Talk:Angela Buxton

POV tag
I have added a POV tag because this article repeats Buxton's allegation that her failure to be invited to join Wimbledon was due to anti-Semitism, even though only singles champions are normally invited, and not all of them. There is no evidence except her word for this allegation - which is almost surreal because as already stated, she has no grounds whatsoever to expect honorary membership, because she didn't win the singles title - and she is not a neutral source. Not to mention that no private members club can ever be reasonably expected to invite anyone to be a member that has criticised it in public. That is the way private members clubs work, at least in England - and it would be the same if the disgruntled wannabe member was an Anglican duke. There is no reason to include this silly allegation except as part of a non-neutral political campaign. Wimstead (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The following, which has been in the article for quite a while, is the current version of the paragraph at issue.


 * "No Jewish tennis player was able to claim the exclusive All England Lawn Tennis Club as his or her home until 1952. According to Buxton, it also has led to her exclusion. Buxton said in 2004, reflecting on the fact that the All England Club, almost 50 years after Buxton's 1956 Wimbledon triumph with Althea Gibson and, had still not invited Buxton to join: 'I think the anti-Semitism is still there. The mere fact that I'm not a member is a full sentence that speaks for itself.' Buxton told New York Post reporter Marc Berman that she had been on the 'waiting list' since she applied in the 1950s. The Chairman of the Club appeared on television, and when asked about it said that he would have to look into it, and couldn't comment without more information.  'I wish it still wasn't such an elite sport,' Buxton told Berman. 'I wish we could bring it down to a common baseline. It's going that way. It's still not there.'    After Gibson and Buxton won the doubles at Wimbledon, one British national newspaper reported their success under the headline, 'Minorities Win'. 'It was in very small type,' said Buxton, 'lest anyone should see it'."


 * The reason given by the editor for tagging the article as not neutral is the assertion that it violates Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. I venture that the editor may misunderstand what is called for here by Wikipedia guidelines, which I will discuss below.  The paragraph in no way violates, and in fact its inclusion is quite clearly called for by, Wikipedia's NPOV policy.


 * As Wikipedia states at Neutral point of view, "neutral point of view" is a fundamental Wikimedia principle that means that Wikipedia articles must be written representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.


 * Directly on point to the issue here, the guidelines states:


 * "'As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'. Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why.... Assert facts, including facts about opinions... By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.' ... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that 'The Beatles were the greatest band ever', locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: 'Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever', and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made.'"(emphasis added)


 * That is precisely what this paragraph does. And why the addition by Wimstead of the tag suggesting that it does not comport with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is innappropriate.-Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)