. These subjective non-encyclopedic entries shouldn't be in the lead, and really have no place in the first paragraph of the lead section. I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the body of the article, as long as it's worded properly and can be sourced to a non-blog. That's my thoughts on the issue as I said early on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I repeat: Federer's lead has the following: "Many players and analysts consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." Why is it allowed on Federer's article? If it's not allowed for Nadal then it should also be removed from Federer's as speedily. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It is at Federer's and it shouldn't be... two wrongs don't make a right. However it is not in the lead paragraph at Federer's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
All correct, however if that statement is still at Federer's article at this point, then it could very well be because it has the right sources to support the statement, as this article seemingly lacks – hence the removal and discussion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tvx1 11:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Fyunck, I'll repeat it one more time, calling me a "troll" serves very little other than for me to call you a hypocrite. It's not the done deal. In fact, I have stated if you persist with this behavior I'll haul you in front of an ANI. I have used no such language in any discussion with yourself.
The issue with this is transparent, if you want to claim that it shouldn't be in the lead section of Nadal's Wikipedia page on the basis of style then neither should it be in the lead of Federer or Djokovic, or anyone else's lead. Unfortunately we have variants of the phrase one of the greatest ever in no less than the page for Stefan Edberg, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras among others. Meanwhile perhaps the greatest ever even according to Federer himself Rod Laver does not have a definitive statement that he may be the GOAT and if we go by Pro Tour and Open championships he still is the GOAT by a long way. We have an issue here. We know Roger himself idoloizes Rod Laver, we have a bunch of (perhaps) younger people who would have been lucky to see the tail end of Borg, Edberg, Lendel, Connors, McEnroe's career etc born in the late 70s or early 80s, we have a bunch of people born in the 90s that would have been lucky to have seen Sampras, Courier and Agassi playing at their best.
This modern debate as to whether Federer has surpassed a number of those "modern" players is transparent, the issue that he is the GOAT compared to previous eras who played with different racquets and styles to modern players is far less so transparent even if the argument can be ever be closed. In the mean time Wikipedia is not a forum for these kinds of debates.
What is left to be said? Federer has the title of definitive GOAT on Wikipedia, meanwhile we have people like myself who admire greatness and yet? There are so many issues listed above as to why its an interesting trivia piece but it should not be in the lead of Federer's Wiki, or if it is it should it should be in the discussion no less of quite a few other players, not withstanding Nadal. I think I stated above, the Agassi argument, though not in full which has been going on for years now. That being if Federer is the GOAT then why does he have a losing record against Nadal, and no Olympic Gold. Most sane and rational people would take an Olympic gold over a tour finals win and anyway, Nadal may yet get his tour finals win this year. Without Djokovic, Murray, or Federer being at their best I digress under crystal ball.
The point is that with so many questions there is no reason to have this in any tennis players lead other than blind fanaticism that Federer is any more deserving of the title of GOAT than Nadal, or Laver or anyone else in that question and if many consider Federer to be the GOAT as do "many" consider Laver and "some" on the basis of deficit, and also on the basis of "evolution" consider Nadal to be the elusive GOAT such include Courier, McEnroe, Agassi and Wilander at certain points in commentary. This is really an anachronism from other sport such as baseball, and basketball anyway. It has no real basis of being here in this Wiki or in any other. But if we're going to have it there is probably three players listed here in Nadal, Federer and Laver that are more deserving the most and they should probably be represented in their respective pages. --2001:8003:645C:9200:A0B2:29F4:8BAC:8F48 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It's hilarious how this comment now looks two months later with a "not at his best" Federer having dealt another defeat to Nadal, his fifth out of five meetings this season and sixth in a row, and with Nadal having failed to win the World Tour Finals yet again.Tvx1 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rafael Nadal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

77.59.248.2 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: You didn't provide any details of s proposed edit, so it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Begoon 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mistake in grand slam table

There is a mistake in table of grand slams. Rafa has 3 losses in Roland Garros ('09, '15, '16) hence 79-3, not 2 as stated in the table's summary column (79-2). This also changes win percentage 97,5% to 96,3% and overall percentage too. Since article is locked i can not change it. 193.77.226.65 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No it’s correct. A walkover does not count as a loss (or win).Tvx1 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambidextrous =/= Crossdominance

This is a small point but as someone who is left handed with writing, bows, rifles, guitar and left footed with football but right handed with pretty much everything else, I don't think ambidextrous is the correct term for Nadal (if he too is of a similar disposition).

People always say to me 'So, you're ambidextrous are you?'. No, I only wish I was :) The fact is I can't hit a tennis ball to save my life with my left hand nor kick a ball with my right foot. I think the term is Cross-dominance.

He is neither. He is naturally right-handed and footed, but taught himself to play left-handed for Tennis.Tvx1 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Charts for YECs and Olympics on main page

The reason the career stats charts were created was to keep all the technical charts on a stats page. Originally we only had a condensed grand slam only performance timeline on the player's main article, with the rest being put on the career stats article. A few players have somehow gotten the full grand slam chart added. That's ok I guess, though I wouldn't add it. But we certainly don't need any more than that. Year-end, Olympics, Masters 1000, Davis Cup, etc.... those charts should be on the career stats article only. It should be more like Steffi Graf or Rod Laver... or at most like Justine Henin. Those are longstanding consensus. This is also being discussed at Talk:Roger Federer‎. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actual practice on Wikipedia does not show that your personal preference is any sort of consensus at all.
Of the 46 male tennis players who both (1) have participated in YECs since 1970 and (2) have both a main page and a stats page on Wikipedia, 24 of them -- a majority -- have year-end championship finals tables and/or YEC performance timelines on the main page, as of yesterday (Djokovic and Murray both had them before you and another user deleted them over the last few hours). Those 24 players are: Djokovic, Murray, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Nastase, Vilas, L. Hewitt, Kuerten, Del Potro, Costa, Nalbandian, Gaudio, Ljubicic, F. Gonzalez, Ferrer, Gasquet, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych, Dimitrov, Goffin. (The 22 players out of these 46 who did not have YEC finals tables and/or performance timelines on their main pages as of yesterday are: Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wawrinka, Rafter, Safin, Roddick, Cilic, Ferrero, Raonic, Davydenko, Robredo, Verdasco, Nishikori, Thiem, Monfils, Zverev.)
And more than "a few" players have Grand Slam finals tables. In fact, a vast majority of the 46 players (39, by my quick and rough count) listed above have these finals tables.
The information that has been added to these main pages is valuable and appropriate, in my opinion. What has been added is just a small fraction of the information contained in the often incredibly voluminous stats pages -- just the information concerning the two highest tiers of men's tennis tournaments (Grand Slams + YEC). (I'm of the opinion that Olympics finals results should be included as well, given the broad general interest in Olympics results.) The charts are at the bottom of the articles and do not make navigation more difficult; in fact, it just makes this rather small amount of information considerably more accessible. It seems to me a bit extreme and needlessly rigid -- and without any real logical purpose or net benefit to the reader -- to require that even information about these most prominent events and achievements be excluded from the main page. João Do Rio (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Greatness RfC that may affect this article

Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Please change from ten to eleven montecarlo title in the below statement.

"Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros,[247] ten times at Monte Carlo, ten times at Barcelona and seven at Rome."

Source https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/22/rafael-nadal-wins-record-monte-carlo-masters Helloprak (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

Rank No :2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

No. 2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: Rankings aren't updated until Monday.Tvx1 15:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Change

"By Wining the French Open, "

to

"By Winning the French Open," Helloprak (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: First *Men's* teenage winner since Sampras

Please change the following statement to indicate that this stat only applies to the Men's game, as Sharapova had won at Wimbledon the previous year (aged 17):

"He also became the first teenager to win a Grand Slam singles title since Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open at age 19.[40]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.134.114 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to introductory paragraph

Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[c]

The above is the original text. This should be:

Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat and continued success on all surfaces has led some former players and tennis analysts to consider him the greatest player of all time.

Evidence: - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/agassi-goat-id-put-nadal-no-1-federer-no-2/51390/

By former world number 1 Andre Agassi

- http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/_/id/23519665/tennis-take-rog-why-maria-sharapova-thinks-rafael-nadal-goat

By former world number 1 womens player Maria Sharapova

- http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat

ESPN Tennis Analyst

- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/06/11/goat-debate-fair-fight-rafael-nadal-would-far-ahead-roger-federer/

Telegraph Newspaper Sports Analyst

- https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javongarixa11111 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, by recent consensus, we aren't supposed to use "greatest of all time" for ANY tennis (or sports) player at all. As with Rod Laver, we are only supposed to be using "one of the greatest players of all time" and that's it. So the point makes no difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course I respect that. May I ask why Roger Federer's article says 'greatest of all time' in this case, if that's the policy after all? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javongarixa11111 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
For correct usage, it is not Policy. Policy at Wikipedia is for very specific editing rules. Down from policy we have Wikipedia Guidelines, but guidelines don't work for every case, or perhaps overlap when you have football guidelines vs biography guidelines. At that point wikipedian get together to talk things out and form a consensus on what to do. The consensus formed at the Rod Laver talk page was as I mentioned. We should try not to use "greatest of all time" because it's too subjective, time period heavy, and tougher to source. It's much better to say "one of the greatest" for all these players. Of course changing it in an article without getting reverted is always tricky. Federer is one of the greatest tennis players of all-time, Nadal is considered one of the greatest clay court players of all-time. Much better in an encyclopedia context. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear Fyunck(click). Thanks for your comments. Sorry, but there is no consensus still, Federer's article also has a mention saying he is "the greatest player of all time". It is a double standard logic to allow Federer to have it in his article and not Nadal.
Sorry but some sources say he is "one of the greatest", while others say he is "the greatest of all time". We must separate these two different categories of sources to avoid being intentionally misleading. We are not saying Nadal is the GOAT, we are saying that some tennis legends and some tennis analysts consider him to be the GOAT (which is true, some consider it, as the sources indicate).James343e(click) (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs)
There was a more recent consensus done at the talk page of Rod Laver, with multiple other articles being informed, for the exact same type of thing. It was ruled not to use the term in an encyclopedia. Federer should not have it either, but it was never changed. Laver does retain those quotes and such in his legacy section, "Place among the all-time great tennis players." Anything of that sort should be the same with Nadal... not in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
What I did was add a legacy section for old quotes and subjective stuff. Otherwise it shouldn't say more in the lead than the consensus Rod Laver article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
You lack credibility and look 100% biased from the very moment that you only make these changes in the Nadal page, not the Federer one. Also, there is no consensus as I wrote in the Laver Talk Page.
No consensus until we stop using DOUBLE STANDARD LOGIC. The user Fyunck(click) intentionally follows a double standard logic. So we can't add that "some consider him to be the greatest of all time" in the lead section right? But then you see the Federer article (which still shows the "many consider him the greatest of all time" in the lead section) and he doesn't change it. He only changes the Nadal article in that sense, which shows how biased he is. Either we do not allow ANY player to have "some (or many) consider him to be the greatest of all time" in the lead section or we allow EVERY great player to have this in their respective articles' lead section. Unless you delete in Federer's lead section the "many consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time" I won't tolerate people deleting the "some consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time". Also, the Wikipedia articles for football players like Maradona, Pelé or Messi also have the "some consider him to be the greatest football player of all time" sentence in the lead section of their respective articles. So there is no such rule that forbids including those claims in the lead paragraph of sport players.
Dear Fyunck(click). Please put a "Legacy" section in the Federer article and ONLY there put that many consider him to be the greatest of all time. If you don't do it, I won't tolerate your biased editing following one logic for Nadal and other for Federer. James343e(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs)
Dear whatever name or ip you're using today. You do it! I tried and failed. Maybe you'll have better luck. I agree that Federer seems to get different allowances in the term vs Laver or Nadal or many others. There is consensus on the Laver page not to use them. I tried to include the quotes you wanted for Nadal in the legacy section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Fyunck(click). I'm not the one using a DOUBLE STANDARD CRITERION. I allow the Federer page to have the "many consider him the best player of all time" in the lead section and I also allow the "some consider Nadal the best player of all time" in the lead section. I follow THE SAME CRITERION in all cases, not only for Nadal. But you use a criterion for Federer and another for Nadal. You delete the "some consider Nadal to be the greatest player of all time" from the lead section, but you allow it on the Federer page. You put a legacy section in Nadal's page, but don't do it in the Federer page. That's a DOUBLE STANDARD. If you delete the "some consider Nadal the best player" from the lead section, you should also delete the "many consider Federer the best player" from the lead section of his article. If you add a legacy section to Nadal article, do the same with Federer.
More on the logical fallacy of double standard:
Double Standard
Description: Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. This is used in argumentation to unfairly support or reject an argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/227/Double-Standard
James343e(talk)

You are using a double standard when compared to Laver. Federer isn't the only article on wikipedia, but if you don't like his article, fix it. I tried one and failed. I complained about a double standard at Laver and was shouted down with consensus saying the term should not be used. So don't add even more non-consensus stuff to Nadal. We can leave it as it was, or move some quotes to a legacy section, but per Laver talk we aren't adding even more subjective stuff to the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And that consensus that was reached at Laver's talk page wasn't confined to just Laver. Nadal and Federer articles were also informed so they wouldn't be in the dark about the RfC. In fact, I just tried it again at the Federer article. So leave your bias and past wiki-clones at the door. There's no room for it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus at Laver's talk page, I wrote there and I expressed my disagreement. I do not employ a double standard with Laver. Can you find a contemporary article (from 2018) saying that Laver is/may be the greatest of all time? If you find a 2018 article saying it, for me it is fine to include in the lead section that Laver is considered by some the greatest of all time. But it seems to me that after Nadal's 17 th Grand Slam in 2018, and specially after Federer's 20th Grand Slam in 2018, no tennis analyst still consider Laver to be the greatest of all time. Again, I'm not biased, I just haven't found any contemporary (from 2018) article suggesting that Laver is the greatest of all time.
It is interesting to note that you (probably not intentionally) displayed a double standard with Federer and Nadal again. You included a legacy section in Federer's article but deleted it from Nadal's article. Either we include a legacy section in BOTH articles or we don't include it in any article. I will include the legacy section in both articles. Laver also has a legacy section.
With regard to the "many (or some) consider him to be the greatest of all time" in the lead section... there is nothing wrong with including that in the lead section of Federer and Nadal articles. The Wikipedia articles for Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Maradona, Messi and Pelé include it in the lead section. If other sports like basketball or football include it, why not tennis? I will include the "many (or some) consider him to be the greatest of all time" in both articles. I will put "some" in Nadal's article and "many" in Federer's article.
There is also nothing wrong with including both the "many (or some) consider him the best" in the lead section, and also including later a more detailed legacy section.
One last point: you say that neither of our edits was original. But then again, the "some consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time" was the original lead section which was changed after Federer won Wimbledon 2017.James343e(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
You cannot declare a consenus non-existant just because you disagree with it. The consenus is clear so please respect Wikipedia’s processes. This “some say greatest” don’t improve these articles any bit. It’s weasel wording.Tvx1 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course there are contemporary... Federer just called Laver the greatest ever. But that was not the only point about the Laver discussion. The term GOAT is very subjective. Billions of people on the planet, 140 years of tennis, the fact that peoples tendency is to think the current era is best (ceib), etc... It makes subjective comparisons better in a legacy section rather than the lead. But now I see I changed the Federer article and you still aren't satisfied. Why am I not surprised. I put Nadal back to how it was before your and my editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no consense if some of the editors disagree. Why is the opinion of some editors superior to others? Consensus = everybody agrees. Someone disagress = no consensus. Anyhow, I included a legacy section just like Federer's article has a legacy section as well. In Federer's legacy section it is said that many consider him the greatest of all time, so I added that some consider Nadal the greatest of all time in Nadal's legacy section. If we want to avoid a double standard, it should stay like that. James343e(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It’s obvious you have no clue what consensus means. Consensus is not by any means unanimity.Tvx1 18:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice of you to claim a legacy section which I had already done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I have read through the legacy section of this article and really can’t see how the “greatest ever” paragraph contains encyclopedic writing let alone has encyclopedic value. How are Bryan Armen Graham and André Snellings important making their opinion worth citing here? A close look at the former’s shows that (just like Agassi’s) it’s pretty obsolete. It strems from 2013 and does not take into account Nadal losing huis last five matches against Federer, not even reaching a grand slam quarterfinal from WIM 2015 until AO 2017 and no semifinal from WIM 2014 until AO 2017 (the latter spanning 10 tournaments), not reaching a Wimbledon quarterfinal since 2011 (losing to a couple of players ranked 100 or lower in the process), while Federer won another 3 grand slam titles (2 outside of Wimbledon) and regained the no 1 ranking aged 36. I don’t see how a Sharapova tweet has any encyclopedic value either. It’s just POV pushing through synthesis of cherry-picked sources. The Federer article has more encyclopedic statement of the kind (though nowhere near the same amount of attention given to it), but even that one does not really improve the legacy section IMHO. I’d rather have none of the mentioned articles containing these GOAT statements at all. They’re just not encyclopedic. Let the readers make their own conclusions.Tvx1 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I would think that as long as a quote is specifically given in past tense, or a year is given, it will be hard to keep the general editing population from putting it in. I've tried. I do feel you are correct though. Things like biography.com and britannica.com say lots about Federer and Laver but leave them as "One of the greatest tennis players in history." That's all we should be saying in this encyclopedia for all the great tennis players. Water cooler comparisons are really fun but have no place at wikipedia. Every decade old-time tennis players and writers pick their greatest players, and every 10 years they change. The sport has also changed a great deal so straight on comparisons are impossible. Priorities of what's important to win has also changed. It's all fun but not encyclopedic. I wish all the articles would simply give the list of accomplishments and if appropriate say "one of the greatest players in history." Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a lead template?

@Paulinho28: added a lead template to this page. Why? At a cursory glance, nothing seems particularly wrong. Fluous (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been a month since I asked this question and nobody can say why the templates were added. The person who added the templates has not responded, despite being pinged. And there has been zero discussion about the templates here. Therefore, I have removed the templates. Fluous (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Spelling correction

"five-story apartment building" should be "five-storey apartment building

 Not done Both are correct, depending on variety of English. Gap9551 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph was changed without a solid reason after Federer's 8th Wimbledon.

I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis.

I don't see any valid reason why this was changed. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dcitionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.

Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some


James343e (talk) 21:04, 10th September 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I agree with you. 

Parv Neema (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafael_Nadal/Archive_9&oldid=1136375872"