Talk:Venus Williams/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Needs references.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Small mistake, I think

In the beggining of the of first section "Early Carrer" it is written: Already well-known at age 165, Williams turned... . I cant say if it is vandalism or not, but she doesnt have 165 years old yet and I dont know when she got famous so I think someone should correct this data.192.168.11.2 20:24, 9 July 2007

I also found a mistake, under the 2005 section it said Venus injured herself at the tournament in Philadelphia, but she never played the event that year and injured herself at Beijing and "walkovered" in the QF.VeeReeLena (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tier I Tournaments

On the table of tournament wins, Hamburg and San Diego are listed as Tier II tournaments. However, they are listed as tier I tournaments on the WTA website. Are there any objections to changing it? I'll wait a while before editing it to make sure. Agrippina Minor

Hamburg is a defunct tournament, and it was never at Tier I tournament. It is currently played as an ATP Masters Series tournament (the ATP's version of Tier I). San Diego was once a Tier II tournament, but it has been upgraded as a Tier I in 2004. Joey80 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness?

I would like to ask if it is right to put her and her sister in the category Jehovah's Witnesses people. Are they practicing JW? If not, they actually do not belong there. Summer Song 08:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

From my reading both her, her sister, her mother (but _not_ her father) are Witnesses. http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/williamsdivorce.htm <-2000. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/80777/1318124/post.ashx#1318124 <-2006 they still seem to be attending 220.253.86.204 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (MSN jpshift@hotmail.com)

I love the "despite suffering stomach cramps" bit. As if women throughout history haven't been fighting through their jobs for centuries despite PMS issues. I'd love to see a professional female athlete try to get away with THAT one. Imagine Lisa Leslie saying "Coach, I can't make it through this game, I'm bloated and agitated!"

"they sometimes had to dodge bullets while practising tennis at local public courts"

Emm, care to explain why? Mandel 08:02, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • They had to dodge bullets on the practice courts as they were brought up in Compton, California. It's a well known area for gangs having gun battles and Venus and Serena Williams have often mentioned the fact that as they practiced as kids, gunfire was going on in the area. As for women having to battle PMS while working, this is true, but I wouldn't fancy running around a tennis court for 2 hours when I have my period! A few tennis players have in the past mentioned PMS in interviews after a match when asked to explain their form. Candice 21:04, July 4 2005 (UTC)

what's with that ted watts link? (btw, i'm not the one who wrote "what happened to this link" in the article. but it's a good question) --172.216.113.32 16:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Picture needed urgently

Why can't someone put a picture of her. We'd like to see a photo of her very much thank you Batzarro 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Close out"

"The era of domination by the Williams sisters began to close out after the murder" -- what is meant by "close out"? I don't know if it's a sports term or what, but it isn't familiar to me and I suspect it might not be to others either. Perhaps it could use some rewording. 71.82.214.160 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tennis classification

I have classified this article as a B-class article similar to the WP:Biography. It needs to be sourced. Its importance has been ranked as high again similar to WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Errata

Grand Slam total of 18 doesn't match 6+6+2 shown.--Billymac00 01:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

re no.1 world ranking

I think it would more accurately represent African-Americans and a world #1 ranking by including more of the information given in the bbc article referenced by footnote 5:

"Williams is the first African-American, man or woman, to reach the top spot on either the ATP or WTA computer rankings.

"But in the pre-ranking era former greats such as Althea Gibson and Arthur Ashe were also regarded as the best in the world during parts of their careers, and Williams paid tribute to the former.

" 'It would be foolish to forget Althea Gibson. She was the first.' [Venus Williams]"

The Wiki author does qualify Venus' #1 ranking by stating it is since computer rankings began. It would be good to include the names of Arthur Ashe and Althea Gibson and Venus' comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messier110 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanded

I expanded on Venus's best years. I always thought it was sad when I saw this page and her 1997-2002 was cramped in a short paragraph, but the latter part of her career was so expansive. Most of her greatest accomplishments occurred during this stage of her career and it shouldn't get such a quick brush over. If you look at other tennis players' wiki pages they reflect this (e.g. Serena and Henin). I think people (myself included) didn't want to go back and document the pre-wiki years. The authority for any citation is the wtatour.com page for Venus. (Edit - didn't realize I wasn't logged in at the time). 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) - Username is "Agrippina Minor"

venus williams is 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.57.50 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Location of the Sony Ericsson Open

The Sony Ericsson Open takes place in Miami and its name is the Miami Masters. According to the WTA and ATP tours it takes place in Miami and for all official ATP and WTA effects and references Miami is considered its location, not Key Biscayne. This can be corroborated by visiting the official Web sites of the WTA and ATP tours. Thefore, I eliminated all references to Key Biscayne as the venue for the Miami Masters in this article. All other Wikipedia articles that refer to Key Biscayne as the venue for the Sony Ericsson Open should be fixed. --190.10.76.226 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken in at least two respects. First, the official name of this tournament is the Sony Ericsson Open, not the Miami Masters. Second, the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, as this link plainly shows. Tennis expert (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tennis_expert" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.76.226 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The Sony Ericsson Open is just the sponsored name! The official name is the Miami Masters. If you do your research you will find out that a few years back the Miami Masters was called the Nasdaq 100 Open. Sony Ericsson is just the current sponsor and has a contract that runs thru 2010 or 2011, not sure when exactly. And although the tounrmanet takes place at Crandon Park in Key Biscayne the WTA consider this a tournament that takes place in Miami and that's how they state it in all of their official media information. If you don't believe me just go to their site and read it for yourself.
Here's the proof for the skeptics out there:
WTA Tornament Schedule: [1]
Next time do some research before trying to correct someone. --190.10.76.226 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

There has been an edit war going on between User:Tennis expert and an anonymous editor (who uses the IPs 92.4.195.113 and 92.5.60.67). Tennis expert alleges the anon is vandalizing but I don't see an obvious lack of good faith, although by quickly scanning the anon's edits I think it does seem to run into problems with WP:V and WP:BLP among others. (Sorry I don't have time to look thru the edits more thoroughly) I hope a discussion can end this in a less destructive manner than an edit war. Cigraphix (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problematic IP you listed would delete about 8K of valuable information because he or she doesn't like the length of the information for the later years of Venus Williams's career versus the length of information for the earlier years of her career. Instead of pursuing the obvious solution of adding information to the earlier years, the problematic IP just randomly chops off information for the later years. That's clearly "vandalism." Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to produce the highest quality, regardless of how much "valuable information" is lost. While what I am deleting is good writing, it is mostly non-notable.
In reference to the original poster - I will try to correct a few things with a more neutral POV, and back up some things with sources, and then will assume my edits do not breach Wikipedia guidelines, and that I will not have to fear Tennis expert reverting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.138.123 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You should read up about the notability requirements. While an article must be notable to be included in Wikipedia, not everything in a notable article must itself be notable. Your edits breach Wikipedia policy because: (1) they delete valuable information; and (2) they are against the longstanding consensus of editors for this article. I suggest that you post your proposed radical edits here (in the discussion page) for comment and consensus-building before you unilaterally implement them in the article itself. Tennis expert (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please show me where in the Wikipedia guidelines it states those two rules I have apparently breached. But in any case, you greatly exaggerate what I have apparently done; in reference to "valuable information", artistic license needs to be taken if it ensures the highest standards. And I havent seen a huge outcry from the longstanding editors from this article; only from you. The only person to have directly commented on the issue is Cigraphix, who, while requesting a slight clean-up of my edits, does not appear to be opposed to be a pruning of the article. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be a good learning exercise for you to find the policies yourself. You really like to assume lots of things, don't you. Tennis expert (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You are claiming I have breached these rules, therefore it is your responsibility to show me the proof of this. I dont know why you have to be so overly-sarcastic (in reference to your reasons for removing my comments from your talkpage as well); why cant you engage in a mature, adult discussion? 92.3.138.123 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to engage in a mature, adult discussion with you on anything when you stop: (1) unilaterally deleting huge portions of articles just because you (and only you) don't like them; (2) using multiple anonymous IP accounts (and possibly registered accounts) to scam the three-revert rule and make it seem like there's more support for your edits than there actually is; (3) harassing me on my talk page; and (4) assuming unwarranted things just to support your point-of-view. None of these things should be hard for you to do. Tennis expert (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) I thought the basic premise of Wikipedia was that every individual carries out what they think is right? (2) I am not doing this on purpose. My IP changes frequently. I am as clueless as to why this is as you are. If I was trying to scam the system, do you really think I would be stupid enough to give myself away on this discussion page? (3) You have a strange definition of harassing. All I have posted was a fairly polite request for you to explain why you found my Sharapova edits unacceptable (which, I might add, you are still yet to do), then re-adding that comment when I mistakenly believed it was against the rules to remove comments if the matter was unsolved, and then an apology for doing this (to which you responded with a sarcastic comment). Quite how that is harassment, I have no idea; and (4) I have not done this. I notice you are STILL yet to point out where in the guidelines it says I need to wait for consensus before editing. So, now that I have shown that I fully meet your four requirements, are you going to do as you promised and take part in an adult discussion about why you think my edits are inappropriate, other than rather puzzling overpossessiveness? 92.3.138.123 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hate to break into this little lovefest. But the article, at 85 kb, is too long, there is alot of apparently redundant information such as match results that are already in tables. Little bits of trivial. WP:MOS WP:SIZE sets guidelines for articles given that some browsers have difficulty loading articles >32kb, but in reality over 50 kb is too long. The athlete is still playing, is there going to be an article of 150kb. I noticed YR2007 and YR2008 (half over) are two of the longest sections. The article has so much data and unfiltered facts it is no longer encyclopedic. Tennis_Expert, Read WP:OWN. ANON poster, get a wiki account.PB666 yap 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I second that, the article is too long, particularly the year by year tennis breakup and other sections are not fleshed out enough, for example, early years, impact of father, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.48.66 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the inclination to look at the edits and whether or not they are pertinent. However, I do not believe that the length of the article is accurately portrayed as "too long." Take a look at the articles for Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova (who has had a MUCH shorter career). Those were the only two I looked at and their articles were of comparable length. I have a strong suspicion that others with much shorter careers, such as Justine Henin and Ana Ivanovic are also of comparable length. 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrippina Minor (talk • contribs)

Please explain how the points are calculated

Venus had 2606 before Wimbledon, and she still has 2606. Did she get any points for winning Wimbledon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

She lost the points she earned at Wimbledon in 2007 and gained the points she earned at Wimbledon in 2008. The net result is no change. The rankings are a rolling 52-week system. Tennis expert (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

height - american version

Shouldn't be the height in inch and the "1.85m" in a bracket like at her sisters article? Kirasnow (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian Wells 2001 controversy is becoming notable

Since 2001 when the crowd booed Serena Williams all the way through the final of the 2001 Indian Wells, and Venus & Richard Williams were jeered and racially abused as they took their seats, the Williams sisters have boycotted the tournament, despite it being designated a "compulsory" tournament in the rankings. The new WTA 2009 Roadmap has come out. Here's a typical story about it. Important quotes from it:

Venus and Serena Williams will face WTA Tour suspensions for their continued boycott of the Indian Wells tournament where they were booed in 2001 under new 2009 WTA rules announced Wednesday. They have told WTA chief executive Larry Scott that they will continue to skip the event anyway
WTA plans for more prize money and a longer off-season for top players in the 2009 season include changes that cut minimum non-Grand Slam appearances from 13 to 10 but make Indian Wells, Miami, Beijing and Madrid mandatory. The new WTA rule does have an escape clause. Players can appear in the event marketing the week of the tournament or at one of three dates later in the year to promote the following year's edition
"They will be subject to the rules of the WTA," Scott said. "To avoid suspension, they will have to be available to do in-market promotional activities. I respect their decision on what happened and they understand the need to apply rules equally. They will have to take part in these activities to avoid suspension."
Should the Williams sisters skip the event and refuse to appear, they would be suspended in 2010 for two premier events on the calendar following Indian Wells. That would drop them from Miami and Madrid events in 2010

Clearly this rule is going to impact significantly on Venus and Serena Williams in 2010, if she can't play in the Miami and Madrid events - and also on the Miama and Madrid events themselves! IMO something about this should be included in our pages; a small paragraph at the bottom of each of the two pages giving

  1. The events of 2001 [2] [3]
  2. The comments Venus and Serena have said over the years about how they'll never return, eg.

    “Some things you have to stand up for,” Serena said. “There’s been a lot of people in the past that are my race that have stood up for a lot more than not playing Indian Wells. That’s the least I can do.”[4]

  3. The rule changes being brought in for 2009

Well, that's what I think. What about everyone else? almost-instinct 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If properly sourced, I would support adding information about this controversy to the article. Tennis expert (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality of many articles

See here for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover565 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Record against her sister

I restored this section [5] which was removed on grounds of WP:TRIVIA. I wholeheartedly disagree that noting the competitive record between these two is somehow an exercise in trivia. I can't think of any other similar feat in the top flight of sport as these two siblings that have reached no less than 9 opposing finals together over an entire decade, with only the most marginal of dominances visible. MickMacNee (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this. If you put that in Venus article, why not in Serena ? If you really want to put this, why not make a different article, like Federer-Nadal rivalry? --Göran S (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It is linked from Serena too. I don't think a standalone rivalry article consisting of just a table would withstand an Afd, but if someone wants to write some accompanying text, then an article called Williams sisters or William sisters tennis rivalry might have legs. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
p.s. It appears people have tentatively tried to make one at Williams sisters, but people have reverted it to a dab page, even though I am unaware of any other Williams sisters on wp. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

she is a tenneis player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.113.195 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I second moving the rivalry to a separate page ala Federer-Nadal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 07:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've started a Williams Sisters rivalry page. I think we should port the info off of this page over to that one. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 are types of Premier tournaments and do not need to be listed especially. They are sub-categories just to distinguish prize money, ranking points, player particpation and if they are compulsory or not. The whole point of the Premier and International categories was to cut down the categories and make the system easier. By putting Mandatory and 5 in the box, it is just making things more complicated, and this means it would just be like the old Tier system with four categories when Premier and International are the main ones. Monokaea (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What other purpose could possibly be served by distinguishing Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier tournaments? Prize money, ranking points, player participation, and whether they are compulsory appears to cover the whole gamut. Plus, the rulebook of the Women's Tennis Association frequently distinguishes between these types of tournaments. Finally, Wikipedia consensus distinguishes them, too, as evidenced by, for example, our singles performance timelines and the text of numerous women's tennis biographies. That stuff from the WTA about tour simplification essentially was propaganda when you actually look at the rulebook. Tennis expert (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Williams Sisters Rivalry/ Redundancy

The Williams Sisters rivalry page has been cleared from deletion and is staying. Now that that's clear I'm removing the redundant information on both Williams sister's individual pages. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs)

I object. The article was retained. But as the closing administrator said, retaining the article did not decide where the information in it should reside. Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Let's start talking. I think that the information is redundant and the Williams Sisters rivalry page seems like the more natural place for it. Alonsornunez (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. Don't really want to have this conversation again. I wish these articles all the best. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not have most of the information on the Williams Sisters rivalry page, and then have a smaller amount of info on the sisters' individual pages, with a "main article" reference to the Williams Sisters rivalry page? ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to have tabulated data in two places. With a rivalry article now existing, that is the logical place for it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with with MicMacNee and SunDragon. This is precisely what the {main} template is there for. Have a short 'teaser' paragraph in the entry of each sister and a link to the full article. The paragraph should be precisely that - a written (not tabular) summary of the rivalry. If a reader is particularly interested in this aspect then they can click through to the full article. If they are not then it does not distract from the rest of the article. Ultimately the material is slightly off-topic on each individual's page. The relationship between the two sisters is distinct from each sister in their own right. If you keep it brief the article as a whole retains its focus. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

I think that further adding to the Venus/Serena tables should be avoided until we decide where they should or shouldn't be; especially when such changes only make them a further redundancy of the Williams Sisters rivalry page. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So long as the tables are in the individual player articles, they should be improved like anything else there. Tennis expert (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Alonsornunez (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed merger

It's clear that this article has enough sources and references to stand on its own. Also, the Boycott is one that involves Venus and Serena, but also the WTA Tour (their reaction, the 'roadmap', etc.) and thus should be its own thing. Thanks for the move though. I was trying to think of something better. AlonsornunezComments 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we also should have an article entitled "WTA Reaction to the Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams"? The question is not whether there are enough sources for a stand-alone article. Rather, the question is whether it makes sense to have a stand alone article for an issue that more appropriately and logically belongs in the player biographies themselves. Just because you can create an article doesn't mean you should. Having a separate article concerning the boycott is absurd. Tennis expert (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to me a clear difference between the article and your "WTA reaction" hypothetical. The event is obviously about Venus and Serena, but I believe its notability as well as the direct, substantial involvment of other parties (WTA, Indian wells, tourney, et al.) recommend it for its own, separate article space (especially when one factors in the current, overly long length of both Venus and Serena's own article pages). Your example of the "WTA reaction to the Boycott..." is a clear response to the Boycott and clearly does not belong separately. The "Boycott" page itself is not a clear subset of either sister's page (in a way that say "Venus's personal activities" or "Serena's 2004 achievements" is). AlonsornunezComments 11:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither article is "overly long". You again are misunderstanding the Wikipedia guidelines about article length. And notability is not the only criterion for determining whether an article should exist. Tennis expert (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe you missed, or are avoiding, my point. The article (the boycott) is something that involves the sisters, the tournament and the WTA tour in major ways. Fairly clear cut. Let's move on. AlonsornunezComments 12:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a question - Venus williams books?

Do these need adding on her page shes written three books with sister serena

  • How to play tennis
  • Serving from the hip
  • Serving from the hip:10 rules for living,loving and winning

i think they should be added either into a bibliography or just added to the entrepeneur section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrewer (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV/NPOV editing re: venus's cultural impact

@TennisExpert, Adding the things about Venus's cultural impact on the game does not present a point of view. It merely states facts. Is it not true and significant that Venus was the first black World No. 1 since Arthur Ashe and the first black female ever? I believe it was considered very significant at the time. Moreover, her role in gaining equal pay for women is well-documented, true, and easily referenced and sourced. How, then, does a factual account present a point of view?

You are totally out of line in reverting these edits on POV grounds, and you are ignoring Wikipedia's reverting policy, which I urge you to review. Reverting is used mainly for combatting vandalism. Wikipedia states that "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it," which you are welcome to do. You are not to simply revert "good faith edits" at your own personal whim and if an edit contains valid info, Wikipedia states, in bold, "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandoPolo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments expressed here have validity......

but no one posted anything in reference to her educational background. It seems that she still has another fight on her hands and that is the fight to be recognized as an educated individual, as well as a talented tennis professional. It's sad that in this day and age that she is still seen as just a "gifted athelete" with natural abilities.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.233.15 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

fansite tag

Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? I believe that exaggerated edit summaries should be avoided because they are unconstructive and don't help anyone to improve articles.
I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Record against other players

As per a number of these articles, a section containing a record against "certain" other players is inherently POV. The citaition provided in this (and every other case) is generalist and does not verify the claims in this section. Unverifiable information should be removed. Please cite this or I will remove the section as failing WP:NPOV and WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

Go to WP:Tennis because their is where the ongoing discussion is taking palace about the horid article lenghts69.137.120.81 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The split has already been made, this is the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Careers and article lengths (issues) Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Wimbledon

Someone should edit, it sounds more like a magazine article than wikipedia. Far too opinionated and biased. Plus, it's a loss not a lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.156.11 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

..."She and her sister Serena have won more Olympic gold medals than any other female tennis player." Together? Individually? Should it say "player(s)"? Gimelgort 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Venus Williams/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment ==

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Needs references.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

equipment section needs improvement

At the very list it should have a list of the racquets (and ideally strings) used by Williams when she was #1. Any #1 player should have that information in their biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Venus Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

'Current Ranking'

As with all tennis players the 'Current Ranking' should not be updated until the Rankings are released by the WTA. The ranking should not be updated from any 'Live Update' Websites or any calculations done by an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1lover22 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

25 or 27

Venus Williams has played against her sister Serena Williams in 27 professional matches since 1998, with Venus winning 11 of the 25 matches. Mobile mundo (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venus Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Venus Olympic record

The article says "By winning a silver medal, Venus became the only player, male or female, to win a medal in all three events (singles, doubles and mixed) and now holds the record for most Olympic medals won in tennis alongside Kathleen McKane Godfree on five medals". However, according to Wikipedia, Kathleen McKane Godfree also won a medal in all three events. So I guess that makes Venus the second player to complete both achievements, right? Besteirense (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Venus Williams involved In Fatal Car Crash

Tennis star Venus Williams was at fault in a fatal auto accident that killed a 78-year-old man in Florida, according to police reports obtained by TMZ Sports. The driver of the other car — the wife of the victim — told police she was approaching the intersection when Venus’ northbound SUV suddenly entered the the intersection and that there was no time to stop and she ran into Venus’ vehicle. “[Venus] is at fault for violating the right of way of [the other driver],” the police report reads, according to TMZ. source 1 The police report states that there was no evidence Williams was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and nor do they believe she was distracted by an electronic device. source 2, source 3. However, Venus did break the law and violated the right of way of another driver and the passenger victim. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of minor problems with the above. First, vehicular manslaughter is a crime. The police deciding that Williams is "at fault" isn't particularly useful information. Has she been charged with a crime? If so, what? From the little I know, she should be charged with vehicular manslaughter, but I'm no lawyer. Until she's found guilty in a court of law, what the police "determine" is an allegation, nothing more. I'd would think that she would have made a public statement, although that may be difficult with criminal (and civil!) charges pending. If so, where is it? Taking another life is noteworthy enough to be included in her bio, here, so why isn't this included in the article?67.140.179.46 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the car crash in the Entrepreneur section? Beaglemix (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I moved it to the personal section and removed person's name. That's to trivial for an encyclopedia and can be found in the source if readers want more detail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth?

Where was she born, Detroit or California? Both are listed in this article.

California 

Fnaf bonnie12 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Venu Williams was born in california 

Fnaf bonnie12 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All time Olympic record

In same para states that Venus followed Helen Wills Moody in winning gold in singles and doubles (yes) but then in last sentence of the same para it claims she and Serena are the only women in the history of tennis to have won singles and doubles gold. Antipodenz (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Only second female to win gold medals in singles and doubles at one Olympic Games

Good to see the "all time" claim regarding winning Olympic gold in singles and doubles has had its clear error corrected although it would have been more accurate to state "since tennis was reintroduced as an official Olympic sport (1988)" rather than "Open Era" (which commenced 20 years earlier). The Open Era is also used in respect to the claim that Williams is "the first player in the Open Era to win an Olympic medal in all three events (singles, doubles, mixed)" but fails to clarify that mixed doubles was only reintroduced to the Olympics in the 'open era' in 2012 (44 years after it started), which would make it clearer regarding how frequent an opportunity others have had to achieve this (impressive) result.

The key problem is the claim that Venus became "only the second player" to win Olympic gold medals in both singles and doubles at one Olympic Games. This is incorrect. Other female players to win both singles and doubles at the same Olympic Games (in addition to Moody) include: - Charlotte Coooper in 1900 (singles and mixed doubles) Note: women's doubles was only introduced into the Olympics as an official sport in 1920. - Suzanne Lenglen in 1920 (singles and mixed doubles) Note: she also received the bronze medal for women's doubles meaning she medaled in all 'three' events in one Olympics. - Edith Hannah in 1912 (Indoor singles and Indoor mixed) Note: as above there was no Indoor women's doubles. The claim made was for 'player' which includes men also and the following men also won gold in singles and doubles at one Olympics: - Laurence Doherty in 1900 (singles and doubles) - Arthur Gore in 1912 (Indoor singles and Indoor Doubles) Antipodenz (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Records and achievements

This section varies with other similar pages for tennis players and is generally confusing. For example the same entry for Serena does not state "These records were attained in Open Era of Tennis", and while correct, considering Venus was born well after the era commenced (1968) that's no great surprise. Now if they meant to say that these records 'apply' only to the Open Era then that would make more sense, but it is unclear whether certain records are for the Open Era only or All time. That is not just for ones saying 'stands alone' as pre open era players such as Kathleen McKane are referenced for ties. Additionally it is not clear whether some records are referring to all players or women only. If record is being claimed that could be interpreted as for all players or women only (e.g. For Wimbledon lowest seeded/ranked champion it would be preferable to make clear whether it is in reference to the Ladies Championship or all players; note that this is applied at times including for fastest serve). If records are to be claimed on various combinations of losing (e.g. Runner up) then they need to be specific and clear. For example does "Four consecutive runner up finishes to the same player" mean that or "Four runner up finishes to the same player at consecutive majors". If the former then Chris Evert Lloyd was runner up to Martina Navaratolova between US Opens 83-84 in the four consecutive finals for which they played. Apart from the issue of whether the 'stands alone' records are actually that if measured against an all time basis there is the following inaccuracy: - The claim that Venus was tied with Kathleen McKane for attaining Olympic medals in singles, doubles and mixed doubles ignores Suzanne Lenglen (who did it in a single Olympic Games - 1920) Antipodenz (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal section

Do we really need to know venus's past boyfriends? Beaglemix (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Per People.com 3.21.17, Venus doesn't have a current boyfriend. Why not delete this whole irrelevant section Beaglemix (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that citation no. 91 ("Serena Williams secret weapon: Jehovah God") should be removed, since it belongs under Serena, not Venus. It is misplaced since the article is about Serena, not Venus. Venus is mentioned, but the whole article is really about Serena's connection to Jehovah, and says virtually nothing substantive about Venus's religious attitude. Thus the plain statement in the Personal section that she is a Witness is not really clearly substantiated. Also, regarding Serena's entry, the statements in this citation (no. 91) would seem to indicate that Serena, not Venus should be the one called a firm Jehovah's Witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngillis (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venus_Williams/Archive_1&oldid=1095549989"