Talk:Rod Laver

Article lede
This is a great article about a great tennis player. The lead-in had an issue that was in violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL.

Fyunck(click) added the line "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time." There are no sources attributed to this claim.

The first line of the article states "an Australian former tennis player widely regarded as one of the greatest in the history of the sport". There are sources to back up this claim, however, many of them are either incredibly outdated (some from 2000) or from obscure websites.

It's fine to include the first line, however old the sources are, because it's consistent with several articles about famous tennis players on Wikipedia.

The line Fyunck(click) added, however, is a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL.

This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.Zerilous (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources given for that claim. They are in the full section on his achievements. I even added more since they are so easy to find for players like Federer and Laver. These are the same accolades used in articles such as Roger Federer and Serena Williams. I have not remove "one of the greatest" but I do usually make sure whether it's based on fact or not, changing them to "some".Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You did not provide sources to back up the claim "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time." that you inserted into the lead. Zerilous (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Already did, there are sources all over the section below. This is just like in many other tennis articles such as Federer, Nadal, Serena, etc... Why aren't you protesting those articles, or is this bias on your part? Work on removing it from those and we'll see the sincerity or hypocrisy, because right now this is the only article you have edited in your life. Nothing else in all your Wikipedia history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You have continued to make disruptive edits to this article promoting your own biased point of view. Please refrain from continuing to make these disruptive edits until consensus is reached here. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own feelings and beliefs, it is an encyclopedia that is based upon factual information. I recommend you read the following pages from the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Zerilous (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend you stop believing your own falsehoods and say why you are being biased against only Rod Laver. Is it a problem with Australians? A problem with guys who wear hats? Is it a problem with players who are old? Because you aren't following your own mantra with other articles I mentioned. Only Rod Laver is in your cross-hairs of your disruptive editing. It's fully sourced for the statement I wrote. It is a fact. This blatant hypocrisy and bias of yours must stop. It is not fair to all the other articles to single out one player. Other encyclopedias don't seem to have an issue with his greatness. Encyclopedia 1, Encyclopedia 2, so this is not my opinon. It is the opinion of "many", yet I only put "some" as that is much easier to source and was already in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The two "encyclopedias" you linked are either incredibly out-of-date or in no way qualify is a quality, neutral encyclopedia. The first one you referenced was written in 2004. The second one is titled "The Encyclopedia of Sixties Cool", has 0 reviews, is clearly biased towards the sixties, and is obviously not intended to be a factual source of information. Also, it is clear from the URL you provided that all you did was search "enyclopedia greatest rod laver" and tried to find any low-quality sources you could to justify your opinion. What is also clear is that you have an extreme bias in favor of Rod Laver. Looking at your Wikipedia user page, you state that the 60's was the golden era of tennis. Looking through your past edits, you have continuously, again and again and again, made disruptive edits against other player's articles removing any claims they have to that player being one of the greatest of all time.


 * You are the one who is biased. You are the one violating the Wikipedia Manual of Style. You are the one who is clearly upset that you can't insert your own unsourced, biased opinions into the enyclopedia. You are the one making disruptive edits. You are the one trying to make this some competition between your favorite tennis player and several others when I have done nothing but bring up valid points as to why your disruptive edits violate established Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Again, I suggest you read the following pages from the Manual of Style that clearly lay out the guidelines for editing Wikipedia: Zerilous Zerilous (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am so glad you have a fetish on everything I write. Make me feel tingly all over. Basically what you posted was a ream of blatant lies. You simply attack me at every chance and are so biased against Rod Laver as to be blind to any kind of constructive talk. It's quite sad to see someone ignore facts and disrupt Wikipedia in this way. I'm not sure whose sock you are, but this is the only article you edit and the hypocrisy is blatant, so there must be some hidden hatred towards poor Laver. Well, this article will suffer because of it. Your cruelty and bad faith have permeated this discussion board, and your continual lies make me wonder at your agenda. I think it's time you leave me alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion from Third opinion. In an of itself, the phrase would not be MOS:PUFF if it was supported by the body of the article or inline citations in the lead. The problem here is that only half of it is supported: the body checks out for "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time". But the body doesn't support the claim that these assessments are due to the specific victories enumerated in the lead ("Given these achievements"). None of the people cited in the body of the article are saying that the 11 singles victories, the 1962 and 1969 Grand Slams, the eight Pro Slams, or the five Davis Cups specifically are what makes him "the greatest tennis player of all time". Only the two Grand Slams are directly related in the quotes given for the "greatest player of all time" status: Bodo makes this connection, as well as the Australian Sports Medal citation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good comment. The point you address could easily be fixed by changing "Given these achievements" to "Due to his achievements". The essence of the sentence is the part "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" and it is good to have a third-party opinion confirming that this is not MOS:PUFF and is supported in the article body.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that's constructive, and something we can work with. My concern has always been consistency among articles. Certainly we have players considered THE greatest of all-time or in a group of greatest of all-time. Usually easy to source. Be it Tilden, Gonzalez, Wills, Lenglen, Connolley, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Federer, Nadal, Williams, etc... The question is how do we express that? In the lead? In a legacy section in the middle of the article? Where exactly? I had felt that it is best to express these things in a legacy section, and not the lead, however that opinion was shown to be in the minority in articles such as Federer, Nadal, and Williams... articles that get edited on a almost daily basis. They have become the norm. What we don't want is bias in how we handle this item with these great players. I was also taught here that the lead is more a summary of the sections below and that it doesn't need additional sourcing if it is properly sourced in the main body. That's how I handled this situation. But perhaps you are right that "given these achievements" should either be removed or sources should be added that specifically address the titles and two Grand Slams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to visit the article and give your input Finnusertop. I made the request on the Third opinion in order to reach a consensus here, something that Fyunck(click) has refused to do. I am perfectly fine with Rod Laver or any of the other great players listed here being described as "one of the greatest players of all time" so long as there are accurate, current sources for that claim. I have brought this up several times and all Fyunck(click) has done is harass me, report me, make false claims, and try to make this personal between him and I.
 * If we can find some credible sources for the claim "some analysts and former players consider Rod Laver to be the greatest player of all time" I'm all for leaving it in the lead of the article. I've looked for some sources myself and haven't been able to find any, but I'll continue looking. I've found a few references from 15-20 years ago (from guys like Jack Kramer, Bud Collins, etc.) but those men revised their opinions a few years later.
 * What we can't do is make this personal and inject our own opinions into the enyclopedia. We can't attack another editor's character simply because we disagree with their opinion. I ask Fyunck(click) again to please stop harassing me and disruptively editing the article until consensus is reached here. Zerilous (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Knock off the whoa is me lies and baloney Zerilous. It's pathetic and worn out and your harassing me is well documented. Try to be part of the solution. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Continuing to harass me is not constructive Fyunck(click). Please, can we stay on topic and not make this personal? Zerilous (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can refrain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good. I've reached out to an administrator here on Wikipedia with advice on how to resolve this situation. She was extremely courteous and recommended I give suggestions about how to re-word the article to make it more in-line with Wikipedia standards. I read two sources, one here: http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/03/50-greatest-players-open-era-m-no-2-rod-laver/72424/ and one here: http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open/rod-laver-sends-social-media-abuzz-with-adorable-moment/news-story/416531d3beb20b45be31a3cbc1537434 that I feel are pretty credible. The first lists Rod Laver as the #2 tennis player of all time. The other is a quote from Roger Federer saying "Rod Laver is the best" (I don't know if he meant best as in the best tennis player ever or just a general "Oh he's the best" but regardless, I think it's noteworthy).
 * How about changing the lead-in to state something like "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time"? Zerilous (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If, all the other champion articles, including Roger Federer, use the same exact wording, then we could do that. Otherwise it would be demeaning and biased to single out Rod Laver as something less than the others. More than Tennis Magazine and Roger Federer have called Laver the greatest... many more. This styling would need to be followed for ALL the greatest tennis players... whether it's Federer, Williams, Nadal, Sampras, etc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would need to change Roger Federer's line from "Given these achievements, many players and analysts consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time" to something like "Federer's significant career achievements have led some sources to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, such as John McEnroe, to consider him the greatest player of all time." If that was done, and you can get editors there to agree with it, at least there would be no bias between subjects with how we present these articles to our readers. But we look at the whole enchilada at Tennis Project where we try to make sure the standards are equal across the board of all our tennis articles, no matter what century a player participated in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If we go that direction, I guess we would first need to put this discussion on the talk pages of those articles that would be affected so we could get input from editors that may not be seeing this. We don't want to surprise anyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, let's start having that discussion on the other talk pages as well. I'm glad we agree that the lead in needs to be re-worded to better fit the manual of style. Zerilous (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Several things. 1) I would NEVER put it in the first few sentences of the lead. 2) Per Federer sourcing in the article he called Laver the "greatest of all time." That's the common term. And before we limit Laver we need to limit Federer, etc.. So we would need to open this up for discussion at all the articles before setting limitations here. And consensus has not been reached yet as I'm not the only person here. I would use "Because of Laver's significant career achievements, he is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" but I would put it at the end of the third paragraph of the lead, not in the first. Putting the name of magazines in the lead is a little tacky when we are simply summarizing the prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And, if we went by the third party suggestion we would remove the career achievement stuff and simply say "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." If we do it that way, we really don't have to go through the other player talk pages for input. It would be different than other player bios, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was radically different enough to warrant massive editor input to change all articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea on keeping that line in the third paragraph of the lead. It makes more sense to put it there and we don't want to duplicate the same thing multiple times in the intro.
 * Unfortunately we can't add "it has led some analysts and players" until we have more credible sources to back it up. I found the one yesterday that I linked where Roger Federer described Laver as his greatest player of all time, which is definitely credible. If we want to be able to say "some analysts and players", we'll have to find a couple of more sources to go along with it. I'll keep looking for some more credible sources for that claim, and if you come across any definitely list them here. Zerilous (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How many hundreds do we need? The Federer quote and source is already in the article. So are others. I can list more such as The Greatest Tennis Player Ever, or Hall of Fame, or Agassi Calls Laver God-like, Slammin' Sampras. I think famous tennis historian Robert Geist picks Rosewall over Laver. And every one of the sources whether they talk about Laver, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, etc. say one thing one day, and something else the next. They try to sell stories and GOAT water-cooler talk brings in the money. That's why all player talk about GOAT is simply subjective fun. But the fact remains that we have many sources in print that call a handful of players the greatest of all time. Laver is one of those players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say we need a hundred sources, please stop making this personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. If we want to insert "some analysts and players consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" then we need some credible sources to back-up that claim.
 * The first source, The Greatest Tennis Player Ever, is from Bleacher Report, which is not a credible website. It's a sports blog. Further, that source does not argue that Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time, it says he belongs in the discussion. Which he does, 100%. What we're looking for is credible sources that state Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time.
 * The second source, Hall of Fame, does not state that Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time. It says that "some fans consider him the greatest ever" which is certainly true, but that's true of hundreds of athletes across any sport. Any popular athlete will have fans who regard him/her as the greatest ever, that doesn't make it a credible claim that "some players and analysts" consider him the greatest ever.
 * The third source, Agassi Calls Laver God-like, is not credible because Andre Agassi does not state that Rod Laver is the greatest player ever. Furthermore, that source was from 2009, and Andre has revised his claim on who he feels is the greatest player ever. Here is a more recent source from 2017.
 * The fourth source, Slammin' Sampras, is not credible because it is very out-of-date and the subject of the source, Pete Sampras, has more recently revised his opinion on who the greatest player of all time is. Here's a reference for that:.
 * Rod is definitely one of my favorite players (his 1969 US Open final against Tony Roche is one of my favorite matches from the Wooden racket era ). We'll just need to keep looking for a couple of credible sources to verify the claim that Rod Laver is "the greatest tennis player of all time" before we can insert it into the article. I'm going to continue looking and let me know if you find any. Zerilous (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for exact wording, I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. This is getting really nick-picky on your part. The Bleacher Report IS a reliable source. Run by Sports Illustrated. That is a source for GOAT. It says " "Rod", "The Rocket", the "Rockhampton Rocket" is considered by most folks who saw him play and many who've heard of his accomplishments, to be as great a tennis player that ever lived—current players included." The article title is point blank too. "The Greatest Tennis Player Ever: Rod Laver Still Belongs In Discussion." The Hall of Fame is another credible source saying "Laver is considered by many tennis fans to be the greatest player of all time."


 * 100% wrong on Agassi. It matters ZERO on mind swapping. ZERO! I said in the last post that that issue happens all the time with every single goat player. I can't count how many times it was written about Federer or Nadal that was later retracted. You'll note how I wrote the revised item.... "and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." To call someone the greatest player of all time does not mean that it's current to 5 March 2018. It means a player was called at some point in time the greatest ever. That's it.
 * The Sampras issue is the same thing. If you are not going to allow old newspapers and magazines quotes and writeups we are completely at an impasse and that limitation would be against Wikipedia Policy. You can't do that. Those sources are credible and you are the only one who doesn't think so, so far as I can tell. We do not need more sources. Right now consensus is to use the original wording I wrote or to remove the achievement part and use the rest. You will need to convince the rest of us your way is best. You have reverted two different editors now on that issue. I have given you several ways it could be written so as not to diminish players from the past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When you say "If you are looking for exact wording, I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.", it is not ridiculous at all. Again, WP:GF and WP:EQ. That is exactly the discussion we are having here. The wording is everything. There is a huge difference between "is considered one of the greatest players of all time" and "is considered the greatest player of all time". You know that and I know that.


 * If you don't feel there is a difference between the two, why did you insert the latter line into the article to begin with? The article was perfectly fine before you edited it. It was consistent with the sources and with the other articles about great tennis players on Wikipedia. The whole issue arose because you chose to insert the line "Rod Laver is considered the greatest tennis player of all time" into the article, even though it already contained the line "widely regarded as one of the greatest in the history of the sport".


 * If you find it so important to insert that additional line, then we have to find credible sources to back it up.


 * We can discuss the Bleacher Report article for sure. It says "Rod Laver Still Belongs In Discussion". He absolutely does. I agree. It does not argue that Rod Laver is -the- greatest tennis player of all time which is what you are trying to insert.


 * We can also discuss the hall of fame article you referenced. I agree that it says "some fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player of all time". I also agree that many of his fans consider him the greatest player of all time. Like I said earlier, there are hundreds of athletes across dozens of sports who have fans that consider him/her the greatest in the history of their sport. If you want to insert the line "many fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player in the history of the sport" then I'm perfectly fine with that. However, fans are not "analysts and players". We can't insert "Many analysts and players" because no credible sources have been provided to back that up.


 * As for your claim "100% wrong on Agassi. It matters ZERO on mind swapping. ZERO!" I ask you again, please, WP:GF and WP:EQ. It absolutely does matter what Agassi feels today. Agassi today does not feel Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time. I provided sources to verify that. If you want to insert into the article something like "Given his many achievements, some fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player in the history of the sport. At one point, some former players, including Andre Agassi, described him as the greatest tennis player of all time" then I'm perfectly fine with that. That's consistent with the sources you've provided.


 * Your claim "if you are not going to allow old newspapers and magazines quotes and writeups we are completely at an impasse" is totally incorrect. I didn't say we couldn't use them for anything, I said that they don't justify stating that "many players consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" because they don't. Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras do not consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time. The sources do justify saying "At one point, some former players, including Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, considered Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time".


 * Your claim "Right now consensus is to use the original wording I wrote or to remove the achievement part and use the rest" is inaccurate. You chose, on your own without any discussion, to insert the line "Rod Laver is considered the greatest tennis player of all time" into this article. Your single opinion is not consensus and you know that. You should have taken it to Talk first before inserting it. WP:OR The other editor who commented on this article agrees with me. When I brought this up on the notice board a few weeks ago the administrators who weighed in agreed with me as well. Let's continue the discussion here until we actually reach a consensus. Zerilous (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that "is considered one of the greatest players of all time" and "is considered the greatest player of all time" are two different items altogether. But that is not what those sources say. But it matters a big zero on the agassi quote. If I wrote, "On March 18 Agassi claimed that Laver is the greatest of all-time"... you would have a huge point. That is not what I proposed at all. I wrote "and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." That is sourced at will. No problem. My goodness. There are sources that have called Bill Tilden the greatest of all time. Of course those people are dead. That doesn't mean we can't use it. Tilden has been called the greatest player ever. Gonzales has been called the greatest of all time. Those are facts that can be sourced. Those sources that we use for Federer... you'd have to throw those out and update all the links because those people change their minds all the time. McEnroe swings like a pendulum between Federer, Nadal and Laver. It depends on his mood. Those sources work great for my proposals on changes. Unless you can convince us otherwise, the original will wind up going back in by consensus. I'm willing to work on the wording, but those sources are fine. No one has agreed with you here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You say "it matters a big zero on the Agassi quote". It absolutely does matter. Agassi does not consider Rod Laver to be the greatest of all time. I've provided sources to back that up. If Agassi doesn't consider Laver to be the greatest of all time, then we can't use him a credible source for the claim "some players and analysts consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time".
 * Yes, if an analyst from 50+ years ago claims that someone is the greatest player of all time and then passes away without revising their claim, then sure, we can use that as a credible source. We could say something like "At one point, Rod Laver was described by some analysts as the greatest tennis player of all time" or "Some now deceased analysts have described Rod Laver as the greatest tennis player of all time". We could also insert the line "Shortly after his career ended, some analysts considered Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time". Those claims are accurate and backed up by sources.
 * This is no different than it is for famous athletes across any sport. 50 years ago we could have found dozens of sources saying Jim Thorpe was the greatest football player of all time. Today, experts who've studied his career and the careers of players who came after him don't consider Jim Thorpe the greatest player of all time. Could we insert a line in Jim Thorpe's article saying "At the time of his death, many analysts considered Jim Thorpe the greatest football player of all time"? Absolutely. Would it be accurate to insert the following line in his article: "Jim Thorpe is widely regarded as the greatest football player of all time". Not at all because there are countless sources from experts on the subject who feel that the achievements of more recent players have exceeded his.
 * You can find dozens of examples like this across multiple sports.
 * I have absolutely no problem with inserting the following lines into Bill Tilden or Panco Gonzalez's articles: "At the time of his death, Bill Tilden was considered by many analysts to be the greatest tennis player of all time." or "At the time of his death, many analysts considered Pancho Gonzalez to be the greatest tennis player of all time."
 * Your claim "McEnroe swings like a pendulum" isn't accurate. I've heard him describe Nadal and Federer as the greatest of all time. Since he listed those two, not once have I heard him call Rod Laver the greatest of all time.
 * Your claim "No one has agreed with you" is completely inaccurate. When I posted about this on the notice board a few weeks ago there was very broad consensus that I was correct, which is why you didn't revert my changes right away. You waited over a month, waited for the discussion to disappear from the notice board, figured that I had gone away, and then inserted your opinion back into the article.
 * Your claim "the original will wind up going back in by consensus" is a bully tactic and breaks WP:OR. Your single opinion is not consensus and you know that. At every step I have tried to reach consensus by posting on the notice board, reaching out to neutral Administrators to come and post here, posting on WP:3, etc. You have done none of these things. What you have done is insert your own opinion into the article with no credible sources to back it up (WP:OR) and then repeatedly tell me that your opinion alone is consensus and you're going to keep it in there. It's not consensus, so let's continue the discussion here and keep looking for credible sources to back up your claim. Zerilous (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It matters zero When Agassi said it per the way I suggested it written. Zero.
 * You took another thing out of context. I said no one has agreed with you here, where the discussion is taking place, and where consensus matters. You have been doing that a lot and it's causing problems. That said, let's look at your Jim Thorpe comparison, because that can work. First of all, in the books I read he was called the greatest athlete of all time, not so much the greatest football player. There would be no problem at all today saying "Many fans, athletes and annalists have called him the greatest athlete of all-time" just like I suggested with Laver. The old news sources would work just fine. That is why, for you, I had suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" but you seem to ignore that, and I don't know why. And back to Thorpe, if we talk greatest athlete, you would be incorrect in your assessment of his abilities even today. The Washington Post from 2012 calls him the greatest Olympic athlete in history. As an athlete you are judged against your peers in events that were the most important at the time.


 * You asked for a third opinion and that person came here and said "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" is supported by the article sources. I have reverted you on that and Wolbo has reverted you on that. You refuse to accept it and I see no no one else here. I suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" to try and appease you. That has been rejected by you or you refuse to see it. You and I had discussed changing the terminology in every article, not just Laver's. We talked of changing ALL articles to something like "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time." As long as all articles were written the same way, where we'd get consensus among all those articles to do so. What did you do? You seemed to take that as consensus here and added it to the article. One it was not consensus since it was only you and me and none of the other parties here said they agreed. And none of the the other article talk pages were informed of the changes that might be forthcoming. Plus did you add what we discussed to the article? No. Instead you added "TENNIS Magazine listed him second on its list of greatest players, and Roger Federer has described him as the "best" tennis player in history." That's not even close to what we discussed!


 * All that said, what may have to happen is to list your suggestions and my suggestions in an RFC that brings all our sports editors here and simply let them pick one of four choices. They may not care about tennis at all, but at least more than four people will attend. Since we are getting nowhere, I'll start working on the wording in the next couple days. It's not my avenue of choice but at least one of the four will get picked, and that's what will be used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's go through your points here one by one.
 * You took another thing out of context. I said no one has agreed with you here, where the discussion is taking place
 * Incorrect, your friend Wolbo agrees with you, because he agrees with you every time you ask him to come post in your defense. The other users that I've reached out to for additional opinions agree with me that the sources you continue to cite are not enough to make the claim that "some analysts and players consider Rod Laver the greatest player of all time".
 * This is a bold-faced LIE Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been doing that a lot and it's causing problems.
 * WP:GF and WP:EQ. I ask you again to please stop making this personal.
 * I suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" to try and appease you
 * I was the one who suggested that edit, not you, and you know that. Look up the chain to when I posted on 01:01, 5 March 2018. "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time."
 * Not the same sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That line is consistent with the credible sources I provided. The fact that you would take my suggestion, claim it as your own, then accuse me of not agreeing with it is clearly not WP:GF and WP:EQ.
 * And back to Thorpe
 * My example for Jim Thorpe is perfectly valid and you know that. If you want to make this a discussion about Jim Thorpe then I'm more than happy to do so on Jim Thorpe's Talk page. Calling Jim Thorpe one of the greatest football players of all time is correct because we can find dozens of credible sources to back that up. Calling Jim Thorpe the greatest football of all time is not accurate because there are no current credible sources to back up that claim. Calling Rod Laver one of the greatest tennis player of all time is correct because we can find dozens of credible sources to back that up. Calling Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time is only valid if we can find credible sources to back up that claim. I've been looking for credible sources to back up that claim, and you still have not been able to find any. If one of us is able to find those sources, then we can certainly update the article with the proper lead-in.
 * There are sources, you just don't like them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You and I had discussed changing the terminology in every article, not just Laver's. We talked of changing ALL articles
 * I'm more than happy to go through each and every tennis player's articles and verify that the claims made in them are backed up by credible sources. If I see any, I'll go ahead and start a section on the talk page like here and discuss how we can improve them. If you find any please do the same. If you'd rather not be the one to start the conversation let me know and I'd be more than happy to.
 * We would put all of them through an RfC together to make a common sentence for all of them. That's what I talked about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All that said, what may have to happen is to list your suggestions and my suggestions in an RFC
 * An RFC is probably the way to go at this point. The more thoughts and ideas on this, the better. I've tried at every step of the process to reach out to neutral third parties and get their opinion. I'm glad that you've finally come around to that line of thinking. Zerilous (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:EQ please. We've been having a constructive discussion, let's continue to do so. Zerilous (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am replying here because Fyunck(click) says that a consensus in the Laver talk page suppousedly affects the Nadal page. I do not know if this is the right section to write about it, but I do not think there is consensus for the Nadal article.
 * No consensus until we stop using DOUBLE STANDARD LOGIC. The user Fyunck(click) intentionally follows a double standard logic. So we can't add that "some consider him to be the greatest of all time" in the lead section right? But then you see the Federer article (which still shows the "many consider him the greatest of all time" in the lead section) and he doesn't change it. He only changes the Nadal article in that sense, which shows how biased he is. Either we do not allow ANY player to have "some (or many) consider him to be the greatest of all time" in the lead section or we allow EVERY great player to have this in their respective articles' lead section. Unless you delete in Federer's lead section the "many consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time" I won't tolerate people deleting the "some consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time". Also, the Wikipedia articles for football players like Maradona, Pelé or Messi also have the "some consider him to be the greatest football player of all time" sentence in the lead section of their respective articles. So there is no such rule that forbids including those claims in the lead paragraph of sport players.
 * Dear Fyunck(click). Please put a "Legacy" section in the Federer article and ONLY there put that many consider him to be the greatest of all time. If you don't do it, I won't tolerate your biased editing following one logic for Nadal and other for Federer. James343e(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs)
 * Dear whatever name or ip you're using today. You do it! I tried and failed. Maybe you'll have better luck. I agree that Federer seems to get different allowances in the term vs Laver or Nadal or many others. There is consensus on the Laver page not to use them. I tried to include the quotes you wanted for Nadal in the legacy section as was forced upon Laver. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem with your attitude. You state what you will tolerate. You can’t do that. You don’t own these articles. You have no authority to set out any conditions. You have to drop that agressive attitude and respect Wikipedia’s procedures. has told you right from the start that you can remove it from the Federer article if you want to. So removed if you’re so frustrated about it. No-one will stop you.Tvx1 13:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This all seems such a sterile argument. No-one is calling Laver the Greatest Of All Time as an encyclopedia entry of fact; but it is also true, and incontrovertible, that many people, including former players and coaches and reporters, consider him the GOAT. It's a matter of opinion of course as to whether he actually is - even if there were some objective way of assessing this, which there is not - but is a matter of fact that many consider him so. I would not have a problem with the same sentence being used about Graf or Navratilova or S. Williams, or Federer or Djokovic. These things pass: 40 years ago, it would have been correct to say that many people consider Maurice Richard the ice hockey GOAT. I'm sure that some still do: but I think that the sentence "Many people consider Number 9 to be the greatest hockey player of all time" has had its day and would not now be an acceptable Wikipedia entry. Cross Reference (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Effect of ban
The lead says Despite being banned from playing the Grand Slam tournaments for the five years prior to the Open Era, he won 11 singles titles. While it is true that Laver suffered from missing many slams in his prime due to his own ban, in an identical way he benefited from the best players being banned in 1960-1962, when he won 6 of his 11 slams. For balanced coverage, shouldn't both factors be mentioned, or neither? Gap9551 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I changed it to something a little more neutral, I hope to your liking. "Laver won 11 Grand Slam singles titles, though he was banned from playing those tournaments for the five years prior to the Open Era." The word "despite" was over the top since he might not have won any of the 6 titles that came before the ban. I moved his 11 titles to the front since they seemed more important than the ban. Any more detail should be down in his legacy section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

These discussions need to be less personal and heated
Zerilous has reached out to me for advice. And just advice, it's not been suggested that I act in an Administrative capacity in any way. Frankly I think that both Fyunck(click) and Zerilous need to tone down their language. Fyunck(click), you need to drop the suggestion that Zerilous is a sock - preferably by retracting it and removing it from your talk page. I've got something I don't think you have, and that is the ability to look at the history of the article and see if there are any blocked editors in it. Just looking at the last 500 edits going back to October 2013 there is only one block I can see, and that's the recent IP who thinks that you and Wolob are socks, which is a bit ironic. And I can't see that Zerilous is aided by any other account either. If you and Wolob are socks than I can't understand how the argument between the two of you led to the page being protected, so I think we can toss that accusation out also. Note I also read User:Swarm's last comment at the ANI thread and agree with it.

If you can't settle this amicably then I suggest either WP:DRN or an RfC. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming here and giving us your advice Doug Weller . I 100% agree that Fyunck(click) and I need to keep the conservation on topic and not get personal. I've been trying very hard to keep it so, and I hope Fyunck(click) and I can come to an agreement here and make this article the best that it can be and in-line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
 * Thanks again! Zerilous (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As an administrator you have access and insight to items that I can't see. And Zerilous has obviously emailed you and discussed things privately I'm not privy to. Based on your administrative abilities I will retract the sock accusation that Zerilous has edited here before under another guise, and attribute his knowledge of wikipedia as simply reading all our rules and style-guides before making his first post here at Rod Laver. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on article intro
Should the line "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" be added as the last line of the intro? Are the current sources present in the article credible and support that claim? Zerilous (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a neutral RfC in the least. I like how I mention that I'm going to form a proper one and then this terrible one is created. Very bad faith imho. Sentence one is incorrect. Sentence 3 is incorrect. sentence 4 is incorrect. The rest is horrific. I was going to create one in a sandbox that we could all agree to before posting it. And then this atrocity of an RfC appears. I'm not surprised, but I'm very disappointed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GF and WP:EQ. If you'd like to weigh in and give your opinions on whether or not adding the statement "Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time" to the article is valid and backed by credible sources then please do so. Do not make it personal and attack other editors. Again, please, WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the worst RfC setup I have seen in probably the last 5 years. Non-neutral and biased. It should be scrapped as it is against Wikipedia guidelines. I can't believe any administrator would think otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GF and WP:EQ. Please Fyunck(click), I'm asking you again, let's discuss the topic at hand and hear what other users have to say and try to reach a consensus. Please do not criticize me and try to make this personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to weigh in then that's 100% your decision. I would really prefer that you do because you have a lot to add to the discussion. Just please do not make it personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you copy and pasted your last entry, but please, let's discuss the article, build consensus, and figure out the changes we can make so it fits the Manual of Style. Zerilous (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the RfC intro following an admin's suggestion. I would really like to discuss this RfC with anyone and everyone who would like to weigh in. I think we can have a really good, constructive discussion about this and find a way to improve the article so that it best follows the Manual of Style. Zerilous (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An RfC should have a clearcut question or two about alternative wordings, it's not helpful to have a general discussion that is almost impossible to !vote on. It should have a short and neutral initial statement, any discussion should be separate. It needs to follow WP:RfC and this hasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion Doug, I went ahead and updated the RfC intro as per your recommendation. I'm looking forward to discussing this RfC and building consensus on a solution that is in-line with the Manual of Style. Zerilous (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I think the term "the greatest" is problematic because it says nothing about the criteria with which we measure that greatness. It's one thing to say "He won the most Such And Such competitions" or "had the longest unbroken run of wins at Such and Such competitions" or "was officially seeded #1 for the longest number of years", because this is something that can be calculated for all the "great" players and then we can see numerically who is the best on that criteria. If there isn't a criteria, then it's just a matter of one person's opinion, in which case all you can say is that "Joe Bloggs said in 1990 that Laver was the greatest tennis player [cite]". I think everyone here probably thinks Laver was one of the greatest so I suggest stop having an RFC about this and instead find some metrics for which Laver was the best and write that in the article. "He won the most ...." or whatever it turns out to be. If we can't find any reasonable metric for which he is number 1, then leave the article saying he was one of the greatest as there appears to be no dispute about that. Kerry (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kerry. Laver is certainly one of the greatest tennis players ever, and there are plenty of credible sources to back up that claim. Calling him -the- greatest player ever is difficult though for all of the reasons Kerry mentioned. Zerilous (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Other articles do attempt to assert such claims in the lede. E.g., "and is widely considered to be cricket's greatest all-rounder" (Garfield Sobers); "He is regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of all time. (Viv Richards); "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time" (Don Bradman). Personally I prefer the form used in Rocky Marciano "has been included by boxing historians in lists of the greatest boxers of all time." QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point QuiteUnusual. For Garfield Sobers, the source for the claim on his article "and is widely considered to be cricket's greatest all-rounder" specifically makes that point. The source specifically says "Garry Sobers remains above every other claimant to the title of cricket's greatest allrounder". The source is recent, is an authority on the subject, and the person making that claim hasn't revised their opinion since making that claim. That makes it credible. This is also true for Don Bradman. It is a credible source that specifically states Don Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time. I do like that form you mentioned on Rocky Marciano. The line on his article isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact. Marciano has been included by boxing historians in lists of the greatest boxers of all time. That is a statement of fact backed up by credible sources. I would lean towards that approach here as well. Thank you for providing those examples and contributing to the RfC. Zerilous (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I dislike how we use widely regarded on wikipedia (see User:Aircorn/Widely regarded) and this is a classic case where original research is used to make such a claim. It should be rewritten. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a good point AIRcorn about using the phrase 'widely regarded'. I read through that section you linked on your User page and it makes a lot of sense. I really like the point QuiteUnusual made about how the lead-in to Rocky Marciano is worded, "Rocky Marciano has been included by boxing historians in lists of the greatest of boxers of all time". It makes a statement of fact and goes along with the points you made. We could go with something similar here, "Rod Laver has been included by tennis analysts and historians in lists of the greatest players of all time." Zerilous (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution to the original research problem is to change "widely regarded" to "has been described". For example Rodney George Laver AC, MBE (born 9 August 1938) is an Australian former tennis player who has been described as one of the greatest in the history of the sport. Still sounds a bit peacocky to me "with greatest in the history of the sport", but at least it is not synthesis. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I prefer that version over "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time". Aircorn's suggestion is more consistent with sources and flows/sounds better. Zerilous (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than look at what other articles may have "got away with", I think we all need to have a good read of Wikipedia's weasel word policy. The example given earlier about the Garfield Sobers claim that "[he] is widely considered to be cricket's greatest all-rounder" fails the weasel word test as the citation provided is an opinion piece by, V RAMNARAYAN. I am guessing this is Venkatraman Ramnarayan, but even if he is an authority on cricket, he is surely but one of many. That claim about Sobers should not have been presented as it is, but as "In 2014 V RAMNARAYAN claimed that Sobers was cricket's greatest all-rounder". I note too that the citation is very much an opinion piece, which opens as "No batsman entered a cricket ground with greater nonchalance or elegance, not even fellow West Indian Vivian Richards, whose majestic gait had a gum-chewing, swaggering arrogance about it" and ends with "EW Swanton once said of Neville Cardus that the great man was talking through his eminent hat when he claimed Wilfred Rhodes was a greater allrounder than Garfield Sobers. My response to similar comparisons between Sobers and the likes of Jacques Kallis or Imran Khan will be identical, with no disrespect intended to those other great allrounders" which seems to suggest that that Sobers isn't as "widely-considered" the best as our Wikipedia article implies. Kerry (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact very few people should be presented here as being "widely regarded" as anything. It needs a very good source that uses that phrase or something similar. Having opinion pieces or even multiple reliable sources saying they are the greatest or worst does not show widely regarded. As an encyclopaedia we should be presenting accurately what other sources say, not use them to support what we want to say. It is a common problem though, widely regarded or some similar wording is used in about 10 000 articles. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a really good point AIRcorn, As an encyclopedia we should be presenting accurately what other sources say, not use them to support what we want to say. Instead of saying Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time I would lean towards something like Laver has been included by tennis analysts and historians in lists of the greatest players of all time. I also like your suggestion earlier using 'described by', as in, an Australian former tennis player who has been described as one of the greatest in the history of the sport. I like the "included in lists" wording a little more because it's more of a statement of fact than the "described by" wording, but both would be an improvement. Zerilous (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see my wording has been getting some traction so just want to add that for it to be used it needs an expansion on this in the body of the article. Basically a paragraph or two at the minimum to justify being in the lead from the people who see Laver as the greatest. AIRcorn (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not add sentence. It's plain silly to have the first sentence of the lead saying "he is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time", and the last sentence of the lead saying "he is considered the greatest tennis player of all time". The idea that not having the sentence, when there is such a sentence in the Federer, Nadal, and Williams articles, is introducing "bias in how we handle this item with these great players", or "demeaning and biased to single out Rod Laver as something less than the others", is disingenuous IMO, and certainly not in keeping with any policy or guideline. I also support 's proposal to reword the first sentence as "an Australian former tennis player who has been described as one of the greatest in the history of the sport." Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sentence, "For this achievement, Laver is considered by many tennis fans to be the greatest individual player of all time", was previously added by an IP on 4 September 2005, and removed on 26 June 2007 (See discussion at, above). Is it not a bit retrograde to talk about restoring an edit that was deleted over ten years ago? Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Scolaire makes a good point about trying to restore a line that was already discussed and removed before. I agree with both Scolaire and in not adding the line "he is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time" and rewording the first line to be "an Australian former tennis player who has been described as one of the greatest in the history of the sport.". Zerilous (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summoned by bot. Agree with users above to reword the sentence to read: "who has been described as one of the greatest in the history of the sport" or clarify why he is "considered one of the greatest". Meatsgains (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sentence? The RfC concerns a proposal to add a sentence to the end of the lead (saying he's the greatest), in addition to the sentence that is currently at the beginning (saying he's one of the greatest). Your !vote might apply to either sentence. Scolaire (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. Do not include an additional sentence and reword the first sentence in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rod Laver is the undisputed GOAT, no person has won more titles in the professional era than Laver. Eras cannot be compared but if we must do it on title theory then Rod Laver is the GOAT and neither Federer or Nadal deserve that accolade. --2001:8003:640C:4C00:508D:252C:FF5A:8008 (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

1966 Forest Hills Pro and 1967 Wimbledon Pro
The 1966 Forest Hills Pro and the 1967 Wimbledon Pro were the highest paying tournaments of their respective years, and Laver won them both. I have been trying without success to add them to the info-box with "Other tournaments" where they clearly belong. However, it seems to be impossible to add these wins in the info-box. How do we go about adding these events? Do we need some discussion about inclusion of the two events?Tennisedu (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was the most significant pro tennis event held prior to open tennis arriving (and was key to open tennis arriving). Not only did it have the highest prize money of 1967, but it also had TV coverage, was held at Wimbledon and was a very successful event.  After the success of the event, the British LTA voted for open tennis...and the rest is history. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not easily done since it's formatted in Lua language. A specialist in Lua has to do it. However I have some reservations. The reason we would usually add a new event to the infobox is so multiple other player bios could use it. These events were played a total of one time so the only person this affects is Rod Laver. They have importance but zero prestige. That said, while I would disagree with the Forest Hills addition, that Wimbledon Pro was truly special. I think it likely should be in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't TOC included in Gonzales' inbox? So why Wimbledon Pro can't be included in Laver's infobox? Contact the editor of Gonzales page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.10.17 (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)