Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Roger Federer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Clarification for one of the greatest player Federer.
The references are outdated and I have found a much recent one that puts it in debate that after being defeated to his 2nd best player of the generation, he is one of the great but not the greatest. Only the slams do not count, overall stats has to be taken.Please check this: http://debatewise.org/debates/898-roger-federer-is-not-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time Seaboy123 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean they are outdated. It's been quite a few years since Federer has been in his prime. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- "[T]he slams do not count, overall stats has to be taken [into account]." What a typical response from a Federer basher. If we were to use your logic and ignore Grand Slams records (which are the most important tennis events that determine who is the GOAT) Federer would still beat out every player. Most hard court titles, most grass court titles, most consecutive tournament finals won, most consecutive weeks at No. 1, most consecutive wins on grass court and hard court and 6 year–end championship titles, to name a few. Head–to–head records are the weakest way to measure a player's greatness. Even Nadal himself admits that H2H are "a part of the statistics, but is not the decisive element." Plus, Davydenko has a 6–4 record against Nadal (which include winning the last 4 matches between the two). Does that mean he's better than him? And including GS records, Federer is the only player ever to win 5 consecutive titles at two different GS tournaments. That's true domination. Nadal has not been able to 5 consecutive titles at his beloved French Open and Borg did it at Wimbledon only. To top that off, Fed is the only player to have won 4+ titles at 3 GS tournaments. When another player (be it Nadal or Djokovic) is able to match that kind of domination, those kind of records, then we'll start to discuss the greatest player of all time. Not until. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Opinion, Federer who I admire and is the most complete and beautiful to watch all surface competitor I have seen in the last 30 years with Nadal becoming that (all surface only) not beautiful to watch its just pounding opposition into submission, Djock (wait and see), his records and slams stand they cannot be taken away from him that's just fact, but during his main dominance run (2003-09) he certainly had less serious competitors to contend in the top 10 for those consecutive years. Something to muse over. For my generation Borg who I also admire certainly had more notable competition to contend with during his his dominant run (1974-81) in all he had to face or contend with continually during his run 13 different Grand Slam Champions holding a total of 50 GS singles titles between them, he always had an average of at least 5 Grand Slam champions in the top 10 each year of his run. Fed by comparison during his dominant run (2003-09) in all he had to face or contend with 8 different Grand slam champions in the top 10 holding holding 21 Grand Slam titles between them with an average of 3 Grand Slam champions each year in his top 10 and certainly only 2 from 06 onwards. Borg the greatest (one of) Federer the greatest (one of). Fed title record breaker yes can't argue with it that happend did have less competiton to claim those records yes that's a fact the bottom line!! Gifted exceptional player (yes) who was in the right place at the right time who's run to 16 GST's was never really challenged because the only serious threat he faced at the beginning of his run was Agassi in 2003 when Agassi's 8GS career winning was over and really from 09 onwards when Nadal takes over from him then we have in 2011 Djokovic replacing him as Nadals new Federer. --Navops47 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment.Records he doesn't hold Calender Year 'The Grand Slam' Laver two times, most consecutive Major titles Budge six, Most consecutive AO's Emerson five, Most consecutive FO's Nadal Borg four, Most consecutive WIM's Renshaw six, Most consecutive USO's Sears seven, Most AO's Emerson six, Most FO's Nadal Borg six, Most WIM's Renshaw Sampras seven, Most USO's Tilden Larned and Sears seven. Most career titles won Laver 200, Longest Match winning streak Tilden 95, Most Year end championships McEnroe eight to name a few not that I'm stiring things up but look at the Big Picture of tennis history which are hoping to provide readers with shortly and last Most Major's GSlam's and Pro Slams and here Majors technically Rosewall 23.
- Opinion, Federer who I admire and is the most complete and beautiful to watch all surface competitor I have seen in the last 30 years with Nadal becoming that (all surface only) not beautiful to watch its just pounding opposition into submission, Djock (wait and see), his records and slams stand they cannot be taken away from him that's just fact, but during his main dominance run (2003-09) he certainly had less serious competitors to contend in the top 10 for those consecutive years. Something to muse over. For my generation Borg who I also admire certainly had more notable competition to contend with during his his dominant run (1974-81) in all he had to face or contend with continually during his run 13 different Grand Slam Champions holding a total of 50 GS singles titles between them, he always had an average of at least 5 Grand Slam champions in the top 10 each year of his run. Fed by comparison during his dominant run (2003-09) in all he had to face or contend with 8 different Grand slam champions in the top 10 holding holding 21 Grand Slam titles between them with an average of 3 Grand Slam champions each year in his top 10 and certainly only 2 from 06 onwards. Borg the greatest (one of) Federer the greatest (one of). Fed title record breaker yes can't argue with it that happend did have less competiton to claim those records yes that's a fact the bottom line!! Gifted exceptional player (yes) who was in the right place at the right time who's run to 16 GST's was never really challenged because the only serious threat he faced at the beginning of his run was Agassi in 2003 when Agassi's 8GS career winning was over and really from 09 onwards when Nadal takes over from him then we have in 2011 Djokovic replacing him as Nadals new Federer. --Navops47 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from Navops. Don't worry, you're not stirring things up. We just have to remember how much the game of tennis has evolved over the years.
- Just looking at Renshaw's record of consecutive Wimbledon titles that you posted above. We must not forget that he only had to play one match (i.e. the Challenge Round) for 5 of those tournaments (as he was the defending champion).
- Only 40 out of Laver's 200 titles are recognized by the ATP.
- Furthermore, his calendar–year Grand Slams came when 3 of the 4 GS were played on grass courts. It's no surprise that Laver had an easier time accomplishing a GS compared to nowadays, where Fed "only" had a career GS that entailed playing on grass, clay and two distinct hard court surfaces (AO Rebound Ace & Plexicushion and the US Open DecoTurf).
- Nadal and Borg's FO titles (consecutive and overall): again, Federer is being "punished" for being the second best clay court player in his era (while being the best on grass and hard). Evident in the fact that Fed and Nadal met in 3 FO finals (2 when Fed was in his prime). In contrast, Fed and Nadal have never met at the US Open (let alone the final). And Fed's 2 meetings with Nadal in the AO came after his prime (i.e. post–2007)
- Lastly, 5 of Emerson's 6 titles came when pros like Laver and Rosewall were banned from playing in the Majors. Those two would have certainly challenged (if not won) the AO at least once during that time had they been allowed to compete.
- Anyways, point is, Federer has undoubtedly emerged as the most complete player out of all who played in the Open Era. And please note that I am not excluding/victimizing tennis players solely base on the fact that they played pre–Open Era. However, since the Open Era provided the most "equal ground" in that it allowed both pros and amateurs to play, the argument can also be made that Federer is the Greatest of All Time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Plus it's not like wikipedia itself is dubbing Federer the greatest of all time, it's a multiple source thing. Pete Sampras has the following line with sources in his article, "many regarded Sampras as the greatest player of all time." And Pancho Gonzales has "Many people connected with the game, however, consider Gonzales to be the best male player in tennis history." So it's not unusual to have those types of sourced lines. Most of the time for our articles the sources say "one of the greatest" so that's what gets put in an article... but in this case it is more specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all points made the opening comment "slams don't count" was a bit of a silly thing to say. I did say records were made and stand (fact) can't be taken away the same applies to previous comment but what (real) competition (open era) was around when those records were happening. One of the most exciting years in men's tennis for my generation was (1985) when you had the top 6 looking like this holding or having won Major's 1. Lendl (French & US Open Champion) 2. McEnroe (Won 7 Majors) 3. Wilander (Won 4 Majors) 4. Connors (Won 8 Majors) 5. Edberg (Australian Open Champion )6. Becker. (Wimbledon Champion) imagine watching an ATP World Tour top 6 with that sort of caliber today.
- A little further back when I was a small 9 year old (1974) and actually even more impressive is the ATP top 10 today looking like this one (by the way this was the year Connors was in his run) 1. Connors (Australian, Wimbledon & US Open champion), 2.Newcombe (6 Majors) 3. Borg (French Open champion) 4. Laver (11 majors), 5. Vilas (YEC champion), 6. Okker (19 tour titles), 7, Ashe (2 Majors), 8. Rosewall (8 Majors), 9. Smith (3 Majors) 10. Nastase (2 Majors). How exciting would the tennis be if Fed, Nadal and now Djoko were facing top 7 players with those records & mental toughness it's all good.--Navops47 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- What biased thinking about the competition. If Lendl had been a bit better and won almost all the Majors people would be saying that since no one else won slams it must have been a weak era. Ridiculous. All we can do is judge against peers and results. The players today have a massive advantage of not having to use real gut and wood rackets. If you heard the retired champion on tv 2 days ago he bought a bunch of wood rackets last year and tried to play with them.... after repeated use he gave up... he couldn't keep the balls on the court and never knew where his shots were going. But we can only judge by equal times and results while in their prime. The rest is hogwash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click)I'm being objective your missing the point completley!! and exactly my point Lendl had to face similar line ups in the top 10 during his run hence why he lost 11 GS finals they were much harder to come by (in my opinion)!! so we beg to differ, but if you really are objective and take a good long hard look at his notable opponents in the top 10 from (03-09) only 2 Roddick and Hewitt (Agassi, Sampras in decline from 03 at this point) feature in the top 10's ATP World Tour Records (Grand Slams section) in 4 catergories whereas Lendl's multiple peers feature in the top 10 in 29 catergories out of the 35 listed he faced stronger multiple peers otherwise they wouldn't be in those lists. not 1 peer 2 at most and as I said earlier I love Federer for me to really see how great (which I still think he is) but I wish he was facing at least four of these notable players in his top 10 continually at some point during his run. Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Connors or Becker during his run what I'm saying is it gets a bit boring when only 2 players are winning everything (not undermining their ability) that's why I'm happy Djoko made the break through just hope Murray regularly gets in the mix at some point makes it more interesting. Laying it to rest now (smiling)--Navops47 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- What biased thinking about the competition. If Lendl had been a bit better and won almost all the Majors people would be saying that since no one else won slams it must have been a weak era. Ridiculous. All we can do is judge against peers and results. The players today have a massive advantage of not having to use real gut and wood rackets. If you heard the retired champion on tv 2 days ago he bought a bunch of wood rackets last year and tried to play with them.... after repeated use he gave up... he couldn't keep the balls on the court and never knew where his shots were going. But we can only judge by equal times and results while in their prime. The rest is hogwash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- A little further back when I was a small 9 year old (1974) and actually even more impressive is the ATP top 10 today looking like this one (by the way this was the year Connors was in his run) 1. Connors (Australian, Wimbledon & US Open champion), 2.Newcombe (6 Majors) 3. Borg (French Open champion) 4. Laver (11 majors), 5. Vilas (YEC champion), 6. Okker (19 tour titles), 7, Ashe (2 Majors), 8. Rosewall (8 Majors), 9. Smith (3 Majors) 10. Nastase (2 Majors). How exciting would the tennis be if Fed, Nadal and now Djoko were facing top 7 players with those records & mental toughness it's all good.--Navops47 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all points made the opening comment "slams don't count" was a bit of a silly thing to say. I did say records were made and stand (fact) can't be taken away the same applies to previous comment but what (real) competition (open era) was around when those records were happening. One of the most exciting years in men's tennis for my generation was (1985) when you had the top 6 looking like this holding or having won Major's 1. Lendl (French & US Open Champion) 2. McEnroe (Won 7 Majors) 3. Wilander (Won 4 Majors) 4. Connors (Won 8 Majors) 5. Edberg (Australian Open Champion )6. Becker. (Wimbledon Champion) imagine watching an ATP World Tour top 6 with that sort of caliber today.
- Plus it's not like wikipedia itself is dubbing Federer the greatest of all time, it's a multiple source thing. Pete Sampras has the following line with sources in his article, "many regarded Sampras as the greatest player of all time." And Pancho Gonzales has "Many people connected with the game, however, consider Gonzales to be the best male player in tennis history." So it's not unusual to have those types of sourced lines. Most of the time for our articles the sources say "one of the greatest" so that's what gets put in an article... but in this case it is more specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from Navops. Don't worry, you're not stirring things up. We just have to remember how much the game of tennis has evolved over the years.
- Let't not lose focus here about the original topic at hand. So, after this long thread of debate and discussion, I guess we can all agree that Federer's article should maintain the line that reads "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time," as opposed "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" (which is what Seaboy123 originally proposed). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Back on focus 00 eyes open --Navops47 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let't not lose focus here about the original topic at hand. So, after this long thread of debate and discussion, I guess we can all agree that Federer's article should maintain the line that reads "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time," as opposed "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" (which is what Seaboy123 originally proposed). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Navops, but Federer is still pretty much the king of the "more than" category. He has more Grand Slam singles titles than any male player in history (more than Laver), more Masters Cups than any male player in history (6 and counting), more consecutive weeks at #1 than any man or woman in history, longest grass and hard-court winning streaks, more slam semifinal appearances than any male in history, the only player to win two majors five straight times (Laver never did that), and on and on. It's also undeniable that many of the game's greats like Sampras, Agassi, Lendl and others are on record saying Fed is the greatest player ever. This really should put an end to the argument, which is only raised by Federer detractors, not objective observers of the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see why you're bashing Navops. As he previously said, "I love Federer for me to really see how great (which I still think he is)." So no one in this thread is a Fed detractor (except for perhaps Seaboy123, who had an issue with calling Fed the GOAT). And it's already agreed upon that the wording of Fed's article will continue to say that he is "the greatest tennis player of all time." Therefore, case closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Abuse in the first line of the entry.
95.152.209.4 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please refresh your cache and then report if some unreverted vandalism is still present. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominik Hrbaty
In the Federer vs. Murray section it states: "Apart from Nadal, Murray is the only other active player to have a positive head to head record against Federer."
But Dominik Hrbaty also has a positive head to head record against Federer (see http://www.dominikhrbaty.com/) and has now come back out of retirement. Can someone change this? (Sorry, I can't be bothered to create an account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.153.35 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Wimbledon/Federer
Roger Federer wins Wimbledon 2012. Current ranking has been changed to no.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorp129 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Grand Slam tournament performance timeline
There were a bit too many edits around the time of the Wim 2012 final , and that caused a little confusion. His total number of Wim victories is 67, and total of grand slam victories is 244. The article is protected, so if someone with an account wants to correct that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the below sentence "bet" should be "beat".
On 8 July 2012, Federer bet Andy Murray 6–4, 7–5, 6–3 and 6–4 in the 2012 Wimbledon Final. He equalled Pete Sampras's record of seven Wimbledon Championships.
Marcoberi (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone fixed this, so marking request as answered. RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Federer "beat" Andy Murray in 2012 Wimbledon, he didn't bet him.
Sullman7 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done! --Mortense (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, first set of Wimbledon, 2012 should be 4-6 (not 6-4).
Casper526 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone handled these requests, so marking the edit request as answered. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No mention of William Renshaw
Should William Renshaw not get a mention somewhere? For example in the records section it says Federer won 7 Wimbledon titles and shares this record with Pete Sampras, but Renshaw also has seven titles. I know, it was in the 19th century.. long time ago. But still, 7 = 7. --Plunged (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe these are all Open Era records while Renshaw played in the pre-Open Era. TheLou75 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2011 ATP World Tour Final Scores
He beat Tsonga 6-3, 6-7, 6-3 (not 6-3, 6-2, 6-4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.129.238 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I already mentioned that yesterday, but his total of Wim wins is 67, not 66. 7*7+6+3*4=49+6+12=67 Which is annoying because 66 is consistent with the total of 244, which I thought was correct. Now the other totals (FO USO and AO) need to be checked. USO: 2+3*3+5*7+6+2*5=2+9+35+6+10=62 Off by one too, but the wrong way... FO: 7+4*6+2*5+2*4+3+2=7+24+10+8+5=54 OK AO: 4*7+6+5*4+3*2+2*2=28+6+20+10=64 Also off by one, also incrementing the error on the total. The correct total is 247 after all, not 244. Now this is funny, because I thought the total of 244 was consistent with what was in some news sites, but of course the journalists mentinning his record of 233 grand slam victories when he won the first or second round of FO 2012 were only basing this on this very page of wiki. And since people don't wait the end of tournament to edit this part of the article, errors arise. Well at least I think this is funny. Contamination and contagion of the "truth", and all that... 244 is consistent with the win-loss totals on the last line of the table, which means that there are mistakes also on this line. 2012 is off by one: Should be 17-2, not 16-2 2007 is also off by one: should be 27-1, not 26-1 I'll leave the last mistake as homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: The protection expired, so you can go ahead and make these fixes yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the playing style section towards the bottom of the third paragraph it reads "employed this tactic especially frequently in his early career". Especially doesn't read well with me or sound right. A possible improvement would be to reverse the order so it reads " employed this tactic frequently especially in his early career." It just seems to fit better 92.2.22.189 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Done I completely removed especially. It was unnecessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Some unnecessary clutter in introduction
I would edit this myself but I'm just checking to see if other people agree with me; stuff like "(Willie Renshaw and Arthur Gore did so before the challenge round was eliminated in 1922)" is really unnecessary since you've already clarified open era; the 286+ bit should be said before the 237 weeks, once he gets past Pete's record, as it will then be more important than that, and then we could get rid of "equaling the record held by Pete Sampras (who will be overtaken on July 16, 2012)" because though it's notable he will have passed Pete and Pete is amazing etc etc this ought to be said later in the article rather than in the intro as the fact that he has the record is more important than the fact that he passed Pete for it. Sorry if this seems nitpicky but the intro is already quite long and some stuff in there is unnecessary details about other people than Fed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.211.122 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Coaches
Very surprised to see no mention of coaches Peter Carter, Peter Lundgren, Severin Luthi, and Tony Roche. This is probably worth making a whole new section. Any preference on simply adding it into the narrative vs creating a new section? Supertigerman (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's a glaring omission.--Wolbo (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain tie break record
The reference for the record about the most won tie breaks misses many players, like Connors, Borg, McEnroe. Especially Connors played more matches than Federer and could have this record, but it seems hard to find out. As it is not an important record, one should remove it unless the reference can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.215.39 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"Greatest player of all time" line needs to be protected
Some people want to fiddle with the "greatest player of all time" wording in the opening paragraph. Those contributing to this article should stop them from doing so.
Numerous tennis experts -- legends of the game, current and former players, etc. -- have referred to Federer as the "greatest player of all time," NOT "the greatest male player of all time." It goes without saying -- or should, anyway -- that male tennis players are superior to female tennis players; thus, it doesn't matter that Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova have more Grand Slam singles titles than Federer, because neither one had to beat a single male player to win a tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence
Schpinbo keeps changing the wording in the first sentence of the Federer article. He should be reported and (hopefully) banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why should he be reported? Just because you disagree with someone's edits does not make those edits vandalism and it is certainly no reason in itself to ban an editor. Try and be a bit more tolerant and argue your point of view. To me the phrase 'greatest male player' sounds perfectly legitimate.--Wolbo (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase "greatest male player" may sound "perfectly legitimate" to you, but that is not what the tennis experts cited in the footnotes have said. They've said "Federer is the greatest player of all time," no qualifications. If you scroll above on the talk page, you will see that this issue has been covered already and resolved. Lastly, the user Schpinbo has not presented his case on the talk page here. He's developed a terrible habit of deleting others' edits willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, TennisAnalyst, but if you look at your talkpage, you will see precisely why I have reverted your edits. It is a simple matter of grammar. When you insist that the opening sentence should read "... Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest ever", you are - according to the grammatical rules of the English language - saying that Federer "is the greatest professional Swiss tennis player ever." Unless that is what you intend, you need to indicate what he is greatest *of*. If anyone is committing vandalism here, it is you with your constant reverts to ungrammatical English. What is it you don't understand? Schpinbo (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase "greatest male player" may sound "perfectly legitimate" to you, but that is not what the tennis experts cited in the footnotes have said. They've said "Federer is the greatest player of all time," no qualifications. If you scroll above on the talk page, you will see that this issue has been covered already and resolved. Lastly, the user Schpinbo has not presented his case on the talk page here. He's developed a terrible habit of deleting others' edits willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously trolling here. It's equally obvious -- except to you, apparently -- that the phrase "greatest ever" or "greatest of all time" refers to Federer as a tennis player, not to Federer as a Swiss tennis player in particular. This is the meaning of the sentence that everybody else understands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I find your petulance tiresome. And your attempt to silence me for breaking the three-revert rule shows your desperation. It is you who are doing the edit-warring ... and weakening your own case by refusing to address my points on the merits. Don't for an instant suppose that you speak for "everybody else," or are in a position to decide that really, we all understand what you "actually meant." The English language has rules, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with them. Schpinbo (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word "ever" can't stand on its own at the end of a sentence like that except in colloquial speech or writing. It's really not a problem with the semantics of the sentence, it's all to do with the syntax. "Ever" used in this since must be followed by a noun phrase ("greatest ever tennis player"), or a verb in its infinitive or participial form ("greatest ever to play the game"). "The greatest tennis player ever" is not a grammatical construction in English. I personally don't like prescriptive grammar rules like this, but this is an encyclopedia, and the article should be written in standard English.
- Of course, not everybody agrees (the preposition rule too is a myth). How does this rule account for "I am the greatest ever"? Or should one just not say that over and over? Even if that is all one thinks about? Which grammar book did you find that rule in? Seriously, why don't you just make it "the greatest-ever tennis player"?Ajoykt (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. The word "ever" is an adverb, though, not a preposition. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with constructions like "He is the greatest player ever." "Greatest-ever tennis player" sounds awkward. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, not everybody agrees (the preposition rule too is a myth). How does this rule account for "I am the greatest ever"? Or should one just not say that over and over? Even if that is all one thinks about? Which grammar book did you find that rule in? Seriously, why don't you just make it "the greatest-ever tennis player"?Ajoykt (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word "ever" can't stand on its own at the end of a sentence like that except in colloquial speech or writing. It's really not a problem with the semantics of the sentence, it's all to do with the syntax. "Ever" used in this since must be followed by a noun phrase ("greatest ever tennis player"), or a verb in its infinitive or participial form ("greatest ever to play the game"). "The greatest tennis player ever" is not a grammatical construction in English. I personally don't like prescriptive grammar rules like this, but this is an encyclopedia, and the article should be written in standard English.
I have changed the name of this section per WP:TALKNEW. TennisAnalyst004, please read WP:NOTVAND and refrain from calling good faith edits vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Prior to this evening, Schpinbo had not appeared on the Talk page to present his case for making changes and edits; he just made those changes willy-nilly, and often without justification. Sorry, but that is not what I would call editing in "good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- A reluctance to communicate is not vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict and narrow definition of what is vandalism. We are pretty clear on distinguishing these types of edits as they can be reverted without taking into account WP:3RR. This is not the case with Schpinbo's edits. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the meaning of "vandalism" here. You did not address the point I made above about Schpinbo's refusal to "edit in good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, a reluctance to communicate cannot be called "not editing in good faith". And Schpinbo's edit summaries are decent except for one. --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it protocol to propose changes on the Talk page before undoing others' contributions and edits? Or has that mumpsimus, Schpinbo, been given special dispensation? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you make a change and another editor disagrees, they are free to undo your change, no talk page discussion is required. An explanatory edit summary or a note on a talk page would be nice but they don't have to initiate or wait for discussion. Your charges of vandalism or not editing in good faith simply don't wash here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. This guy has violated the spirit [not the letter, but the spirit] of the three-revert rule; I would encourage you to go to my talk page and look at his history of deletions for July 15. He's deaf to others' points of view; he frequently insults those with whom he disagrees; before this evening he has never shown up on the Talk page, and when somebody calls him out for boorish behavior, he cries foul and threatens them. If all this is unobjectionable to you, so be it. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you make a change and another editor disagrees, they are free to undo your change, no talk page discussion is required. An explanatory edit summary or a note on a talk page would be nice but they don't have to initiate or wait for discussion. Your charges of vandalism or not editing in good faith simply don't wash here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it protocol to propose changes on the Talk page before undoing others' contributions and edits? Or has that mumpsimus, Schpinbo, been given special dispensation? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, a reluctance to communicate cannot be called "not editing in good faith". And Schpinbo's edit summaries are decent except for one. --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the meaning of "vandalism" here. You did not address the point I made above about Schpinbo's refusal to "edit in good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- A reluctance to communicate is not vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict and narrow definition of what is vandalism. We are pretty clear on distinguishing these types of edits as they can be reverted without taking into account WP:3RR. This is not the case with Schpinbo's edits. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Prior to this evening, Schpinbo had not appeared on the Talk page to present his case for making changes and edits; he just made those changes willy-nilly, and often without justification. Sorry, but that is not what I would call editing in "good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the sentence "Roger Federer born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." reads pretty well and prefer it to "Roger Federer born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest of all time." --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can live with the sentence "Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." I do think the second "tennis player" is redundant, though. What I do object to is referring to Federer as the "greatest male tennis player of all time," for reasons previously explained. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that "male" isn't needed or warranted. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neil, we haven't seen eye to eye this evening, but let me say thanks to you for interceding and trying to resolve the matter. You didn't have to take time out of your schedule to clarify things and offer your point of view, but you did, so credit to you. Best, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks TennisAnalyst004. If all of us could just focus on discussing on how to improve the article then that'd be great. --NeilN talk to me 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neil, we haven't seen eye to eye this evening, but let me say thanks to you for interceding and trying to resolve the matter. You didn't have to take time out of your schedule to clarify things and offer your point of view, but you did, so credit to you. Best, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that "male" isn't needed or warranted. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't see all this before changing the lead sentence just now. I do think the way it was is a little awkward though. Feel free to change it back. I'm gonna leave it. Rracecarr (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not remove the first "tennis player" instead? "Roger Federer is a Swiss widely regarded the greatest tennis player of all time." The problem with the current sentence is somebody new tinkers with it every day, without going through the talk page. The (small) problem with my formulation is it emphasizes the "Swiss" part a bit too much. Ajoykt (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about: "Roger Federer, of Switzerland, is widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." Rracecarr (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tried a version of if before: "Roger Federer, a Swiss, is widely regarded as the greatest . . ." Some new editor immediately removed the commas claiming they were clumsy (they were) and took us back to square one with: "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player regarded as the greatest ever." Ajoykt (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about: "Roger Federer, of Switzerland, is widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." Rracecarr (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not remove the first "tennis player" instead? "Roger Federer is a Swiss widely regarded the greatest tennis player of all time." The problem with the current sentence is somebody new tinkers with it every day, without going through the talk page. The (small) problem with my formulation is it emphasizes the "Swiss" part a bit too much. Ajoykt (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't see all this before changing the lead sentence just now. I do think the way it was is a little awkward though. Feel free to change it back. I'm gonna leave it. Rracecarr (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Federer's mum
"South African-born Lynette Durand, of Dutch and French Huguenot ancestry"
This sentence just sounds ridiculous. She (his mum) is South African, or Afrikaner if you want to be specific.
Afrikaners have been in South Africa for over 300 years. They are simply Afrikaners. They have been for a long time. That is their identity.
I had a look at the references and I'm amazed that someone went to such lengths or felt the need to split hairs. (Someone please take a look at the references, I suspect they're not in accordance with Wiki regulations, someones is making a conclusion based on the links provided rather than citing them as a source).
Afrikaners are of Dutch, French, German, Jewish, Scandinavian, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Scots, Irish, Polish and non-white ancestry, such as Khoi African, Indonesian and Indian. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner ).
To simply choose two off the list is not only inaccurate, it has a slight hint of ethnocentrism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.72.57 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I intend making the necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.75.73 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Distinction between all-time/Open era records in lede
There seems to be some confusion here. All-time records are being bundled with and under Open Era records. They should probably be listed separately. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the first few paragraphs are a summary, and one shouldn't bury the main points with details. The open-era records are what matters to the layperson (this isn't a sports encylopedia); that some of those are all-time records too is, and perhaps should be, a side note. The text is precise as to exactly what type the records are; I don't know if the records are accurate. If they are, it seems to me better to leave the order alone: emphasizing the open-era ones, with the all-time ones mentioned in parentheses. Ajoykt (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember the 3-Revert Rule, User 76
On July 25, 2012, you deleted the opening sentence of this article on 2 occasions. If you do it again you will have violated the 3-revert rule. Surely you know, or ought to know, that the editors and admins have said that no major change to the article should be made until a resolution has been achieved here, on the talk page.
If User 76 violates the 3-Revert Rule, I would encourage the other contributors here to report him. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey troublemaker, you're about the last person who should be warning anyone about anything, especially about reverting and edit-warring. You are a complete, hypocritical, lying joke because it has been confirmed you have a pattern of edit-warring in this article. Here's the proof. I, on the other hand, do not. What I did was simply revert back to what was decided by two administrators, who said the contentious statement should temporarily be removed until consensus is reached. But of course YOU chose to continue your troublemaking ways and put back the MOST contentious version which almost everyone in this discussion has agreed violates WP:WEASEL because that's the way YOU want it. You could care less about WP guidelines. And you posted these bullshit edit comments for your own self-serving, egotistical purposes: "The admins and editors of the article agree that no major change to the wording should occur until a resolution has been reached on the talk page. User 76 has made 2 reverts (deletions) today." Do you ever tell the truth about ANYTHING? You have no credibility here because almost every word out of your mouth is a lie and you of course have not backed up any of your ridiculous claims with any kind of proof whatsoever. All you do is spout shallow, meaningless, illogical crap and go around to people's talk pages trash talking like an immature child. So you want to start something like this? That was your decision. Finally, you DO NOT use an article's talk page to warn another user about anything. Who the hell do you think you are calling me out on an article's talk page? And other editors, who have far more credibility than you'll ever have on here, don't need some edit-warring troublemaker like you to "encourage" them to do anything? Do actually believe you have any influence on what they do or that they even care about what you say? Your juvenile behavior throughout this discussion has made it very clear what you're like and what your intentions are. Got my message?! --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's everybody take a deep breath here and discuss. I think the current phrasing makes a good compromise for now so that edit-warring can stop and discussion can take place. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who has had his share of input on this, let me say that the current wording - "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked World number 1 by the ATP. Several sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time" - strikes me as perfect. I have no idea who originally came up with it, or who has seen fit to defend it against revisions, but it's perfect. I hope it stays. Schpinbo (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Schpinbo, thanks for your input. Btw, I noticed on your talk page that you know TennisAnalyst. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey TennisAnalyst, I forgot to mention one little flaw in your bogus revert warning. You said that since I deleted on two occasions, if I do it again I "will have violated the 3-revert rule." Wrong. As WP:3RR will teach you, it's "more than" three reverts in 24 hours. And you must've forgotten about your THREE reverts within 24 hours here, here and here. And the fact that just two hours after your three reverts, you told Schpinbo that you were reporting him for violating 3RR. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012
Opening sentence: "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time"
I'm writing about the opening sentence of this article, which says that Federeer is "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time." Let me preface my comments by saying that Federer is among my top-three favorite players ever and I do feel that he's the greatest player of all-time.
However, when I read that opening sentence, what immediately struck me was the inappropriateness of the term "widely considered." One who cares about accuracy and objectity in this project would ask, "Widely considered BY WHOM?" Well, that question should be supported by the sources that are cited. But what the sources show is that a few former tennis "greats" (Laver, Kramer, Sampras, Agassi and Lendl), plus two lists from sports sites (Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated) rank him as #1. Those are all great sources. But even so, they do not support the claim that he is "widely considered" the best ever. "Widely considered," as it's used in the sentence, clearly implies that it's widely considered by the people in general (the people of the world). Why not remove the "fan language" nature of the sentence and just state the facts (what we know for sure; what can be sourced)?
My suggestion is simple: Be specific in that opening sentence by narrowing the focus and sticking to the facts. Remove any trace of subjectivity. Rather than saying he's "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time," say something like, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras."
You can add John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg to the list. McEnroe said of Federer, "To me, he’ll always be the greatest, most beautiful player that ever lived."[1] Borg said, "For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game."[2]
So the updated sentence, with the two new sources, can be, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras."
As as you get more sources for other tennis greats (or sports sites) who think Federer's the best ever, simply add them to the sentence. Including the names of all the greats in that sentence is powerful and certainly encylopedic. Readers will look at it and say, "Wow, look at all those amazing players who think Federer's #1." And then of course readers can link to the sources if they want.
No editor should argue with my suggestion because it states facts only, which are properly sourced. It removes all the vagueness, subjectivity and fan language.
By the way, I think the John Lloyd sourcing is very weak and shouldn't even be included among all those other guys who are legends. Lloyd was basically just an average journeyman. And let's be honest, his opinion on this matter carries very little weight. Only the most ardent tennis fans even know who he is. And some of them may only have heard of him because he married Chris Evert. Haha. I think he won a couple of grand slam doubles championships, but that was about it.
Also, link 7 (Times UK) doesn't even work; it goes to their current home page.
The editors who support that sentence in its current form need to understand and accept the fact that there are MANY people who do not think Federer is the best ever. I don't personally agree with those people, but that's the point. It's their opinion. Just like my view is also an opinion. But Wikipedia is not about opinions. It's about facts. Sourced facts.
I understand that there have been a lot of editors who change the wording of that sentence, which in turn has prompted a lot of reverts? That makes my point even stronger. If you take my suggestions, it will prevent the revert battles because the statement will be focused, factual and sourced. As it's written currently, it's just encouraging editors to fight over it.
Anyway, I hope you'll have the opening sentence changed. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this. Though many of us Federer fans (like me) know he is the one and only Greatest of All Time, the fact that the first sentence labels him "the GOAT" outright is extreme, to say the least. Remember, we must put aside our devotion for the "Tennis king of tennis kings" and keep to WP:NPOV. The previous version sounded much better, stating "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time." That adds more credibility to what we are trying to convey. I propose we change it back to the old format. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. The original sentence you referred to ("Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time.") is far superior, and much more appropriate, than the current sentence. I think it would be fine in the opening sentence. But I also think it would be great to include the names of the tennis "legends" who have called him the best ever (as I suggested above). That could be further down in an appropriate section. How about having a paragraph or even section devoted solely to all the tennis legends who have said he's #1 of all-time, and then list their names and a quote from them.
- For example, the paragraph or section can begin with something like...
- "Many former tennis greats have called Federer the greatest player of all-time:
- Bjorn Borg: "For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game."
- John McEnroe: "To me, he’ll always be the greatest, most beautiful player that ever lived."
- Pete Sampras: "Roger is without question the greatest ever and would've beaten me every time."
- OK, I made up the Sampras one. I can't remember his quote. Haha. But the Borg and McEnroe quotes are accurate. Anyway, I just wanted to give an idea of what I'm talking about. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just discovered that WP:WEASEL typically prohibits phrases like "widely considered", particularly in this case because it can't be supported by sources. The existing sources simply show some former players, and two sports site lists, calling Federer the best player ever. The WP guidlelines on this even use "it is widely thought" as an example of weasel words. So that sentence needs to be changed, with the edit comment referring to WP:WEASEL. We must only include what is known (as a sourced fact) and eliminate the subjective language. I've added applicable templates to the "widely considered" phrase. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say it'll be better not to list out players specifically who have said Federer is GOAT. That would clog up the lead unnecessarily. However, you could place it somewhere else in the article (e.g. Connors stating, "Nowadays, you're either an x court specialist, or you're Roger Federer"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just discovered that WP:WEASEL typically prohibits phrases like "widely considered", particularly in this case because it can't be supported by sources. The existing sources simply show some former players, and two sports site lists, calling Federer the best player ever. The WP guidlelines on this even use "it is widely thought" as an example of weasel words. So that sentence needs to be changed, with the edit comment referring to WP:WEASEL. We must only include what is known (as a sourced fact) and eliminate the subjective language. I've added applicable templates to the "widely considered" phrase. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I said, "That could be further down in an appropriate section." You must've been sleeping because I said everything you just said. Haha. But yeah, I agree. Quotes from legends like that would be great. And appropriate for the article. And they need to be quotes that directly say they think Federer is the greatest ever, not just making really nice comments about him (everyone does that). But first that sentence needs to be changed to fit within WP standards. ;) --76.189.114.180 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I, myself, do not see a problem at all with the phrase "widely considered." According to Webster's, "widely" means "by or among a large well-dispersed group of people." There are numerous fans of the game, legendary players, sportwriters, commentators, and former and current players who have said, in some cases quite often, that Federer is the greatest player of all time.
- Among the many distinguished players of the game who have said so: Rod Laver, Cliff Drysdale, Billie Jean King, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Pam Shriver, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi. Among current players who have said so, at one time or another: Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, and Wawrinka. Among the many commentators/experts of the game who have said so: Simon Barnes, Robbie Koenig (former player as well), Nick Bolletieri, and John Lloyd.
- I know from reading various messages on news sites that scores of fans consider Federer the greatest of all time. Therefore, the phrase "widely considered" is eminently justifiable, indeed is objective fact rather than subjective judgment. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry TennisAnalyst, but your defense of the current text is contrary to WP guidelines. Did you read WP:WEASEL? Also, your own explanation contradicts itself and adds more support to the phrase "widely considered" being inappropriate. First you say there are "numerous" people who says he's the best. "Numerous" is not even close to "widely considered." Numerous simply means many. Many is a whole different world than widely considered. Then you go on to list the names of people you claimed have called him the greatest. Is that list of people sourced in the article? Because there are many things people have "heard," but it can't be included in an encylopedic article if it's not sourced. But even assuming they all said Federer is the best (and I don't doubt it), it still doesn't support "widely considered." Twenty people does not equal "widely considered." We could come up with a list of 20 people who say feel that Federer is NOT the best ever. Contrary to your claim, "widely considered" is NOT an "objective fact" at all. Where's the sourcing that supports that claim?? The only sourcing we have is that several players, commentators and sites, etc. have called him the greatest. In any case, WP does not allow the use of the term "widely considered" in this context. One final reminder, I personally believe Federer is the best of all-time. But this is an encyclopedia and we must stick to the rules of editing. There are many sources out there that make that claim that he is NOT the best. That's why this issue is subjective, not objective. There is no administrator/dispute group on WP that would allow "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time" to stand. I'm sorry, but I believe it is over-the-top and, most importantly, violates basic encyclopedic rules. On an interesting side note, here's what Federer thinks about the issue of whether he's the greatest ever. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest reading Michael Jordan. Obviously, if you ask most people, they will say the believe he is the greatest player of all-time. However, you will not find one blanket statement in the article that says that. No statement in the article says he is the greatest ever or even "widely considered" the greatest ever. In terms of a general statement, the furthest the article goes is to say, "Many of Jordan's contemporaries label Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time." See, it doesn't say he IS the greatest basketball player of all time; it says many of his contemporaries say it. That's perfect. That's encylopedic. All references to his all-time greatest status is correctly attributed to a specific, cited source. For instance, the lead says, "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'" It does not say by acclamation he is the greatest ever, it says that the NBA website says that. And the statement is in quotes. That's exactly the right way to do it encylopedically. And then throughout the article, there are references about him being the greatest all-time basketball player or athlete, but what's key is that each of those references is attributed to a specific, cited source. Some examples: "In 1999, he was named the greatest North American athlete of the 20th century by ESPN" and "the Associated Press voted him as the basketball player of the 20th century". For Federer, we have similar sourced material. So all we need to do is make statements that show this person or that website said it, then attach the citation which supports the stated claim. But no blanket, weasel word statements like he is widely considered to be the greatest ever. If Rod Laver said Federer is the greatest ever, then say that. If Andre Agassi said that Federer is the greatest ever, then say that. If Sports Illustrated ranked him as the greatest ever, then say that. You can even say something like "A number of the most successful tennis players of all-time have said that Federer is the greatest player of all time, including Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver.... (rest of names)." Then add the proper citations to prove each person said it. Perfect and encylopedic. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Methinks you doth protest too much. You write, "Twenty people does [sic] not equal 'widely considered.'" How do you know that? What basis is there for such an assertion? I gave the Webster's definition of "widely," and it is clear that the examples I furnished constitute "a large well-dispersed group of people." How many legends of the game, commentators, experts, and fans have to say Federer is the "greatest player ever," or some equivalent, before the phrase "widely considered" can be used? I believe we've met the threshold here, and would encourage Bloom and other veteran editors to weigh in. (P.S. I did read the Weasel article.) Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic and refrain from personal insults ("Methinks you doth protest too much"). This has nothing to do with protesting. It is solely about doing the correct thing encylopedically. All your questions were clearly answered in my previous comments. I have provided more than enough information to support my views. Did you read Michael Jordan? You said you read WP:WEASEL, but you gave no explanation about why you believe "widely considered" doesn't violate it. It's interesting that you are so resistant to simply following encylopedic guidelines by saying specifically who is stating Federer is the greatest ever and citing it, rather than making a subjective, blanket statement without attribution. If you actually have a source that says he is widely considered the greatest player of all time, then source it and attribute it to that source. There are currently nine sources (not 20) that show a former player or website giving their opinions that Federer is the greatest player ever. I agree with them, but the point is that nine sources, or even 20, don't equal "widely considered." And if there were 20 players who said it, then say just that: "Twenty former tennis players who had very successful careers have called Federer the greatest player of all time. They include (person), (person), (person)..." etc., with a citation for each name. Follow the Michael Jordan example by following the rules of an encylopedia. You said you wished Bloom, a veteran editor, would weigh in on this. He did. Twice. You must have overlooked it. In reply to my comments, he said, "I fully agree with this. Though many of us Federer fans (like me) know he is the one and only Greatest of All Time, the fact that the first sentence labels him "the GOAT" outright is extreme, to say the least. Remember, we must put aside our devotion for the "Tennis king of tennis kings" and keep to WP:NPOV." Finally, I will once again suggest a replacement in the lead. Instead of "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time", I suggest we say "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. "He has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several retired tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras." --76.189.114.243 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Methinks you doth protest too much" is not an insult; it is the impression your meaty paragraphs have left me with. Nor did you answer my question earlier about how many people have to say "Federer is the greatest" before the phrase "widely considered" is justified. I do think the input of other Wikipedia contributors is most welcome at this point. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is true that many tennis analysts and fellow players consider him to best player of all time with the finest all round game. I don't see a problem with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm not here to take sides or get on anyone's good side or promote one cause over another. I'm speaking from experience. I've been on a situation before where weasel words nearly got an article deleted twice in a little over a year (List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable). An article I was working on (but had not named or moved)got nominated for deletion simply because it had the word "considered" in the title (i.e. implying a high amount of subjectivity in its content). Using the old version is better (i.e. "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time."). It offers a compromise solution. Federer fans like myself, TennisAnalyst and IP76 can legitimately call him the GOAT on WP, while not violating WP:NPOV. We must remember that since we are on WP, we must abide by its rules. The old version is what got this article to be a good article. If we ever want the chance to make this an FA, then we best stick with the old version. Otherwise, a delisting looms as a possibility in the future. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha Bloom, there's nothing wrong with taking sides on an issue. In fact, that's what everyone needs to do in discussions like this. ;) Anyway, as WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV clearly explain, articles must stay away from subjective terms to describe "how many" feel about something. Just state the facts! If you ask 100 people what "widely considered" means, you'll get dozens of different answers. If you ask 100 people what "many" means, you'll get dozens of different answers. That's why Wikipedia says DO NOT use terms like that. If nine people said something, then say "Nine people said...." or even "Several people said..." (nine qualifies, factually, as several). If about 40 people said something, then say "Dozens of people said..." But saying "widely considered" is, as Bloom described, extreme. Saying that Federer is "widely considered" the greatest ever is the same as saying that "most" people in the world or the "vast majority" people in the world feel that way. Sorry, but as Bloom said, that doesn't even come close to being appropriate for Wikipedia. So TennisAnalyst, what I have said clearly does answer your question: "widely considered" is NEVER appropriate for Wikipedia when describing someone's greatness in something. And that's not my opinion; it's Wikipedia's rule. And before, you said you really wanted Bloom's opinion on this. Well, he gave it. He said he disagrees with you and clearly explained why. So now you say you want someone else's opinion. And you still have yet to expalin why you think WP:WEASEL is not being violated. Also, you claimed that 20 people said Federer is the greatest ever, but the fact is that the article contains sources for just five former players who said it. (Previously in this discussion, I provided new sources for two other players who said it, so that would make seven.) We need to stay focused on the facts and what's actually contained in the article. And you have not explained why you would be opposed to a factual sentence like "He has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several retired tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras." --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, looking things over, I think an intermediate position might work. "Widely considered" does indeed seem to me is WP:WEASELy; but I think saying "consided by Foo, Bar, and Cheese as..." seems a bit too far the other way. Perhaps something along the lines of "Regarded by many in the sport as...", with a variety of sources either in place or in a footnote, might work? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not to digress too much but the Donald Bradman article mentions "an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time." with just one single source behind it. And that's a Featured Article.--Wolbo (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bushranger is an administrator and has confirmed what I've been saying about WP:WEASEL. And his suggestion is precisely in line with my suggestion of following the type of phrasing used on Michael Jordan, which says, "Many of Jordan's contemporaries label Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time." They don't say he is "widely considered" the greatest of all time; they say that many of his contempories say it. This matches exactly what Bushranger is instructing us to do. As far as the Bradman reference, the cited source, ESPN Cricinfo, actually uses the term "the greatest batsman in the game." Therefore, the sentence in the Bradman article should absolutely attribute that quote to ESPN Cricinfo, and it should be in quotes. It should say, "ESPN Cricinfo called Bradman "the greatest batsman of all time." "Widely acknowledged" not only is not used in the source material, it clearly violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. ESPN said it. Period. This is very similar to Michael Jordan, which says, "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." That article is very careful to show that the NBA website said it and to put the statement in quotes.--76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since this change was relatively recent (it doesn't exist before [3]), I moved it out of the lead and made the wording a little more neutral. It's clear that several people/sources believe him to be the best player ever, but it's far removed from the defining, non-subjective facts of his career—the statistics and awards otherwise either do or don't speak for themselves, depending on the reader, but we're not parrots to the judgment calls of others. As a rule of thumb, avoid coercing the reader to accept judgment statements derived from those made by others; that's part of the nature of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. --slakr\ talk / 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing POV about citing various legends and experts who say Federer is the "best ever" or "greatest ever." I think it's very biased to leave such valuable information out of the article. This is a subject that has been hashed about on the Talk Page for years now. Before any such drastic change is made, several senior Wikipedia contributors and editors should be consulted. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, no one ever said there was anything wrong with the cites. Where does it say that? Of course those cites are fine. You're missing the very clear point. The issue is the the weasly wording in the opening sentence ("widely considered the greatest player of all time").
- OK, here is my suggestion, based on what is currently sourced. For accuracy, we need to tone down the phrasing in the opening sentence, and I think we should also create a new section devoted solely addressing his all-time greatness (similar to the Legacy section on Michael Jackson). I checked all nine of the current sources for the "greatest of all time" statement. (The 10th citation, link [7], does not work. It directs to the website's current home page.) Of the nine links, five players (Laver, Kramer, Lloyd, Agassi, Roddick), plus two sports sites (Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated), directly say Federer is the greatest ever. Two of the nine sources are the same Laver quote. Agassi hedged, saying that Federer is the best "right now" but that maybe Nadal would be the best ever. Sampras only said, "I have to give it to him" when he was asked about Federer's all-time greatness. The furthest Lendl went was to say that Federer is "arguably" the best ever; he did not actually say he's the best. So overall, we currently have just a few SOURCED quotes from players who actually said he is the greatest of all time. Certainly nowhere close to enough to be able to say "most" or "many" or "the majority of" or anything like that. And definitely not "widely considered" or anything similar (although those violate WP:WEASEL anyway). Again, I personally believe he's the best ever, and I believe many others feel that way, but those are opinions and we simply don't have the sourced material to back up the excessive (weasly) words.
- Therefore, what I propose is to change the lead (opening sentence) and to create a new section about his all-time greatness, as follows:
- CURRENT OPENING SENTENCE: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time.[a]
- CHANGE OPENING SENTENCE TO: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time.[a]
- All-time greatness status (new section)
- Several tennis players, including a few of the most successful in tennis history, have said that Federer is the best player ever. Rod Laver said, “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing.”.[3][11] Jack Kramer said, “I never seen anyone play the game better than Federer”.[4] John Lloyd said, “in my opinion he's got to be the greatest player of all time”.[5] Andre Agassi said, “To me he's the best of all time now – maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger's the all-time best”.[9] Ivan Lendl said Federer “is arguably the best player who ever played the game.” In 2009, when Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick were asked if they thought Roger Federer was the greatest player ever, Pete Sampras said, “I have to give it to him” and Roddick gave a simple “Yes.”[6]
- In 2012, Tennis Channel ranked him #1 on their list of “The 100 Greatest of All Time”, which included both men and women.[2] Sports Illustrated also ranked Federer as #1 on their list of “Top 10 Men's Tennis Players of All Time”.[8]
- I hope we can reach consensus soon, so we can make this right. Thanks.
- Given the discussion at hand, there's clearly not consensus for your version of the lead. Because it was a recent change, we typically revert the change until there's consensus for whatever version that is proposed. Please keep this in mind before continuing the previous edit war. Thanks. --slakr\ talk / 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, no one ever said there was anything wrong with the cites. Where does it say that? Of course those cites are fine. You're missing the very clear point. The issue is the the weasly wording in the opening sentence ("widely considered the greatest player of all time"). And contrary to your description, the proposed change is not drastic at all. It's simply about removing the weasly words in the opening sentence. And you asked for Bloom's input, and he gave it. Then we received the input of an expert on these types of issues, Bushranger, who's an administrator. It sounds like you won't be satisfied until you get a consensus that agrees with you. You have failed to address the factual points presented and have basically just repeated that you want it your way just because that's the way it's been and because of your interpretation of of a dictionary's definition of "widely". But the only thing that's important is Wikipeida's guidelines, which includes sourcing all claims, especially contentious ones, and never using subjective or fan language.
- Slakr, no one said there is consensus. I said, "I hope we can reach consensus." Can you please read the discussion and give us your opinion on the issue. It would be appreciated. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Earlier, Slakr deleted the "greatest of all time" reference with its many footnotes before coming to the talk page and soliciting others' views. The first paragraph should remain as is until other senior Wikipedia editors & contributors can weigh in on the matter. By the way, the Sampras and Nadal articles will also have to be re-edited to remove "weasley" words and "POV." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts here. I would say from all my readings of the press, books, records, etc... that Roger Federer is widely considered the greatest male "singles" player of all-time. Right now... with the usual ceib weight attached to things. Also players of the past tend to be very humble about themselves. Rod Laver is also considered to be the goat by many, as is Bill Tilden with his 18 year 907-62 record (winning percentage of 93.6). It's always difficult to compare different eras. What do you do with eras that didn't care about total Majors but rather about winning Davis Cup? When players up till Laver's time had to serve with one foot on the ground. When for 10 years the best players didn't care about the Australian Open. Now Federer does have a lot going for him... he has won 17 Majors and done it over an incredible amount of time. Maybe he could have also won more if the courts/balls weren't slowed down to help players like Nadal. There are always ifs. 50 years from now when Fed is a distant memory historians may simply lump him in with grand slam winners Budge and Laver (2x), and greats Tilden and Gonzales. But the press, players and world at large, at this moment in time, are squarely in Federer's court as goat. How that gets worded here is something I don't really want to touch as it's sort of a Michael Jordan, Joe Louis, Joe Montana type problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, why did you revert Slakr's edit??? He is an administrator. Who are you to tell an administrator how it should be done? Did you read his edit reason? If so, why did you ignore it? And Fyunck, you are definitely right that there are many people who consider Rod Laver to be the greatest of all time (and Federer #2). I've seen multiple polls that have Federer and Laver within a few points of each other, with the third place person not even close to them. Personally, I think Federer is definitely the best ever, but your point is exactly the reason why we don't use weasly words on Wikipedia. "The greatest" or "the best" will always be subjective, in tennis or anything else. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- @76.189.114.243: You misunderstand my reply; I was addressing TennisAnalyst004 (talk · contribs); his/her version appears to lack consensus and he/she appears to have things backwards: that is, when an new edit lacks consensus, it's typically reverted—not left sitting around until it gains it—hence the bold-revert-discuss cycle. The page has been in existence since 9 September 2004, and only in the last few weeks was the disputed statement introduced. Therefore, by convention, the statement in dispute should be removed and the page reverted to the good-article-criteria-meeting version, which lacks the disputed statement in the lead, otherwise it risks jeopardizing its good article status. --slakr\ talk / 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, why did you revert Slakr's edit??? He is an administrator. Who are you to tell an administrator how it should be done? Did you read his edit reason? If so, why did you ignore it? And Fyunck, you are definitely right that there are many people who consider Rod Laver to be the greatest of all time (and Federer #2). I've seen multiple polls that have Federer and Laver within a few points of each other, with the third place person not even close to them. Personally, I think Federer is definitely the best ever, but your point is exactly the reason why we don't use weasly words on Wikipedia. "The greatest" or "the best" will always be subjective, in tennis or anything else. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slakr, thanks a lot for the clarification. I didn't want you to think that I had any intention of editing the article before consensus is reached. ;) Sorry for misundertanding who your comments were directed to. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Unfortunately the issue at hand is not whether he's the greatest player (in any class). I mean, to be honest, I agree he's spectacular, but our policies and guidelines require that we treat his accomplishments, and, most importantly, what others say about his accomplishments, neutrally and without undue weight. Given this, a statement of being the "best player" as the first sentence in the article's lead inherently gives undue weight to recentism by promoting the opinion of a handful of sources, above the facts of his career. Thus, while the fact that several sources have stated that he's the best player (in their eyes), and while it definitely should be mentioned later in the article (as I tried to do in my recent edit), placing it in the lead might not be appropriate to maintaining article neutrality.
Take our article about Forrest Gump, for instance, which is also a good-article-level article. Its lead is very matter-of-fact, and while the movie won numerous awards and has been praised by many people as being the best movie of 1994, those details are kept for later in the article, and are presented in a neutral way. Compare two versions:
"Forrest Gump is a 1994 American epic comedy-drama romance film that is is widely considered to be the best movie made in 1994."
"Forrest Gump is a 1994 American epic comedy-drama romance film based on the 1986 novel of the same name by Winston Groom. (skip several paragraphs) The film won the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Zemeckis, Best Actor for Tom Hanks, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Visual Effects and Best Film Editing. It also garnered multiple other awards and nominations, including Golden Globe Awards, People's Choice Awards and Young Artist Awards, among others."
Notice the difference. The former coerces the reader to immediately accept that Forrest Gump is the best movie made in 1994. The latter lets the reader determine that for themselves.
--slakr\ talk / 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also Slakr, lets compare apples to apples. Not many in their right minds would heap on goat on Forrest Gump. But if you read the opening paragraphs on Citizen Kane or Casablanca they do. Same with Michael Jordan. For the record I'm not of the opinion that Forrest Gump was the even the best picture released in July of 1994.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slakr, I'm afraid you're mistaken. The reference to Federer being "the greatest of all time" has been in the first paragraph of the article for quite a while, possibly years. If you do a search of the talk-page history, you will see that the consensus all along has been that the line should be part of the first paragraph, though many have expressed differing views as to how it should be phrased. I, personally, agree with Bloom, who thinks it should read, "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time." That line is not POV, as it's citing numerous experts, and it's not trivial, as the claim itself is quite a bold one. I think changing an important part of the first paragraph because two of you here desire to do so would be imprudent at this point. Let us hear from other contributors and editors. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, it's interesting how you're telling an administrator who's been editing for five years that he's mistaken, even after he gave excellent, clear and factual explanations about why it needs to be changed. Why do you continue to ignore sound logic, not to mention WP guidelines? And the things you say aren't supported by facts. The current version of that sentence has NOT been in the article for years, nor have "numerous experts" been cited. Name the "numerous" experts? You continue simply to say what YOU want, and have chosen to ignore every question I have asked you and every fact (not opinion) I have presented? I have given very specific reasons, citing WP rules and the facts of the sources, and have offered very specific suggestions to resolve this matter. But you have ignored all of it. And while you claim that there are "two" participants here who think it should be changed, I count four (me, Bloom, Bushranger and Slakr). And the last two are administrators. Yet you once again are asking for other people to contribute. And you make the unbelievably bold move of reverting an administrator's revert and completely ignoring his edit comments and guidance in this discussion, all while there is a consensus-building discussion going on. You also have a history of edit-warring in this article. You have offered nothing to this discussion in terms of trying to reach resolution and improve what others have clearly told you is wrong. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No. 76 you seem to be under the impression that an admin is some kind of Diety who can not be challenged in a discussion or whose edits can not be reverted. That's nonsense, people participate in this discussion based on the quality of their arguments and knowledge and not on their status or function.--Wolbo (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, check out what Slakr told 76 on his talk page: "I don't engage in edit wars, and had I noticed that others had previously edit warred on the page, I wouldn't have even gotten involved." It's clear to me that 76's objective here is to have the "greatest ever" line in the article deleted. I hope others are now on to him. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No. 76 you seem to be under the impression that an admin is some kind of Diety who can not be challenged in a discussion or whose edits can not be reverted. That's nonsense, people participate in this discussion based on the quality of their arguments and knowledge and not on their status or function.--Wolbo (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rereading this discussion I get the awkward feeling we're now arguing for argument's sake. Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't there a general consensus for rephrasing (or in effect reverting) the current sentence to "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time."? Bloom6132 initially proposed this, No. 76 seems to be fine with it ("is far superior, and much more appropriate, than the current sentence. I think it would be fine in the opening sentence."), TennisAnalyst004 indicates he agrees with Bloom6132 on this, it appears to be compatible with both Fyunck(click)'s post, even if he states "How that gets worded here is something I don't really want to touch", as well as Dr. Blofeld's post stating "It is true that many tennis analysts and fellow players consider him to best player of all time with the finest all round game. I don't see a problem with it" and personally I also find it a much better and more specific sentence than the indeed somewhat weaselish "widely considered". Looking through the arguments I don't really see any substantial resistance to this phrase. So why don't we just go for that and call it a day/night?--Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updated comment, Wolbo. If you read the discussion carefully, there is only one participant who is being hostile and making this issue personal, TennisAnalyst. Which is very said because when I was hoping for a nice, productive discussion to fix the obvious problem with the sentence. And TennisAnalyst, for some reason you continue to insult me as I try to resolve this matter with suggestions and facts. And you have completely ignored the helpful comments that very experienced editors have given you. Did you even read what Slakr wrote about Forrest Gump? And, yes, Slakr told you he doesn't like being involved in edit wars (including your edit-warring here). This is the part you did not tell Wolbo about... Slakr said to you on your talk page, "Given your recent editing history, it would appear that you're engaging in long-term edit warring" in this article.User_talk:TennisAnalyst004#Your_revert_on_Roger_Federer So apparently YOU are the one who has less than honorable motives. Yet here you are once again trying to get others on your side by using false claims, about the article and me, with absolutely no basis to support them. Give me one quote from something I've typed that shows my "objective here is to have the "greatest ever" line deleted? You won't of course, because you can't. There aren't any. What I want, as you well know, is to remove the weasly words and TO include quotes from tennis greats who say he's the best ever. But of course you have chosen to ignore that for your own purposes instead of trying to be cooperative in this discussion. Everything you have said thus far is based purely on dramatic emotion, rather than on facts and WP guidelines. And you have also chosen to ignore my repeated statements that Federer is my favorite current player and that I personally feel he is the greatest player of all time. You just want what you want even if it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. You offer zero solutions and make statements not supported by the facts. What's most telling is your very first comment in this discussion: "I know from reading various messages on news sites that scores of fans consider Federer the greatest of all time. Therefore, the phrase "widely considered" is eminently justifiable, indeed is objective fact rather than subjective judgment." Sorry, but you have proven by that statement that you do not understand how editing this encylopedia works, or what the rules are. You reading various messages on websites is NOT something that can be used as a basis for editing an article! And you really need to learn the difference between objective and subjective information. Reading comments on websites that say he's the greatest is always SUBjective, no matter how many people say it. I think he's the greatest, but that's my subjective opinion. If you have no interest in reaching a solution, why are you here? --76.189.114.243 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, I made the following edit suggestions previously. It involves toning down the opening sentence (per Slakr's Forrest Gump example and Bushranger's advice) and adding a new section, which would include quotes from tennis players who've said Federer is the greatest ever. Can you (and others) please tell me what objections you have, if any, to these suggested changes? And why? Thanks!
- CURRENT OPENING SENTENCE: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time.[a]
- CHANGE OPENING SENTENCE TO: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time.[a]
- All-time greatness status (new section)
- Several tennis players, including a few of the most successful in tennis history, have said that Federer is the best player ever. Rod Laver said, “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing.”.[3][11] Jack Kramer said, “I never seen anyone play the game better than Federer”.[4] John Lloyd said, “in my opinion he's got to be the greatest player of all time”.[5] Andre Agassi said, “To me he's the best of all time now – maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger's the all-time best”.[9] Ivan Lendl said Federer “is arguably the best player who ever played the game.” In 2009, when Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick were asked if they thought Roger Federer was the greatest player ever, Pete Sampras said, “I have to give it to him” and Roddick gave a simple “Yes.”[6]
- In 2012, Tennis Channel ranked him #1 on their list of “The 100 Greatest of All Time”, which included both men and women.[2] Sports Illustrated also ranked Federer as #1 on their list of “Top 10 Men's Tennis Players of All Time”.[8]
- No. 76, I'm sure there are several alternative approaches that could be equally valid and yours may or may not be one of them but why would we now diverge the discussion again with these alternatives when there is seemingly(?) a consensus for the phrase "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time."? You yourself said it "is far superior, and much more appropriate, than the current sentence. I think it would be fine in the opening sentence." If my impression of a consensus is correct (perhaps we can have a quick show of hands) I think it would be far better to close the deal on that first before we move on to proposals for new sections and what not. Agree? --Wolbo (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that once we tone down the opening sentence, we can then reinforce the issue of his greatness by including actual sourced quotes from some of the all-time greatest players. Are you opposed to having quotes of people saying they think he's the greatest ever? The current sentence, as another participant noted, tries to force it down reader's throats that Federer is the greatest ever instead of letting them decide for themselves, based on the presented facts. Once we change that sentence, we can make up for it by putting the actual quotes from guys like Laver, Sampras and Agassi. It would be powerful and, most importantly, factually sourced. Yes, I did say the previous version is superior to the current one, but that's because the current one is so over-the-top AND because it was falsely stated at that time that there were 20 sources saying he's the greatest ever. But the facts as we have them is actually that we currently only have about six sourced quotes from individuals that say he's the greatest ever. That's not "many" or "most" or "the majority." It's "some" or "several." If we can get about six or seven more, we could say "at least a dozen." Or if we can get a few articles that show quotes from mulitple players, that would be even better. I just want it to be factual, as supported by the citations. If there are so many people who have made the "greatest ever" claim, as some have stated, why aren't they sourced in the article so we can use them to validate the amount language? Thanks for your input. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The only problem with adding multiple quotes that tell us he's the greatest ever is that it also swings the door open to add quotes that he is not, and to add quotes that other players are just as worthy. It can be a slippery slope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fyunck, that is a very valid and excellent point. And the answer is: there's absolutely nothing wrong with opposing viewpoints! It's an encylopedia. ;) Opposing viewpoints occur in thousands of Wiki articles. That's why the section title would be something like "All-time greatness status" or similar. The article can say that several tennis greats have called him the greatest ever (then include their quotes and polls, etc.) And the section can ALSO contain comments that point out there are disputes about who the greatest ever is. That's fine. It's great. As long as all statements are properly sourced. And by you bringing up this issue Fyunck, you are making one of the strongest cases in this discussion for why it's so important to not use subjective or weasly language. :) One funny side note: Federer was asked if he thought he's the greatest ever and he said no. Sampras was asked if he thought Federer was the best ever and he (hesitantly) said yes. We can find a number of sources that say Federer is the best. Others that say Laver is the best. Others that say Sampras is the best. And so on for a few other players. It's hard to argue with Federer being the best of them all, but hey, that's why it's a subjective topic. Haha. Our job, as you well know, isn't to make the article a Roger Federer fan club and to only allow pro-Federer comments. It's just the opposite; to make sure that objective, worthy, sourced info is included. And if that includes some info that says Federer is NOT the best ever, fine. The dispute about his all-time greatness is a very interesting and often-discussed topic, especially now that he's regained the #1 ATP ranking again. Few thought he would ever be #1 again and many thought he would never win another grand slam. That's why a lot of his big fans, like me, are more passionate about him now than ever before. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wolbo and Fyunck,
I think the first order of business is to agree that the opening sentence of the article should not be deleted or changed until a consensus has been reached. It has been deleted twice today (7/24). I think Bloom's wording is perfectly fine, by the way.
If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that a consensus was reached long ago about the "greatest player of all time" description. This is not a new subject or point of contention, as 76 would have you believe.
Lastly, the existing footnotes for the opening sentence are ample. We don't know need to go creating new streams of quotes and data. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry TennisAnalyst, but you have clearly proven that you do not know how editing an encylopedia works. That's not an insult, it's a fact based on all your comments, lack of knowledge, misleading statements, disregard of hard facts and of WP guidelines, and perhaps most telling, your very first and last comments: "I know from reading various messages on news sites that scores of fans consider Federer the greatest of all time. Therefore, the phrase "widely considered" is eminently justifiable, indeed is objective fact rather than subjective judgment" and "We don't know need to go creating new streams of quotes and data.". You read it on some websites so its eminantly justifaiable? And you don't think an encyclopedia article should add content? Haha. Those two comments alone say it all. You have also ignrored every single question that has been asked of you. You instead keep coming back and pleading for people to just do it your way even though you offered nothing to help the process. And you make endless claims with zero diffs, zero links, zero proof. And to top it all off, you go around to people's talk pages to do nothing other than insult me and question my motives, again with absolutely no basis or proof whatsoever. It is behavior like that which drives people away from Wikipedia. Everyone else here has been participating in a friendly, helpful and productive way. You should look into what a consensus-building discussion is all about. You proved your bad faith when, in the middle of a consenus discussion, you reverted an administrator's edit after he clearly explained why and how he was doing it. He confirmed WP guidelines were being violated and that he simply wanted a consensus reached before anything else was done. And then another administrator did and said the same thing, and it was reverted again. And by the way, both Bloom and two administrators have said that the contentious wording is recent, not me. Again I'll ask rhetorically, why are you even here? It's apparently not to help the rest of us. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- If consensus is not reached, this discussion will have to move up to the next level where others will make the decision. The problem with the wording is apparently obvious to almost every active participant in this discussion. You can read Michael Jordan (a good apples-to-apples comparison), Wayne Gretzky and Babe Ruth to see how those articles handle the "greatest" issue. Every word in this article needs to be an objective fact, based on reliable sources or statistics. Editors can disagree with wording and layout, but they cannot debate facts that are properly sourced. Just remember, although there are many people who feel Federer is the greatest of all time (like most of us apparently), there are also many who feel he is not. But those are all opinions, just like all the sourced material we have about his greatness are opinions... Laver's opinion, Agassi's opinion, Sports Illustrated's opinion, etc. Everyone knows what the result will be if this matter goes to a committee. So let's reach consensus so we can put this issue behind us. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's my proposal:
- Current opening sentence: "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time.[a]"
- PROPOSED opening sentence (mostly inspired by this version): Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked World No. 1. Many sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time.[a]
Any thoughts or comments about this. Since WP:VOTE states that we can't do polling, consensus must be made over whether this is the ideal wording of the opening sentence. Just like FA/FL candidate votes, just place down either a support (if you back this proposal), oppose (if you don't like this proposal) or comment (if you have suggestions or an alternative). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- note---I see nothing in your link that excludes polling. In fact it specifically says "There is no absolute prohibition on polling." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- support - It looks pretty darned reasonable to me. I would have written greatest "male tennis" player of all time but no real matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- comment Let's cut down the wording of all the different kinds of tennis people and just make it two groups: tennis players and everyone else who's covered tennis. Also, "many" is not supported by the sources and will only cause many editors to revert the text for years. We need text that can't be argued and won't encourage reverting. No one can argue with "some" because it covers all numbers more than one. Finally, we should definitely include "some of the most successful players in tennis history" part because most of our sources are among the greatest ever, and it'll make the point much stronger because it's not just average, no-name players saying he's the greatest. By the way, I provided two additional sources at the beginning of this thread, for Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Therefore, my suggestion: "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked World No. 1 by the ATP. Some of the most successful players in tennis history, and others who have been involved in the sport, have called him the greatest tennis player of all time.[a]" --76.189.114.243 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Sorry guys, but "many" won't cut it. Six to 10 former players saying it does not even come close to qualifying as many. There are far more than six to 10 players who have NOT said he is the greatest ever... dozens of legends, hundreds or even thousands of other players who have NOT said it (in material we can source). You all know that "many" violates WP:WEASEL. Now if you have a reliable source that actually uses a weasely type of term, fine, then simply attribute it to that specific source and put it in quotes. For instance, if CBS Sports puts out an article that says "Roger Federer is widely recognized as the greatest player of all time," then simply put in the article: CBS Sports said Federer is "widely considered the greatest player of all time". This is exactly the same as what they do in the lede of Michael Jordan when they quote what the NBA website said about him being the greatest ever: "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." The point is that the Wiki article is not saying it about Jordan, it's saying that the NBA website is saying it. There's a huge difference and we need to follow that here. You need to stop focusing on these subjective, hyped terms that are not supported by the citations. All you'll do is guarantee that many editors will keep removing the word "many" and anything else that is not objective and supported by the sources.
- I also gave a very reasonable, and necessary, suggestion of changing the too-specific list of tennis people (sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players) so that EVERYONE in the tennis world is included. The proposed wording fails to include many people in the tennis world, such as coaches, sportswriters (who aren't analysts or critics), judges, linesmen, tennis executives, and many others. Again, you are just begging for editors to keep changing that text, which they no doubt will.
- I'm just telling you now that this issue will go up a level for a committee decision if we don't stick to encylopedic rules. A consensus on something that violates editing guidelines will never stand.
- By the way, I have no problem using the term "several" instead.
- So again, I suggest text that cannot be factually challenged and which is all-inclusive of everyone in the tennis world: "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked World No. 1 by the ATP. Some of the most successful players in tennis history, and others who have been involved in the sport, have called him the greatest tennis player of all time.[a]"
- support Thought we were there already but apparently not. If the word 'many' in this phrase is deemed problematic I'm fine with changing it to 'several' which is also the term used by Slakr in his edit.--Wolbo (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- support I do have a few concerns, though. 1) The wording does not acknowledge that many legends of the game -- e.g., Kramer, Laver, Billie Jean King, Lendl, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, et al. -- are on record saying Federer is the greatest ever. No other player, living or dead, enjoys such an endorsement from so many legends. 2) If we correct what is perceived as POV/"weasle words" in this article, we must do the same for the Nadal and Sampras articles (and possibly others). 3) Whatever consensus is reached here can easily be questioned or overturned by anybody wishing to do so a few days or weeks from now. This means all this "deliberation" will have been for naught. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- To try and stop the edit warring I have changed the sentence to "Several sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time.". Regardless of whether this will be the final version or not it is good enough to at least leave in place until the outcome of this discussion. Also added another reference, a nice video from a former player who claims that "He is the greatest player to have ever played the game". It's from some Swedish guy named Borg. Didn't he once play at Wimbledon? --Wolbo (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, I support your decision to make a slight change to the wording of the lead sentence, as a 3-1 consensus was reached. Good work! Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- To try and stop the edit warring I have changed the sentence to "Several sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time.". Regardless of whether this will be the final version or not it is good enough to at least leave in place until the outcome of this discussion. Also added another reference, a nice video from a former player who claims that "He is the greatest player to have ever played the game". It's from some Swedish guy named Borg. Didn't he once play at Wimbledon? --Wolbo (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, I understand your intentions but you have no right to simply insert language that is currently under discussion. What's the point of the discussion if a participant is simply going to put in whatever he wants? Why do you think that doing something that violates the rules of consensus discussions is appropriate? I simply reverted back to what was decided by two administrators, who said the contentious statement should temporarily be removed until consensus is reached. But of course TennisAnalyst chose to continue his troublemaking ways and put back the MOST contentious version which almost everyone in this discussion has agreed violates WP:WEASEL. And, on top of it, he posts these bullshit, self-serving edit comments: "The admins and editors of the article agree that no major change to the wording should occur until a resolution has been reached on the talk page. User 76 has made 2 reverts (deletions) today." The admins and editors never agreed to anything like that and he knows it. What the administrators and almost everyone in this discussion have said is that the weasly wording needs change. Yet, TennisAnalyst chooses to continue piss off people by putting it back because that's the way HE wants it. He has a proven history of edit-warring in this article as verified by an administrator. I'm on the verge of taking this matter to higher authorities and out of the hands of bad faith editors. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey TennisAnalyst, hate to break it to you but a consensus is not reached simply because YOU say so. Who made you king of this discussion? A consensus is reached when we, as a group, decide there's consensus. YOU reverted back to the "widely considered" version, yet you want all of us to take you seriously? Learn how this project works. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well guys, my point has been soundly proven! You now have a non-stop edit-war. That sentence will continue to be reverted incessantly forever. You didn't want to listen to reason and just state the sourced facts like I suggested. No, you're just so stubbornly stuck on having to put a contentious amount description on it... widely considered, widely recognized, many, most, the majority, overwhelmingly, etc., etc. There was even actually a version for awhile that had the balls to say, "is the greatest tennis player of all time." Great. Welcome to Wikipedia. There are too many versions in the edit history to keep track of. Keep listening to incompetent editors like TennisAnalyst and this is the path you'll enjoy for years to come. Bloom is a good guy who cares about doing the right thing and has a passion for tennis. But he has no guts to stand up to bullies and peer pressure. He knows exactly what's right but he won't stand up for it. He just completely dropped out of this discussion and then floated back in at the very end so that HIS proposal would be the one voted on. Funny, HE was the one who wanted me to start this discussion here in the first place. He even stated he totally agreed with me ("I fully agree with this") in his first comment of this discussion. Remember that? And when TennisAnalyst went to Bloom's talk page to do his typical routine of trash talking about me, Bloom told him he was wrong about me and that what I was saying made sense. But he didn't do that here in the discussion, where it really would have mattered. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Article now fully protected. Mission accomplished. Thanks, JC. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, a full protection of the article for three weeks seems a bit overdone to me given that we had arrived at a situation and a sentence where there was no grounds to expect further significant edit warring, at least not among the participants of this discussion. As semi-protection would probably have been sufficient. Also, for some reason I don't see a protection lock icon of the article page.--Wolbo (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Protection was necessary because User 76 kept deleting the sentence, even though a consensus had been reached (3-1) that it stay. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, a full protection of the article for three weeks seems a bit overdone to me given that we had arrived at a situation and a sentence where there was no grounds to expect further significant edit warring, at least not among the participants of this discussion. As semi-protection would probably have been sufficient. Also, for some reason I don't see a protection lock icon of the article page.--Wolbo (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst... is there ever going to be a time where you state facts instead of your constant, unsupported, intentional lies? Haha, you continue to intrigue my wife with every subsequent comment you post. So let's get some things clear. First, _I_ was the one who requested protection. Second, I didn't "delete the sentence." I simply reverted to the version administrators and a few others had THREE times settled on until a consensus was reached here. And contrary to your continued pleas to everyone, consenus was NOT reached yet. The voting and input was ongoing, as everyone except you knows. It's interesting how you kept begging for a lot more input, yet you think four votes constitutes enough for consenus. Apparently, you don't understand that just because YOU declare a consensus has been reached, doesn't make it so. Consensus is decided by the group. So back to the facts of this situation. At least a half dozen editors, including yourself, decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the concept of a consensus-building talk page discussion by making edits to the questionable content. You also again failed to acknowledge (i.e. hide) what YOU did, which was to revert THREE times to the MOST contentious version, by putting back the "widely considered" text and even having the gall to remove the appropriate tags which administrators initially advised adding. Again, more proof of your bad faith disruptions. You did it here, here and here. Funny things about facts - they always tell the truth. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- You did not request protection. I was the one who proposed the idea on Wolbo's (and others') talk page. You also deleted the sentence on two occasions and had to be warned about violating the 3-revert rule. You really need to stop spamming this talk page and get a hold of yourself. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst... is there ever going to be a time where you state facts instead of your constant, unsupported, intentional lies? Haha, you continue to intrigue my wife with every subsequent comment you post. So let's get some things clear. First, _I_ was the one who requested protection. Second, I didn't "delete the sentence." I simply reverted to the version administrators and a few others had THREE times settled on until a consensus was reached here. And contrary to your continued pleas to everyone, consenus was NOT reached yet. The voting and input was ongoing, as everyone except you knows. It's interesting how you kept begging for a lot more input, yet you think four votes constitutes enough for consenus. Apparently, you don't understand that just because YOU declare a consensus has been reached, doesn't make it so. Consensus is decided by the group. So back to the facts of this situation. At least a half dozen editors, including yourself, decided to take it upon themselves to disregard the concept of a consensus-building talk page discussion by making edits to the questionable content. You also again failed to acknowledge (i.e. hide) what YOU did, which was to revert THREE times to the MOST contentious version, by putting back the "widely considered" text and even having the gall to remove the appropriate tags which administrators initially advised adding. Again, more proof of your bad faith disruptions. You did it here, here and here. Funny things about facts - they always tell the truth. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, unlike your continued whiny, unsubstantiated claims, I provide proof with what I say. You never do. Haha. Everyone knows exactly what you've done, so repeating your lies endlessly will not help your cause. You may have mentioned protecting to someone in this discussion, but I took it to someone who could actually get it done. And he did. This was necessary because of you insisting that the MOST contentious version of the text ("widely considered") be put back. And as several other editors repeatedly have attempted to get you to understand, the 3RR rule is violated when one makes FOUR edits to a page within 24 hours. I made two. Lmao, how many times do people have to explain this to you before you get it? And I have proven, with diffs, that you have repeatedly edited that sentence, including the THREE recent times (within 24 hours). And the so-called revert warning you continue referring to is the bogus warning YOU, and no one else, posted. Even an administrator had to laugh when he saw that one. A guy who has a history of edit-warring warning an editor who does not is about as gutsy as it gets. But I shouldn't be surprised, you did it here too with one of the many other editors you have annoyed with your outbursts. You continue to amuse my wife and I greatly. Keep it going if you want to continue embarrassing yourself. You're keeping us entertained. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all
Just getting in on this discussion, but might a sentence such as: "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player, generally recognized as the most accomplished tennis player of all time" do the trick? Here is a source that would support such an assertion: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1972075_1972078_1972322,00.html
I think "accomplished" is more objective than "greatest" and is supported by the source. Am curious to hear your thoughts! Many thanks, Halg, Halgerov994 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Halg, I think your suggestion is excellent because "accomplished" is clearly supported by the objective statistics! The only alteration I would make, though, is removing the "generally recognized" language because when referring to statistics it's simply unnecessary. Statistics are totally objective facts, so how many people recognize it is irrelevant. I would instead just say, "...is statistically the most accomplished tennis player of all time." The word statistically is important because without it many editors will continue to question what is meant by "accomplished" (even though it should be self-explanatory). The word "statistically" makes it clear. Your idea of using "accomplished" is a great. Keep in mind, however, that there are a few very stubborn participants here, as I'm sure you've seen, who have proven they have no interest in being open-minded about finding a reasonable, appropriate compromise. Thanks for your input! --76.189.114.243 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why of course you think the suggestion is "excellent"! You've been trying to get rid of the phrase "greatest of all time" ever since you (Schpinbo) showed up here a few weeks ago. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Cheers, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey TennisAnalyst, my wife has a question for you. Why are you obsessed with me? She's getting a little jealous. Haha. I'm sorry that my telling someone their suggestion was excellent offends you so much. And to correct yet another of your continued lies, none of my suggestions ever said to remove the words "greatest of all time." Can you read. Then read up. What did I say? Hmm, I see my suggested version being, "Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time." Wow, look at that... the words "greatest of all time" are in there. What d'ya know. And finally, let's talk about your last, and perhaps most laughable, claim so far. It seems that you are implying that the user Schpinbo and I are the same person? I have to admit, you've topped yourself with that one. What you are accusing me of is being a sock. So if you believe that's true, what I would suggest is going to an administrator, right now, and reporting it. Because if you're right, then I will banned from editing and you will have no longer have to obsessed with me. So let's see how that works out for you, OK? Interesting, could it be perhaps be that a real sock is trying to attention off himself in that regard? Hmm. Anyway, please continue posting your mind-boggling, paranoid posts so that we can continue to be amused by them. By the way, if I am also Schpinbo then why didn't Schpinbo cast a vote? Haha. Think before you speak. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- In thinking about this for many hours, I'm not sure "accomplished" would be correct here. We have one source that says Federer is the most accomplished. In the history of tennis what does that mean? Not number one the longest... that would probably be Renshaw, Tilden or Gonzales. Majors... if you include the pro Majors he's still behind Rosewall and Laver. In Grand Slams Federer has zero and Laver has two and Budge has one. Nadal has beat him more times than not. In the past Davis Cup was the most important thing... enough to keep players out of the Majors if need arose. How well has Roger done there? And piling up doubles titles alongside your singles titles was also quite worthy. How has Roger done there? So not to take anything away from Federer's greatness amongst his peers, but we will need a heck of lot more sources (other than just 1) before we should use the word most "accomplished." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's just one little problem. The sources quoted in the sentence -- Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Laver, Borg -- say Federer is the "greatest of all time," not the "most accomplished of all time." Let us stick with what these people have actually said. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- In thinking about this for many hours, I'm not sure "accomplished" would be correct here. We have one source that says Federer is the most accomplished. In the history of tennis what does that mean? Not number one the longest... that would probably be Renshaw, Tilden or Gonzales. Majors... if you include the pro Majors he's still behind Rosewall and Laver. In Grand Slams Federer has zero and Laver has two and Budge has one. Nadal has beat him more times than not. In the past Davis Cup was the most important thing... enough to keep players out of the Majors if need arose. How well has Roger done there? And piling up doubles titles alongside your singles titles was also quite worthy. How has Roger done there? So not to take anything away from Federer's greatness amongst his peers, but we will need a heck of lot more sources (other than just 1) before we should use the word most "accomplished." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, the "accomplished" suggestion is a separate issue, unrealted to the the current sources that talk about his "greatness." The sources for Federer's accomplishment level are his career statistics. So sources is not an issue. Greatness is a subjective topic. Accomplishments are objective. Overall, you made some excellent points which again prove why articles should never try to "measure" someone's greatness in history. It's always dangerous territory for an encylopedia to get into. Especially, in this case, when so many people have arguments against him being the greatest ever. No matter how many sources we get that give the opinion that Federer's the greatest of all time, it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't take into account the many people who say he's NOT the greatest. That's why, even though I'm a giant Federer admirer who thinks he IS the best ever, I must be sure to take my "fan" hat off and put my editor hat on. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest changing the term "several" to "multiple" so that it reads "Multiple sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time." The reason is that "several" is defined as "more than two but not many" meaning a number larger than two but still a very small quantity (three or four). That is clearly not the case here as shown by the references. TheLou75 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note to 76.189.114.243, please refrain from personal attacks as I see that this discussion has been littered with them. TheLou75 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Lou, there are less than 10 sources to the greatness claim. That is several. Several does not end at 3 or 4. Seven or eight is still several, not many. So Wolbo used a correct term. My preferred version is "some" not several, but I'm willing to compromise and accept several it as an alternative. Both are accurate based on the current sources. In terms of my comments, as we teach our kids, bullies must be dealt with directly. Some of the comments he's made about me include: "hysterical child", "The guy strikes me as psychologically imbalanced" and "I would say that the termites have been dining on your brain for quite a long time now." An administrator is fully aware of what's been said and is dealing with it. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I suggest you stay out of it unless you want to escalate the situation. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- So from what I am understanding, if I can find more than 10 sources we can use the term "multiple" correct? I have no problem with that and I do note the term "several" is just a temporary compromise. The issue with "several" is that it is commonly used to denote a low number like the phrase "several inches of rain" meaning 3 or 4 inches or "several miles away" meaning 3 or 4 miles. As for the comments, I must admit I am unfamiliar with the past history between you two, it was only what I noticed in this particular discussion. My suggestion of being civil goes TennisAnalyst004 as well. TheLou75 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, 76.189.114.243, I do like your suggestion of specifically listing out the players and sportswriters who make this claim in the article. I believe you suggested this earlier? Currently the article makes no specific mention of it. TheLou75 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- So from what I am understanding, if I can find more than 10 sources we can use the term "multiple" correct? I have no problem with that and I do note the term "several" is just a temporary compromise. The issue with "several" is that it is commonly used to denote a low number like the phrase "several inches of rain" meaning 3 or 4 inches or "several miles away" meaning 3 or 4 miles. As for the comments, I must admit I am unfamiliar with the past history between you two, it was only what I noticed in this particular discussion. My suggestion of being civil goes TennisAnalyst004 as well. TheLou75 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Lou, there are less than 10 sources to the greatness claim. That is several. Several does not end at 3 or 4. Seven or eight is still several, not many. So Wolbo used a correct term. My preferred version is "some" not several, but I'm willing to compromise and accept several it as an alternative. Both are accurate based on the current sources. In terms of my comments, as we teach our kids, bullies must be dealt with directly. Some of the comments he's made about me include: "hysterical child", "The guy strikes me as psychologically imbalanced" and "I would say that the termites have been dining on your brain for quite a long time now." An administrator is fully aware of what's been said and is dealing with it. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I suggest you stay out of it unless you want to escalate the situation. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note to 76.189.114.243, please refrain from personal attacks as I see that this discussion has been littered with them. TheLou75 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest changing the term "several" to "multiple" so that it reads "Multiple sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time." The reason is that "several" is defined as "more than two but not many" meaning a number larger than two but still a very small quantity (three or four). That is clearly not the case here as shown by the references. TheLou75 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wolbo, the "accomplished" suggestion is a separate issue, unrealted to the the current sources that talk about his "greatness." The sources for Federer's accomplishment level are his career statistics. So sources is not an issue. Greatness is a subjective topic. Accomplishments are objective. Overall, you made some excellent points which again prove why articles should never try to "measure" someone's greatness in history. It's always dangerous territory for an encylopedia to get into. Especially, in this case, when so many people have arguments against him being the greatest ever. No matter how many sources we get that give the opinion that Federer's the greatest of all time, it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't take into account the many people who say he's NOT the greatest. That's why, even though I'm a giant Federer admirer who thinks he IS the best ever, I must be sure to take my "fan" hat off and put my editor hat on. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Lou. Thanks, I'm glad you like that idea. There are many athlete articles that do it. I think it's a glaring omission. I think it would really add positively to the article to show the players, sportwriters and websites, etc., that say he's the greatest ever. You're the first to comment on the suggestion. So I appreciate you having an open mind and looking at the big picture. In terms of using "mulitiple," I think most people think of a number smaller than 10 when that word is used. If there were more than 10 sources to the "greatest of all time" claim, I would think "numerous" would be a more accurate and appropriate description. I wish we could find a couple articles where a number of players are quoted as saying he's the greatest. It's abundantly clear that we have a nice list of tennis legends making the claim, but I've seen so many people who argue why they think he ISN'T the greatest ever. Personally, I think it's a fun debate. And statistics speak differently to different people. I say they tell me that Federer is the best ever. But my brother says they support Laver being the greatest. I've also heard good arguments for Sampras, Connors, Nadal, Borg and a few others. Anyway, this is why we need to be impartial in this article and just state the facts and give the sources. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all!
There have been some good ideas here since my last post (see above) and I hope I'm not interrupting the flow of the discussion, but I thought of another idea that might work and I am curious again to read your thoughts. So it seems pretty controversial to refer to Federer as a superlative - whether it be "greatest," or "most accomplished," etc. Although I respect the opinion of those who do wish to leave some kind of superlative in the article, my view is that we are very unlikely to garner a consensus on that point. BUT, I think (and I could be wrong about this), that it is uncontroversial to refer to Federer as "among the most accomplished" players of all time. While many would disagree about Federer being the very top dog of all time, I don't think anyone disagrees that he is among the best to ever play the sport. So would a change in the opening sentence to read something to the effect of: "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player, whose achievements to date rank him among the most accomplished (or maybe successful) players of all time" work?
Thanks again! HalG Halgerov994 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Halgerov, I like your idea a lot. Very nice! --76.189.114.243 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going have to strongly disagree with this idea as the references specifically state he is the greatest and to call that "most accomplished" would be WP:SYN. GreenTree998 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your input. Greentree, I completely agree with you that the phrase "most accomplished" should not be used. My suggestion, in fact, is not to use any superlative at all, whether it be "most accomplished," "most successful," "greatest," etc. Instead, my suggestion is to use the phrase such as "one of the ______" or "among the __________" because that would be a phrase that garners the most consensus. Would love to hear your response! Thank you again. Halgerov994 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, you have to use the phrase stated in the references which is "greatest ever." So if Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, Andy Roddick, or Andre Agassi called him the greatest ever, you wouldn't and shouldn't twist their words to anything else as that would be WP:SYN and against the policies of Wikipedia. GreenTree998 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, GreenTree. I still think there is nothing objectionable about the word "many" ("Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time"), as there are at least two dozen more tennis commentators and players who are on record saying Fed is the greatest ever, among whom are Cliff Drysdale, Billie Jean King, Simon Barnes, Robbie Koenig, Steve Tignor, Andy Roddick, David Ferrer, and even Rafa Nadal. It should be noted, because there is some confusion on this subject, that acknowledging what others have said and do say is not the same thing as making an official statement oneself. It is thus not Wikipedia that is saying RF is the "greatest ever," but the aforementioned individuals. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, you have to use the phrase stated in the references which is "greatest ever." So if Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, Andy Roddick, or Andre Agassi called him the greatest ever, you wouldn't and shouldn't twist their words to anything else as that would be WP:SYN and against the policies of Wikipedia. GreenTree998 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your input. Greentree, I completely agree with you that the phrase "most accomplished" should not be used. My suggestion, in fact, is not to use any superlative at all, whether it be "most accomplished," "most successful," "greatest," etc. Instead, my suggestion is to use the phrase such as "one of the ______" or "among the __________" because that would be a phrase that garners the most consensus. Would love to hear your response! Thank you again. Halgerov994 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going have to strongly disagree with this idea as the references specifically state he is the greatest and to call that "most accomplished" would be WP:SYN. GreenTree998 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Halgerov, you are absolutely correct. However, although your idea is clearly among the most appropriate, accurate and objective, I highly doubt it will garner the most consensus because, as evidenced by comments in this discussion, there are a number of editors who have shown little or no ability to compromise or be open-minded about removing all the superlatives. In fact, ever since the article was made fully protected, they have interestingly disappeared from the discussion completely because reverting to the most contentious versions is no longer possible. Some of them appear unable to take off their Roger Federer "fan" hats and put on their unbiased editor's hat. They want to force it down reader's throats that Federer is the greatest instead of properly allowing them to determine for themselves what superlatives they want to assign to him. We, as editors, simply need to state the objective facts. A number of these editors keep insisting that the superlatives are completely valid simply because there are sources which show former players and others saying he's the greatest. What they however fail to ever understand or acknowledge is that all those statements are clearly subjective opinions, and that there are many people who do not feel that Federer is the greatest. They refuse to even consider or discuss the reasonable idea of simply directly attributing all the "greatest ever" comments to those who made them. So, yes, "one of the __________" or "among the __________" is a great idea. Perhaps other editors will reconsider and agree. We'll see. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again, stating "one of the __________" or "among the __________" is WP:SYN which is the reason why it cannot be implemented. The sources do not state this so it's synthesis. This is not a difference of opinion, it's enforcement of Wikipedia's policy, nothing more. GreenTree998 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Halgerov, you are absolutely correct. However, although your idea is clearly among the most appropriate, accurate and objective, I highly doubt it will garner the most consensus because, as evidenced by comments in this discussion, there are a number of editors who have shown little or no ability to compromise or be open-minded about removing all the superlatives. In fact, ever since the article was made fully protected, they have interestingly disappeared from the discussion completely because reverting to the most contentious versions is no longer possible. Some of them appear unable to take off their Roger Federer "fan" hats and put on their unbiased editor's hat. They want to force it down reader's throats that Federer is the greatest instead of properly allowing them to determine for themselves what superlatives they want to assign to him. We, as editors, simply need to state the objective facts. A number of these editors keep insisting that the superlatives are completely valid simply because there are sources which show former players and others saying he's the greatest. What they however fail to ever understand or acknowledge is that all those statements are clearly subjective opinions, and that there are many people who do not feel that Federer is the greatest. They refuse to even consider or discuss the reasonable idea of simply directly attributing all the "greatest ever" comments to those who made them. So, yes, "one of the __________" or "among the __________" is a great idea. Perhaps other editors will reconsider and agree. We'll see. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The sources do not say WHAT? Statistically, he IS "among the" or "one of the" most accomplished players of all-time. That's an objective fact. You are perhaps confusing two separate issues: his "greatness" and his "accomplishments." The greatness comments are opinions by the sources. His accomplishments are facts - statistics, by default, are objective facts. They can be compared to the statistics of other players. His accomplishments are a subset of his greatness. WP:SYN is not applicable as it applies to combining different statements into a single conclusion. That would essentially be like saying apples and oranges equals peaches. With regard to the Federer "all time greatest" statements, this issue is all about comparing apples to apples. In terms of his "accomplishements" (statistics), that of course is, by default, apples to apples. Beyond that, WP:WPN is never violated when statetments are accurately and directly attributed to their sources. Also, using a completely objective amount of people who've made a particular statement, such as Federer's all time greatness, also of course violates no guidelines. In this case, it would be appropriate to say that some, several or multiple people have said ___________. A few editors have given a lot of names of people who have called Federer the greatest ever, but the problem is that a lot of them are not currently sourced in the article. We can't just take someone's word for it. That's not the way an encylopedia works. Currently, there are only seven players cited: Laver, Kramer, Lloyd, Agassi, Lendl, Roddick and Borg. Plus Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated. I also added links for Borg and McEnroe early in the discussion, but McEnroe hasn't been added yet. Per the sourced material, Sampras hedged (a lot) when put on the spot when asked if Federer is the greatest of all time. Roddick was asked at the same time and gave a one-word answer, "Yes", with no other comments. Lendl, per the source, went back and forth between Federer and Nadal, and then said well Federer for now, maybe Nadal later. We must remain completely impartial on this greatness issue, and state the whole truth in the article rather than saying something out of context. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, we were discussing the statement of "Several (Many or Multiple depeding on how this turns out) sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time." The sources are of players and analyst who call Federer the greatest and if this article was not protected, I can add more. The fact that those people called him the greatest is not subjective, it's an objective fact that they called him that. What is subjective and original research however is your analysis into the intentions of Sampras' and Roddick's statements and your conclusion that they were somehow not sincere. Also, if this change was to be considered, WP:SYN would apply here because you would be modifying the statements from the cited sources where the sources say greatest player to you modifying that to become "one of the most accomplished." If you want to say is is among the most accomplished players, that would be a separate issue from this and would be another statement to consider as an addition to the article and not as a modification of the existing sentence. GreenTree998 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- GreenTree, I think you are correct on the issue of WP:SYN, and I believe sometime soon the talk page should invoke cloture on the "greatest of all time" issue. By the way, here are 10 more legends/experts who are on record saying Federer is the greatest ever (we already have Laver, Kramer, Lloyd, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, and Borg):
- 1. Billie Jean King: was "quick to hail the Swiss master as the greatest ever racket-swinger in the sport." (http://blogs.reuters.com/sport/2009/06/08/what-the-players-say-about-roger-federer/)
- 2. John McEnroe: says Federer "is just the greatest player of all time." (http://www.atpchampionstour.com/news62.html)
- 3. Boris Becker: "I believe Federer is the greatest player of all time..."(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8133532.stm)
- 4. Rafael Nadal: "Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever had such quality."(http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer)
- 5. Robin Soderling: "Roger Federer is the best player in history." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/5469630/French-Open-2009-Roger-Federer-greatest-player-in-history-says-Robin-Soderling.html)
- 6. Cliff Drysdale: "To me, Federer is the best player that ever hit a tennis ball on a tennis court." (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/to-me-federer-is-the-best-player-that-ever-hit-a/849840.html)
- 7. Greg Rusedski: "There is no question about it, he is the greatest player of all time."(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8133532.stm)
- 8. Sue Barker: "I do think he is the greatest player of all time..." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8133532.stm)
- 9. Tim Henman: "I thought Roger was the best player of all time before this tournament and the fact that he just constantly adds to the record books simply confirms my thoughts."(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8133532.stm)
- 10. Andrew Castle: "...Roger Federer is the greatest player I have personally ever seen."(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8133532.stm)
- TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, we were discussing the statement of "Several (Many or Multiple depeding on how this turns out) sports analysts, tennis critics and former and current players consider him to be the greatest tennis player of all time." The sources are of players and analyst who call Federer the greatest and if this article was not protected, I can add more. The fact that those people called him the greatest is not subjective, it's an objective fact that they called him that. What is subjective and original research however is your analysis into the intentions of Sampras' and Roddick's statements and your conclusion that they were somehow not sincere. Also, if this change was to be considered, WP:SYN would apply here because you would be modifying the statements from the cited sources where the sources say greatest player to you modifying that to become "one of the most accomplished." If you want to say is is among the most accomplished players, that would be a separate issue from this and would be another statement to consider as an addition to the article and not as a modification of the existing sentence. GreenTree998 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The sources do not say WHAT? Statistically, he IS "among the" or "one of the" most accomplished players of all-time. That's an objective fact. You are perhaps confusing two separate issues: his "greatness" and his "accomplishments." The greatness comments are opinions by the sources. His accomplishments are facts - statistics, by default, are objective facts. They can be compared to the statistics of other players. His accomplishments are a subset of his greatness. WP:SYN is not applicable as it applies to combining different statements into a single conclusion. That would essentially be like saying apples and oranges equals peaches. With regard to the Federer "all time greatest" statements, this issue is all about comparing apples to apples. In terms of his "accomplishements" (statistics), that of course is, by default, apples to apples. Beyond that, WP:WPN is never violated when statetments are accurately and directly attributed to their sources. Also, using a completely objective amount of people who've made a particular statement, such as Federer's all time greatness, also of course violates no guidelines. In this case, it would be appropriate to say that some, several or multiple people have said ___________. A few editors have given a lot of names of people who have called Federer the greatest ever, but the problem is that a lot of them are not currently sourced in the article. We can't just take someone's word for it. That's not the way an encylopedia works. Currently, there are only seven players cited: Laver, Kramer, Lloyd, Agassi, Lendl, Roddick and Borg. Plus Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated. I also added links for Borg and McEnroe early in the discussion, but McEnroe hasn't been added yet. Per the sourced material, Sampras hedged (a lot) when put on the spot when asked if Federer is the greatest of all time. Roddick was asked at the same time and gave a one-word answer, "Yes", with no other comments. Lendl, per the source, went back and forth between Federer and Nadal, and then said well Federer for now, maybe Nadal later. We must remain completely impartial on this greatness issue, and state the whole truth in the article rather than saying something out of context. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Green, this discussion is about all suggestions and options to fix the original problem of saying he is "widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time." One problem may result in multiple solutions. We were in the middle of trying to reach a consensus and had movement from most participants to tone down the language. After only four votes, the article was protected to encourage further discussion. So we've continued the conversation. The suggestion of having language regarding Federer's accomplishments was then introduced. That some have called him the greatest ever is of course an objective fact. No one has ever questioned that. That has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is qualifying it by saying "widely considered", "most consider", "many consider", "he is generally considered", etc. Too many editors have been advocating for inappropriately subjective amounts like these. There have been so many subjective terms used that it's hard to keep track of all of them. At one point, it actually said that he "is the greatest tennis player of all time" as if it's a proven, undebated fact. Anyone who fought for it to stay should be permanently banned from ever editing. ;) Again, you are misunderstanding the "greatest" and "accomplishment" issues. I very clearly explained already that these are separate issues. There can be statements about both. The article can include content about his greatest-ever status, with the cited sources attached. And it can also address his statistics and how they compare, or how he ranks, historically to other players in terms of the pure numbers. It already does a great job of doing this in the lead. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of the sources TennisAnalyst found, those are very good assuming the sources confirm the quotes. The Nadal quote is weak at this point because he made it six years ago, when his own greatness was just beginning. It can be included if the text makes clear it's from 2006. One from the past two years would be credible, but I doubt it exists. Also, anyone who said it before Nadal became #1 may not feel the same way today, which is why quotes like these must be put in context. When Sampras retired, many said he was the greatest of all-time. Same for Borg and Laver. This is another reason why you can't say something like so and so "consider him to be the greatest of all time" because maybe they did previously, but don't any more. The objective way would be so and so "have said they consider..." and then attribute them in context. But some of those people probably have changed their minds and think it's Federer today. The ones from the true legends are especially effective. They still of course do not validate use of terms like "widely considered" or similar language, but what I do notice, as a factual observation, is that almost all of the top 10 male tennis players ever in the category of "most consecutive weeks at #1", have called him the greatest player of all time. The top 10, in order, are Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt and Edberg. Of those, the only sources we haven't seen yet are Connors, Hewitt and Edberg. And as I said, Nadal said it six years ago. And six of the top seven say it, also (if you count Federer haha). (Although, when asked, Federer emphatically said that he is NOT the greatest player of all time. But I think he was just being his usual, modest self.) If someone can find sources for Jimmy Connors and Ken Rosewall saying he's the greatest ever, that would cover most of the top 10 living greatest players ever in terms of those with the "most grand slam tournament singles titles." In total, we now have close to 20 sources who've said he's the greatest of all time, assuming all the new ones are verified. Find a few more and we can objectively say "dozens" have said it. ;) Btw, Tennis said he thinks he agrees about WP:SYN (without giving any explanation as to why), but he apparently didn't read that when Green said that, he incorrectly assumed we were talking about "modifying the statements from the cited sources where the sources say greatest player to... modifying that to become "one of the most accomplished,'" which we are not. So WP:SYN does not apply at all. Any "greatest of all time" statement in the article will of course be attributed to all those sources that show the players saying it. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
HalG here again! Greentree, you have once again made some great points, and I have given them a lot of thought. It seems to me that your main concern (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that we should not be mischaractarizing the sources that are already cited in the lead section. I am in 100% agreement with you on that point. However, do you think that the lead section should frame Federer in a more generalized fashion than it currently does? See WP:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." Therefore, might it be more consistent with Wikipedia's recommendation regarding lead sections if we were to move the sentence: "Several sports analysts, commentators, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time," to somewhere in one of the main sections of the article? If so, we could then replace that sentence in the lead section with something that is "written at a greater level of generality...less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." That is why I proposed: "Federer's achievements to date rank him among the most successful tennis players of all time." It seems to me that this sentence is at a greater level of generality than "Several sports analysts, commentators, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time," and therefore may be more appropriate for the lead section. Curious to hear your thoughts - thanks again! HalG Halgerov994 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of consistency with other tennis articles, this phrase has always been used in the lead section and most often than not, in the first or second sentence. If the change was made to the Federer article, articles on Borg, Laver, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi would have to be changed as well. GreenTree998 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Greentree. As with you, I think consistency with other tennis articles is important. However, do you think the way Federer's lead is currently worded is consistent with those other leads? For example, Laver's lead reads: "Laver is regarded as one of the greatest tennis players yet seen." Sampras's reads: "During his 14-year tour career, he...became recognized as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[2]"; Nadal's reads: "He is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time;[5][6][7]; Agassi's reads: "Generally considered by critics and fellow players to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time;" and Borg's reads: "He is considered by many to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[6][7][8]." Each of these players has had several experts to make the case that they are the "greatest player of all time" but this phrase was not included in their lead sections. So I actually do not think we would have to change any of those articles at all if we made the change to the Federer lead that I propose - in fact, changing the Federer lead to note that he is regarded as "among the greatest," as opposed to actually "the greatest," would actually be making the Federer article more consistent with the Borg, Sampras, Nadal, etc. articles. Thoughts? Thanks again - HalG Halgerov994 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two words: False equivalence. --Wolbo (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or one: WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two words: False equivalence. --Wolbo (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you both explain what you mean - something more than a one or two word response would be appreciated. Halgerov994 (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 27 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the opening sentence saying that Federer is currently ranked number 1 be changed to some variation of "as of July 2012 he is ranked number 1" to ensure the information is clear on the time frame, "currently" is usually discouraged. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a clear case of WP:PRECISELANG, so
Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Error in link to 2000 Olympics
Federer's best finish in the Olympics is his 4th place in 2000, but the link directs to the 2008 Olympics. Skroting (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Heavily Redundant wording in the "2008 - Present" section
Hello, Just wanted to point out that the wording in the "2008 - Present" section concerning Wimbledon 2012 and RF regaining the no1 spot in the rankings is very redundant and reads like a collage... Here is the section in question: " On 8 July 2012, Federer defeated Andy Murray in four sets in the 2012 Wimbledon Final,[75] regaining the world number-one ranking in the process.[76] "It's amazing. It equals me with Pete Sampras, who's my hero. It just feels amazing," Federer said of winning his seventh Wimbledon championship, tying Sampras' Open Era record.[77] "I just lost to one of the greatest athletes of all time. You have to put things into context a little bit," Murray lamented after losing three straight sets after winning the first.[78] By defeating top-ranked Djokovic in the semifinals and winning in the finals, Federer returned to the top spot in the world rankings and in doing so, broke Sampras' record of 286 weeks atop the list.[79]" --GP modernus (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 4 August 2012
According to The Reputation Institute survey in 2011, Roger Federer got the second-best worldwide reputation of any public figure, behind only former South African president Nelson Mandela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.248.6 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
2012 Olympics
Could someone please add a section about Federer in the 2012 Olympics in the "Career" section? Possibly mention how he let Wawrinka be the Swiss flagbearer, then include a brief synopsis of the matches he played and the opponents he faced, the long and difficult semifinal against Del Potro which he won leading to his first Olympic Tennis final, a repeat of the Wimbledon Final against Murray on the same court, meaning that he was guaranteed an Olympic medal in singles for the first time in his career. The article isn't allowing me to edit anything. Thanks. Messirulez (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)] Now that the tournament is over, his record should be updated as well to reflect silver.
Edit request on 30 July 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Federer is now ranked number one for 289 weeks overall. It is listed as 288.
Dwarnett (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: It's silly to edit this every week just to add one to the figure. The two sources against the sentence don't mention 289 weeks - or even 288 - both give a figure of 286 weeks, and one also states 287 weeks. It's safest to use language that is independent of the viewpoint in time, such as "more than 286 weeks", so this is what I have done. If a more recent source is obtained which explicitly gives a higher figure, we may use that. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It is foolish that someone who is not into tennis is allowed to modify this page and not people who actually follow the sport. Shame on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.20.164 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think that I'm "not into tennis"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of not updating it week by week? People are willing to do it, everyone knows how many weeks he's ranked at #1, you can link to the ranking section on his ATP articles - using that logic it would suggest not updating the 'List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players' article which would be ridiculous. The 286 figure is now largely irrelevent as it isn't the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.98.8 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you merely add one to the number of weeks, without altering anything else, this fails both the policy on original research (because you've not used a published figure but calculated your own) and the policy on verifiability (because there is no source which gives that figure). It also has the problem that nobody is forced to amend it weekly, so if nobody does it, it will get out of step with reality; conversely, if two people decide to update it, it could also get out of step - the other way. Therefore, if it is to be updated on a weekly basis, a new source needs to be provided at the same time, which explicitly gives the number of weeks that he's been ranked at no. 1. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would it not be simpler to state "has been ranked number one in the world since...."? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)