Talk:Wimbledon ban on Russian and Belarusian players

We have to be careful of bias

We had a sentence that talked about the ban "being politically motivated", with that was why the ATP and WTA removed Wimbledon points. However it wasn't balanced with the fact that it was also politically motivated for the ATP and WTA and ITF to remove nationality from all those players and ban them from Davis Cup. That has been fixed. But we also can't write a paragraph that talks about how ironic it is for a past Russian player who switched nationalities, to have won the event. At least not without explaining to readers the players have switched nationalities many many times in the sport throughout it's history. We need to include that balance or remove the section entirely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Fyunck(click), I hear your concerns. "Politically motivated" was a throwaway phrase, not meant to be a negative descriptor, but I realize now it looked unbalanced. However, I'm not (yet) convinced by your sentence about changing nationalities, for two reasons: 1. I don't think the paragraph (as it was) implied that changing nationality is uncommon (it explains the reason for Rybakina, maybe it should more precisely for Dzalamide too?), but I can be swayed there, and 2. none of the citations you added mention Rybakina or Dzalamide - perhaps we could add this quote from the AETLC (preferably to me in a footnote): "Player nationality, defined as the flag they play under at professional events, is an agreed process that is governed by tours and the ITF". Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hameltion: I disagree on what it implies. With "ironically" It sounds very much like something was done wrong or they cheated the system in some way. They did not. Players from repressed or menacing countries have switched allegiance throughout all of tennis history. It doesn't need to mention Rybakina or Dzalamide because it's a stand-alone sentence with its own sources. Another thing that is problematic is the "Aftermath" paragraph or perhaps "Reactions" section. There is nothing there about the fact that even with all the ATP, WTA, and ITF complaints and the stripping of points, all the players ignored those items to play in the worlds most prestigious tennis tournament. It didn't slow down Wimbledon one bit. Obviously if the ATP and WTA threaten to remove Wimbledon from the schedule and forbid players to play (that could have affects similar to what was done in the 1970s), Wimbledon and the UK could change their minds. Players were not allowed to play in certain majors depending on their unions and it was a travesty. So this is where I'm coming from in looking at the quality of this new article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Hey, totally agree that we shouldn't imply changing nationality is at all devious. Unless I'm misreading though, "ironically" isn't describing Rybakina switching nationality, only the juxtaposition of the ban with her birthplace - this was of course widely discussed in the media. Also, re: "It doesn't need to mention Rybakina or Dzalamide because it's a stand-alone sentence with its own sources", see WP:SYNTH (though a non-synth source is probably out there). And good points on the players still playing and the comparison with the 1970s situations, I (or you) might find a sources to add those points. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)