Talk:Serena Williams/Archive 3

Records
I want to address the "Records" section, someone keeps adding Margaret Court to sections like "double career slam in singles and doubles" when she completed a considerable part of that record in the pre-Open Era, however names like "Maureen Connolly" aren't included in the "Career Grand Slam in singles" section. If an article is going to contain pre-Open Era records, a) said article needs to state clearly that "These are all-time records", and a) ALL pre-Open Era records need to be included, otherwise people need to stop including Margaret Court as being a joint record holder for records she completed partly before the Open Era. Thetradge (talk) 18 August 2015, 13:34 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.60.50 (talk)
 * Agreed but I find that a bit backwards. If it's a record, we assume it's an all-time record. If it's only an Open Era record then we need to say it's only an Open Era record. But yes, Connolly should also be included. I fixed it along with a whole mess of other records that were wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thing is if you look at the vast majority of players playing from 1970s onwards, or who obtained records in the Open Era, their records lists state that the records were obtained in the open era, and in only a handful of cases there is a separate list for all-time (peerless) records, which I feel would make more sense as I believe it'd be impossible to list every single peer for every record if we're working under the "all-time" parameter as opposed to open era only. I refer you to both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal's pages, they both have lists of tennis records in which they are peerless over the whole of tennis history, however their lists from the Open Era either hold little significance in the pre-Open Era, or may well have too many peers in the amateur era to be considered records, and I feel it's similar with Serena; for example "Career Grand Slam" in singles now has 9 other peers who have also attained said record, and I feel that with so many other women to have historically attained such feat, it almost takes away from the achievement. Point is that at this present moment Serena's records box is the only one I have come across in which players from the pre-open era are listed as peers, and my proposition for the purposes of consistency across the board is that we revert back to open era records only, stating in the preceding notes that "These records were attained in the Open Era of tennis", however if there ARE records that are peerless throughout the span of tennis history, and relate only to Grand Slam tournaments, then they can be included in a separate list. Thetradge (talk) 1 October 2015, 07:08 (UTC)
 * I can put it this way. If pretty much all the other players list only the "open era" records, and absolutely state that they are open era records, I have no problem with Serena's article also put that way. However two things. 1) You can't use Federer and Nadal as examples since they are men. They had a totally different set of parameters than the ladies. The men became pros and couldn't play, that really didn't happen with Billie Jean King and Margaret Court and Maureen Connolly... they all continued to play. What changed for the men was that they could now play. What happened to the ladies was they could get paid. and 2) if it was totally up to me (which it's not) the open era records would be the ones to go bye-bye and we would (except in some situations) have all these players listed with historical records. There's 135+ years of historical tennis records, not 47 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Karsten Braasch exhibition
While I fully believe history should never forget about Karsten Braasch's cigarettes-and-beer-fueled trouncing of the Williams sisters back-to-back, does it really merit its own section high up in Serena's biography, with a prominent eye-catching entry in the table of contents? I'd like to delete this section and then just add a mention of the exhibition in section 3.1 (and perhaps note alongside it Serena's admission to David Letterman that: "Men's tennis and women's tennis are almost two separate sports. If I was to play Andy Murray I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes.")Letterman blog Figured this was worth putting out on the talk page before actually changing anything. Jh122 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jh122 here. While this is an entertaining story, it doesn't seem to deserve a complete section. Perhaps it is better suited on the Battle of the Sexes page?97.82.223.215 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i vote keep it. the battle of the sexes are an important part of tennis history and the fight for equality. the more people know of it the better. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely keep it. But does it deserve a separate section in Serena Williams' biography? I think not - it was one informal exhibition set she played in 1998. Let's move it to section 3.1. Jh122 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

no. the leterman interview has no significance. it's an unnecessary addition, maybe perhaps outside a serena quotes about other athletes section. on the other hand the battle of the sexes have historical significants. adding that link to the serena page informs more people. SyriaWarLato (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, forget the Letterman interview. But do you think the Braasch exhibition (1 informal set) should remain its own section? Jh122 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i think so yes. the link is as important as the section. it leads to the battle of the exes. also it has no impact on her professional career. SyriaWarLato (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Tough one really. Exhibitions are pretty lame. One thing that's strange is that it links to the "Battle of the sexes" article as if there is more info. There is not. I would say we need to keep it and it's not a big deal that it's left as is. It's only 5 short sentences and it really doesn't fit well anywhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In an effort to get this page promoted to a featured article, I think the question is does it help meet the criteria of length which requires that "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Im not sure this story of an exhibition match from when she was a teenager qualifies. Just my opinion.97.82.223.215 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a normal exhibition though. It's even part of an article of it's own. As for featured article, it's got a long way regardless. The photos are mostly bad. There shouldn't be more than 10 (so I trimmed it) but the pictures need to tell us something new about Serena. We need a detail of the Williams backhand, forehand, smash, serve, return of serve, a victory trophy raising (only one of those is needed), maybe an interview or one in regular non-tennis attire... What we have now doesn't impress me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of work to be done for sure.97.82.223.215 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck, "by detail of the Williams backhand, forehand, smash, serve, return of serve, a victory trophy raising (only one of those is needed)" do you mean analytic breakdown or just a picture?TJC-tennis-geek 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Having read other similar articles it is clear to me that this section is glaringly inappropriate as a topic section or subsection. It is also not written in a style fitting an encyclopedic article. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is one of the few "battle of the sexes" and is part of its own article. It absolutely cannot be buried in her normal tennis tournaments. Players sometimes have their own exhibition section if there was something special about one or two of them. well, that's what this is. This has been here a long time but as a stand alone with no real problems. I moved it to a subsection since a few thought it was too small for it's own section. It was even put in her 1998 section (which is not the best place for it). But it should not get lumped in with her regular tennis events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because it is a part of another article does not mean it deserves it's own subsection here, especially when a short description and link to said article will suffice. As you can see above, others have agreed with this sentiment. Also, this mention is already too long of an explanation and is not written in a style fitting an encyclopedic article.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And as you can see above some did did not agree with this sentiment. You have no consensus to change it. Plus a battle of the sexes exhibition absolutely cannot stay merged in with official WTA matches. Certainly there could be a new section of Exhibition matches but this was a special event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, no one is debating whether the match was special; that's evident as it was a man playing a woman. The only issue we're having is the fact that it doesn't need it's own section or subsection and that it needs to be rewritten to sound encyclopedic. It's my own personal opinion that it doesn't belong at all, but I've already conceded that point.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet there's more there than "Equipment and endorsements", "Language fluency", "Miami Dolphins venture", "Writing", and "Personal life"... all of which have their own subsections. This one should too, and you removed it against consensus. I will move it back to what it was before I moved it to a subsection... which was a full section all it's own, but I think the subsection works better than a full section. It cannot remain where it is, buried in official tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't have a consensus either. So I will continue to take it down until one is reached. If you don't like the fact that it's buried with official tournaments then maybe you should consider whether it belongs in the article at all. No other top tennis player article has exhibitions listed as a separate section on their article, not even Billie Jean King who played the most monumental B.O.T.S match. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we'll have a problem because it will be moved by me or others. It will be posted at the Tennis Project to make sure it moves. It is important and it can't remain where it is. Plus as I look Billie Jean King has it in a subsection exactly where I placed this. I didn't know it did, but it does. A subsection under the year. Margaret Court's article (which should be the same size as Serena's) has a tiny little career section. Hers is like 4 paragraphs while Serena's is like 10 pages. The Battle of the Sexes section is only in a separate paragraph in the career section but it takes up about a quarter of her career. If we did that with Serena's article it would be larger than her 2004–2007 section alone. It's not too much to have a small section for Serena's BotS's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if that's the way you want to approach this, be my guest. Meanwhile, you've yet to address either of my points about how the article is written and the fact that no other top tennis player has a section dedicated to exhibitions.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because there haven't been many "Battle of the Sexes" in the history of the sport. And also because of your improper movement... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We can accuse the other of the same so there's no point in going down that rabbit hole. Also, you still haven't addressed my points. Why not simply have a mention of it and a link to the BOTS page instead of giving it close to a paragraph and it's own subsection? The fact that there haven't been many BOTS matches doesn't strike me as a good enough reason. And it is biasly written and not at all encyclopedic. I've put this on the dispute resolution page so we can just wait to hear back from them to see how to proceed.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * One of these days you and I are going to agree on something, just wait!!!--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we discussed things before? I don't keep track. That's a pretty quick dispute resolution but Tennis Project knows about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We actually have, and I'm not as new at this as you seem to believe. Wikipedia editing may not be my life as it seems to be for certain people but I've found my way around. The way I've understood things dispute resolution is an early step in the resolution process and would get us a third party’s opinion. You seemed to have taken it personally, it was not meant to be taken as such. Furthermore, throughout the resolution process I would appreciate it if you kept the commentary focused on the content. We are both very passionate about our positions but we could still reach a compromise. Anyway we should probably just wait until we hear back.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went by edit history. And not personally... I simply follow rules and you haven't. I assumed because you were new you may have not been up on the protocol of editing. You change something and get reverted you do not change back, you bring it to talk to get people to agree with you. You did it backwards. You changed something and demanded it stay in place until there is a resolution. Now you're telling me you do understand the way it works, yet chose to do otherwise. Hmmm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you want to have a productive conversation without condescension. I can tell by your bio and your edit history that you've not only been around the sun a few times but you've also had your share of squabbles. I expected better from you.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as I have... yep squabbles happen. Let me know when you wish to follow rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not sure who took down what first, we should try to give each editor the benefit of the doubt and come to talk first. But in regards to the content I have to side with @TJC-tennis-geek here. I thought that section was weird and it kind of stood out as it's own section. And its written like its supposed to be taking a jab at Williams instead of being merely informative.--TexanGal86 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was willing to concede the way it's written if it was not given its own section. Judging by the above comments it seems that most are ok with the content but not with the placement. Thoughts?--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that most want the section to stay also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You've got at least 3 people here who have questioned it. I'll look up the definition of "most" but I'm almost certain that doesn't qualify.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we decided on this at all? I agree with TexanGal86, the sections main point seems to be "hating" on the sisters, rather than being informative.Svrodgers (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We did. It did have it's own section and was originally written:
 * "Serena competed in a "Battle of the Sexes", along with her sister Venus Williams against Karsten Braasch at the 1998 Australian Open, who at the time was ranked 203th. A decade and a half younger than Braasch, who was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2.[193] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."
 * It is now only a subsection of "1995–98: Professional debut" and is more neutrally worded. Plus it links to the more detailed battle of the sexes article. It isn't hating at all...it's informative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

don't overload the lede
keep the lede simple, we can't squeeze every minor detail into it. leave those to the specific sections. KHLrookie (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding these galleries of Serena (I work for SI.com)

Through the Years: http://www.si.com/tennis/photos/2013/06/23/classic-photos-serena-williams

Grand Slam Fashion Statements: http://www.si.com/tennis/photos/2015/08/27/serena-williams-fashion-us-open-wimbledon-french-australian

Zeeboss99 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, because inserted these pictures would be a copyright violation unless they are licenced under a compatible Creative Commons licence. Also, this seems like a way of promoting your website, which Wikipedia is not about. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Upon further thought, perhaps a possible Fashion Statement gallery works best in this spot.

At Wimbledon in 2008, the white trench coat she wore during warm-up for her opening match was the subject of much discussion since it was worn despite the sunny weather.[256] In 2015, Sports Illustrated published a gallery showing her fashion choice at each of her Grand Slam appearances. http://www.si.com/tennis/photos/2015/08/27/serena-williams-fashion-us-open-wimbledon-french-australian Zeeboss99 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because inserted these pictures would be a copyright violation unless they are licenced under a compatible Creative Commons licence. Also, this seems like a way of promoting your website, which Wikipedia is not about. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct. Sports Illustrated would have to pretty much relinquish all rights to those photos, forever, for us to use them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Early life- coaches
I am confused. It says her father was her main coach but that another mentor included "Richard Williams." Is that a different Richard Williams than her dad or are we talking about the same person? -KaJunl (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I clarified this. Gap9551 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Billie Jean King quote
Hello. I just want to discuss the information/quote I placed in Serena Williams lead. I feel that the quote is appropriate because other tennis player articles feature similar nods.

"When asked whether she thinks Serena Williams is the best tennis player ever, the 12-time Grand Slam winner and Women’s Tennis Association founder answered unambiguously: “Yes. I think we all do. I think every generation gets better.”" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/billie-jean-king-serena-williams-goat_us_55f08f97e4b093be51bd4e20

My original edit read: Tennis legend and WTA co founder, Billie Jean King, said in 2015 that she believes Serena is the greatest tennis player of all time.

A few examples: Roger Federer: "His accomplishments in professional tennis have led to him being regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." Martina Navratilova: "In 2005, Tennis magazine selected her as the greatest female tennis player for the years 1965 through 2005." Steffi Graf: "Navratilova included Graf on her list of great players. In 1999 Billie Jean King said "Steffi is definitely the greatest women's tennis player of all time". No one seems to have an issue with these quotes so why on this article? Thoughts?

According to Wiki's Biographies of living persons guideline: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Also: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.

I feel that the quote meets both of these standards and should be ok to add. A point was made about the length of this article and not wanting to overdo it. I can see that is an issue. Are there any objections to reworking that paragraph in a way that will not lose info and make room for the quote? I can post a draft here before editing.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * there are a lot of quotes off Serena. i think there should be a separate section for it. Leave the lead as it is and put the (meaningful) quotes in a separate section if the page isn't WP:toobig and allows it. SWF88 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with SWF88. It could be added to the list at the (a) footnote, or perhaps a section of accolades. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something but I don't see any quotes in the lead. I would be happy to write a different section and I will try to keep it to a paragraph or so but please address the above points regarding the other articles. For instance, Graf has a nicely written paragraph of accolades in her lead while the Federer article has a legacy section like what you two are suggesting. Should all three just have a legacy section for accolades leaving the leads for general info and major accomplishments? Any notes would be appreciated. Thanks. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead often doesn't need any sources because it's merely repeating what is already in the body of the article. Serena's lead states that "Williams is regarded by some commentators and sports writers as the greatest female tennis player of all-time.[a]" That (a) contains 11 links to quotes and accolades. You could certainly add one more to that list without messing up anything. There's also the lead sentence, the lead paragraph and lead section with multiple paragraphs. Graf's is five paragraphs long with no mention of greatest in the lead sentence or paragraph. It's in her 4th paragraph. Serena already has a mention of greatest in the lead paragraph. Perhaps it should all be moved to the bottom paragraph of the lead section? Federer's article is pretty much just like Serena's as far as a single mention of greatest in the lead paragraph with an (a) that has many links and quotes. He also has a legacy section but it also has only one greatest sentence with no quotes. It's mostly for awards and records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing: King said yes to "best" so we cannot say "greatest". To many people, "greatest" would be most accomplished (mainly victories and ranking for a tennis player) while King's quote is clearly about hypothetical matchups between different generations. Compare to athletics. The current world record holders may be the best ever but if they never won big championships then few people would call them the greatest ever. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was a misquote, good catch. I'll make sure to fix that in the Legacy section.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's a quote you would use what she said, best or greatest. But generally they are synonymous. I would not look at greatest by a total of victories. If someone wins 10 majors in 4 years and another wins 12 majors in 12 years, I would tend to regard the 10 major player as greater without any other details. Some players have the gift of longevity to add to their totals, and in some, because they played so long, their win percentage drops dramatically from their peak, making them look historically worse. Like Bill Tilden with all his late career losses. I guess greatest is something that can only be judged against ones peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the question was if she was the "best" to which BJK answered in the affirmative. I messed up and typed "greatest" and instead I'll use "best" for this particular quote.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Jehova's Witness
Her religion seems to be a big part of her life and focus in sport, but is not currently mentioned. 86.178.89.209 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Different eras
Can we talk about why in the records section Serena is being compared to people who played back in the early 1900's? It's hardly comparable to have ladies from the pre-open era in there when hardly anyone came to those majors at the time and were lucky to have 32 women in a draw with maybe 3 countries represented. How is that at all comparable to Serena who has a 128 draw with players from all over the world? Seems illogical to be compared to these women, when their ways of attaining these achievements are polar opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svrodgers (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One can only be judged against ones peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone's the best in the world, it makes no difference how many wannabes have to be defeated along the way. These women are champions, end of story. (203.132.77.45 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016
In the introduction's first paragraph the weeks at number 1 needs to be updated.

TheGOATeditor (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gap9551 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Height
Presently quoted as 5 feet 9 inches on what looks quite an ancient source. But Google gives 5 feet 10 inches and as I write while watching Kitova vs Kerber at US Open, a women commentator corrected a male commentator's (unfortunately I tuned in too late to get Eurosport's commentators' names) "only 5 feet 9 inches" to say she herself was 5 feet 10 inches tall and Serena was taller. She said she didn't know why it was quoted as 5 feet 9 inches - perhaps that was what she was as a teenager.

But I can't find Google's source.

This should be a challenge: Google v Wikipedia on Serena's height - really it ought to go to executive level given its obvious importance. Awen23 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Commentator was Mary Pierce whose article indeed gives her (i.e. Mary's) height as 5 feet 10 inches. Awen23 (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmhh ... not persuaded by this image of Mary and Serena together, but Mary might have been wearing heels. I found a 2002 source where Serena says she was now more like 5 feet 10 inches. It's tolerably interesting Google gives Serena's height as 5 feet 10 inches - I mean in terms of their so-called knowledge database. What do they know we don't know (quite a lot I suspect). Awen23 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranking
Her ranking has not yet changed. The rankings come out on September 12. Until the new rankings do come out she is still ranked number 1, as shown by the WTA ranking page http://www.wtatennis.com/rankings. Meters (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversies Section
Can we talk about why there is a need for Serena's controversy section to be so large? It's almost as big as many of her playing season summaries. Especially the 2011 US Open, even in the text it says it was nothing major and only resulted in a fine. If this is the criteria for "controversy" dozens of players every tournament should have controversy sections. Novak Djokovic almost got defaulted in a match but there is no mention on his? Some sections of this page seem very biased to try and sway readers into thinking negatively of Serena. Svrodgers (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks about right considering how large the article is. I might have shortened the 2011 section a bit as I think it contains too much detail for the given crime. Her article is humongous at nearly 200,000 bytes so it's logical her controversy section would be larger than normal. It's 4.5x the size of Margaret Court's article but Serena's controversial section is about 3x bigger. There's also context. It's a lot better to explain and give a bit of background rather than say something like "At the 2009 US Open, Williams was fined $175,000 and put on two years probation for threatening to kill a lineswoman." While it takes more words it's better to be accurate in describing the situation when it concerns something unflattering. In 2011 you don't want to just say "At the 2011 US Open, Serena deliberately hindered Samantha Stosur, was defaulted a game, and was verbally abusive to chair umpire Eva Asderaki. Since she did not use profanity she was fined $2000." Without the added context readers are left scratching their heads as to why. But adding the context helps give a reason for the situation, but adds a lot more text. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. Is there a way to shorten this section without losing context?TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll have to tinker with the 2011 section to see how it works with a trimming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the 2004 and 2009 sections as well. The 2004 section is mostly notable because it helped usher in shot spot but does it need as much detail? Also, the 2009 section needs all the details and context it currently has but can written more concisely?TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2004 already looks small to me. 2009 would make Serena look worse if it left out detail, otherwise it looks pretty much how it was and should remain intact. Are you trying to make Serena look like an angel in all these events? 2011 is the only one that could use some condensing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drop the accusatory tone. If you reread what I suggested you'll see that I was only asking if it could be written more concisely not that we make her "look like an angel". And I disagree, I think the 2009 section could use condensing as well. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2011 could be shortened to something like:
 * In the final of the 2011 U.S. Open against Samantha Stosur, Williams shouted "Come on!" as the Australian attempted to return a forehand Williams believed to be a winner. The chair umpire Eva Asderaki awarded the point to Stosur based on the USTA's deliberate hindrance rule. (link to rule) As the point was 30–40 on Williams' serve, the penalty gave the break of serve to Stosur. Williams became angry with the chair umpire and made several gestures and unflattering comments toward her during the next changeover, including telling Asderaki that if she ever saw the umpire coming toward her, she should "look the other way". Williams was under probation at the time. Authorities decided, while verbally abusive, it did not rise to the level of a major offense under the Grand Slam code of conduct. Williams was fined $2,000 but was not barred from competing in the 2012 US Open.

I think this would still show the seriousness of the offense but keep context and trim the paragraph. I can't see trimming it anymore. This dumps what ESPN suggested, what happened later in the match, and the actual hindrance rule. Any thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is better but consider this change: "The chair umpire Eva Asderaki awarded the point to Stosur based on the USTA's deliberate hindrance rule (link to rule), effectively giving Stosur a break of serve." That's not a major difference but it is a bit shorter.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a biases that overall detracted from the neutrality of the article. For example, I noticed a heavy pro-Serena bias in the text through its many praises with almost no criticisms of the athlete. This made the article unbalanced. For example, the text states: “Williams is regarded by some commentators, players and sports writers as the greatest female tennis player of all time.” Since “greatest” and “best” are strictly subjective assessments, I feel as though this makes the article less neutral. Additionally, I noticed a somewhat sexist bias in how the article consistently compares Serena’s accomplishments to men’s. I feel as though this suggests that her accomplishments are only impressive because they are equal or greater than men’s accomplishments, as though she is only recognized as successful because she reaches a male standard. I think this article would be more neutral if it celebrated Serena’s accomplishments in their own right. 20:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Cpgalligan (talk)


 * Hello Cpgalligan. While you are correct that "greatest" and "best" are subjective assessments, please keep in mind that Wikipedia allows for commentary on an athlete's abilities by experts to be noted. You will find some of the same language on similar articles (i.e. Steffi Graf, Roger Federer, and Michael Jordan). The Wikipedia Neutral point of view page has this to say: "Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language."2600:1003:B114:48E8:ED7F:212C:69F2:409F (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Sexes
I'm confused as to why Serena's (and Venus) bio needs to go into such details for an informal match against a random man? There is far less information in Navratilova, King and Court's bios when they were the ones who actually competed in the battle of the sexes. Navratilova gets a 2 sentences, and Court 1 while Serena gets an entire paragraph with its own subsection for an informal match just for fun? To me, it seems as the inclusion of this paragraph in such detail is to paint the Williams Sisters as arrogant, and the wording certainly makes it seem so. There is no mention of any type of match for Justine Henin or Li Na who competed in similar "battles" so the reasoning for including it so thoroughly in Serena and Venus's is strange at best. Svrodgers (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There can be many reasons. Serena and Venus were certainly boasting more about it back then... sort of the opposite of Riggs-King. There is also much more info available about modern matches than matches in the 70s. Then we have a big one... article weight. None of those other ladies has the detail of anything as much as Serena does. Every Serena match is looked at. Serena has a 200,000k article, and many many yearly articles, plus Williams Sisters and William Sisters Rivalry articles. It's endless. King has a 115,000k article and no season articles, Court has a 45,000k article and no season articles, Navratilova has a 75,000k article and no season articles. They are all dwarfed by Serena's article when they should be the same. Graf has 80,000k, Evert 45,000k, Henin 75,000k. Oh and Venus, who isn't in the same league as those players has 136,000k. That is strange at best. I look at perhaps the best female players ever, Wills, Lenglen, Connolly, and see 48,000k, 31,000k, 25,000k respectively. All the sexes-matches were played for fun from what I could see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest deleting this section once again. First, this was not an official match but instead took place during a practice session. There were no refs or officials involved. Secondly, according to an article written by Braasch, none of the players involved were taking the matches seriously. Thirdly, an impromptu match on a practice court with little to no spectators shouldn't be compared to The Battle of The Sexes Riggs and King took part in as those matches had weight and meaning. Lastly, I agree with @Svrodgers in regards to the tone of the section. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Most people that have posted their opinions past and now have agreed that this section should not be included Svrodgers (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on the past and present comments, I have removed the section as most wanted it gone. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I put it back. It has been shortened as it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you are the only one that wants it to remain. Pull up the old chat logs on this subject and you'll see that you've been out voted by at least 5 users now. If you want to revert you need to discuss here first. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This will have to go to an RfC to remove an entire section. Many folks don't come to the talk page but they'll see your removal as an affront to the article and removal of well sourced data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vote and that is not how we do things here. You don't just keep reverting until you get your way. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So I just looked through the archives, again, as was suggested and there was only one tread that has to do with this. Talk:Serena_Williams/Archive 3. I see very little there that says to remove the entire section and certainly no consensus to do so. I see basically Thad caldwell and Fyunck(click) arguing back and forth until the thread died its natural end. There are a few IPs thrown in there and a few brand new accounts. Nothing of which shows consensus. If you want to remove that section, don't claim it on consensus because it isn't. If you want to seek consensus you are more than welcome to do so. Start a RfC. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, its thread. Secondly, I never stated that there was a consensus. If you read through the most recent "thread" you'll see that I suggested removing it and provided reasons for doing so. Only one user (Svrodgers) responded agreeing with me. I then waited for over 24 hours for a response from Fyunck(click). If you're going to lecture, get your facts straight first. I have reported the matter to the Dispute resolution board as that would be the appropriate step before requesting a RfC.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You caught a typo, and I obviously know how it is spelled as I typed it correctly a few sentences later. Perhaps if you weren't ranting about a simple typo you would have noticed. Good luck with your DR. You'll learn pretty quick how things are done here. --Majora (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Condescension is how you began this convo; trust me, I know how things work here. Good day. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand. The follow is a link to an article written by Braasch about the "match" https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html Wikipedia's Good Article criteria states that articles should be "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Now I know that this article isn't under review as a part of the Good Article nomination process, however I think we should still use it as a guide. In my opinion, this section not provides unnecessary detail but adds to an already lengthy article. As I stated above, this match was not an official "Battle of the Sexes" event nor was it an official exhibition. There were no officials, no spectators, and according to the article, they were playing for fun. This was merely a practice session if anything. Therefore, this section is also inaccurate in its portrayal. I do not see the significance of this match and thus don't see how we can leave this section in; even in its shortened form. Thoughts?TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Dave Rineberg, Serena's and Venus's former coach, describes this match and especially preceding events in his book, he apparently sees it as relevant enough to understanding the girls psychology and further career. If such sources assign a considerable weight to this event, so should we. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * He was never their coach. He was their hitting partner for a few years. Significant difference there Svrodgers (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's rather irrelevant how we call him, don't you think, as long as he worked with them closely for years? --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True. He and the press tend to use the term "hitting coach" when describing Rineberg. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coach or hitting partner aside, this was not a "Battle of the Sexes" event nor was it an exhibition. The way it is written is inaccurate at best. Also, the fact that a former hitting partner wrote about this incident, along with many others I'm sure, does not give it "weight" nor does that make it necessary and sufficient to be a part of this article. In my humble opinion, nothing about this section is encyclopedic.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Deinocheirus (awesome username btw), I am working on a playing style section that I will post on the talk page for review in a couple of weeks (I hope). Did the book mention how this match may have impacted her game? If so, maybe it can be a part of that section as a quote?TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's please continue to discuss this matter. Thanks. 70.208.141.149 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is right now a weblink in the article showing that it at least impacted her ambitions. From "any man outside top 200" she has lowered her expectations of winning to "any man outside top 350". I don't think that it affected her play style (although Rineberg describes elsewhere in his book how he was preparing her and Venus to other female players styles, and that part may be useful to include in the style section). --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But the problem is this section is not factual. This was not a Battle of the Sexes. It was not an exhibition. The "match" had no significance. You mention it impacted her ambitions. Her ambitions or her teenage delusions of grandeur in regards to defeating male tennis players has no bearing whatsoever on her professional career. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above post. How did losing a match to a man that had no significance impact her professional career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svrodgers (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Most of the battle of the sexes matches had no significant impact. Tilden/Lenglen didn't. Nor Neer/Wills or Noah/Henin or Djokovic/Na or Connors/Navratilova. They just weren't a grandiose event like Riggs/King. Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * The difference between this "match" and all of the ones you've named is that they were actual exhibition matches! This - by all accounts, including Braasch's - was nothing more than a friendly practice session. Additionally, as I've pointed out several times now it was not a "Battle of the Sexes" event! Folks, this section is so glaringly inaccurate and the fact that it not only exists but is a subsection is a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. This question of impact is totally irrelevant but I'll address it anyway. Fyunck, you listed several players but none of their articles have a subsection about those matches---because they're insignificant. The fact that Serena's article is longer and has more weight is not a good justification to keep such an insignificant detail; that will only make this article longer than it needs to be. Keep in mind, Wikipedia criteria states that articles should "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I believe a practice match against a man when she was 16 unnecessary to say the least. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's view on this matter, but I honestly don't see how this is anything more than a piece of trivia or a fun anecdote. TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a battle of the sexes whatever you might think. And Navratilova's article talks of Connors, and Wills talks of Neer. And the other matches didn't have the type of boasting that the Williams sisters did. That makes for good press. It's why it keeps circulating in the news, be it Lots Wife magazine, the New York Times, Top End Sports, The Irish Timesor the UK Guardian. It known as one of the "battle of the sexes" from all corners of the globe. And again when you have an article that is 5x longer that all the other articles it will by necessity more full of expanded topics. It you want to cut the entire article down to the size of Suzanne Lenglen's or Margaret Court's then the battle of the sexes might be only a sentence with a link to the battle of the sexes article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And another thing... it doesn't have it own section anymore. It used to be a much larger stand alone section, but someone wanted it edited and buried in the 1998 section. So it was shortened considerably and moved as a subsection of 1998. It really can't get shorter without disappearing, and that is not going to happen. I've done about all I can in answering, shortening, moving, and proving it was a battle of the sexes. I think I'm done going in circles with the same conversation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess what I don't understand is why you feel it is so crucial for inclusion? An article on someone's playing career, that wasn't a real match or and was just for fun. It paints Serena as arrogant when she was just a teenager. You claim they were boastful about this, while Braasch himself was quoted as saying "neither myself, nor Venus or Serena took the game too seriously - we were just having a bit of fun". To say this is known in all corners of the globe is ridiculous at best. As a long time tennis fan, I had no clue about this "practice match" until reading this article. Svrodgers (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1: This was NOT an actual Battle of the Sexes event and should not be noted as one. It was merely called that for headlines. This was done on a practice court during the Australian Open. There were no cameras, no officials, and very few people so no real audience. Again see https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html 2: What you call boasting is subjective. There are articles that say mention the girls were joking and not serious. 3. This information is insignificant and trivial when compared to the rest of the article.

Please remember that none of us own this article. Therefore, none of us can unilaterally decide what is going to stay and what is going to go. Let's continue to discuss and dissect this issue and try to reach a consensus. Here are some questions, based on Wikipedia guidelines, that I would like to ask the group: IMHO, I think if the answer is "no" to any of these questions, the information should be removed as it would then be deemed to be incongruent with Wikipedia's guidelines.TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this information reflect upon the main aspects of the subject matter?
 * Does this information help the article focus on the main point without going into unnecessary detail?
 * Is this the type of information we would find in another encyclopedia?
 * I don't think that we would find any information on most of Serena's (or any other player's) matches in another encyclopedia (including Bud Collins), so focusing on this specific match is beside the point unless we want to remove any match-specific information from the article altogether. Furthemore, this match in fact had more media attention than a lot of Serena's official matches, and while there may be no cameras there certainly were plenty of journalists to report on it afterwards. As recently as in 2013 this encounter was again brought to readers' attention when there were rumors about Serena's planned match against Andy Murray. So objectively this is a noteworthy content, and objectively it does not contradict the guidelines for living persons' bio articles. On the other hand, notion of "necessary" and "unnecessary" detail is highly subjective, as we can see in this discussion. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. We wouldn't find match specific information in another encyclopedia and we shouldn't here either. You say that this match garnered media attention but that does not make it noteworthy nor does it warrant inclusion; especially if the match in question was not a match. Andy Roddick and Serena reminiscence about the time that she beat them when they were twelve almost every time he interviews her, should that be included as well? No, of course not, because in the grand scheme of this article it would be unnecessary detail. Again, I have noted an article written by Braasch himself that proves this was not a match or an exhibition, but a friendly practice session that neither player was taking seriously. If your only argument is that it was reported on and was "recently" brought up in 2013 then we should include the time she beat Andy Roddick when they were twelve. 2601:587:200:1BC6:B9DC:32D0:562F:68C9 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How many different sources describe matches between 12-year old Roddick and Williams – more than one? On the other hand, only in this discussion we mention at least three independent sources describing her encounter with Braasch. Furthermore, if media (beside the fact that it was not only media) attention does not make an event noteworthy, what does? --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 Season
Are we going to create a new page for her 2017 season like we have since 2003? Svrodgers (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
As a person unfamiliar with tennis, I recommend rewriting the WP:LEAD. It is currently basically only a long list of her accomplishments. As impressive as they are, a lead should summarize the whole article, and there is evidently more to Ms Williams than just repeating "she is the best tennis player ever" in twenty variations.  Sandstein  16:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Roger Federer's Wikipedia article is considered a very good article by their standards and is very similar to Serena's in terms of accomplishments in the lead paragraph. Why should Serena's be changed, but not his when his meets the criteria for a very good article?Svrodgers (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Roger Federer was named a good article in 2007, almost ten years ago. Here is how it looked then note the much shorter lead.   Sandstein   17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

She Avoided Drug Testing
The well publicized incident when Serena locked herself in a bathroom to avoid a drug tester's surprise visit, this incident should be included in Wikipedia, because it was in mainstream press articles. 47.201.179.7 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017
User:Aries009 sockpuppet I will like to edit how Serena's success and accomplishment has been received by prominent experts in tennis, sports and the general public. Currently, there is a line in the lead paragraph that states "Williams' accomplishments and success in professional tennis have led some commentators, players, and sports writers to regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time". While most of this line is okay, I would simply like to change the word "some" in that line to "many", because using the word "some" falsely minimizes how Serena's accomplishments and success has been received by prominent experts in tennis and the general public and feels like it is been used to project negativity on Serena's accomplishments by haters, rather than a neutral point of view that actually comes from the tennis and sporting community. Given her unrivalled longevity in the sport, her achievements from titles to global popularity and unrivalled on-court earnings and legendary status in the sport, the majority of the tennis community, sport community, media and the general public have accepted Serena Williams as the greatest female tennis player of all time. You just have to look at the many articles out there talking about this, regularly giving her GOAT status and the many former and active players and viewing public that have also given her the GOAT status, more so in light of her most recent record-breaking achievement. This means that "MANY" have regarded her as the GOAT. Not only "some". There is even a widely publicised Nike advertisement that suggests she is the greatest ever and promotes this regularly at tournaments, if you're wanting further sources.

Looking at Roger Federer's Wikipedia article over the years, he's been allowed to have the constant suggestion that "many" have regarded him as the greatest tennis player of all time. So why is Serena's article being denied the same respect? Because she's black and female?? Let's keep in mind that NOT actually everyone considers Roger Federer as the greatest tennis player of all time. There are many that consider Rafael Nadal and many that consider Novak Djokovic as the greatest. So if we are really going by people's individual opinion, then Federer's article should be reverted to only "some" considering him as GOAT rather than "many". You need to be consistent across the board with editing and narrative structure and not just have bias or favouritism where people like. Fatality1 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to the recent edits by both myself and Escape Orbit - I admit I didn't check the talk page and so wasn't aware that there was also a discussion over the term "many" Vs "some" Vs no qualifier at all. I am in favour of the original - ie that the term "some" is favourable to either "many" or nothing at all. The difference between "many" and "Some" could be semantics, but either are better than having none at all which then reads as all commentators, with no qualifier.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus two wrongs don't make a right. I believe that Federer's article should also say "some", but getting that to stick is another matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet I agree that it is better to have a qualifier for how the public and the tennis community have received Serena's career, because obviously we can't say that everybody on earth has accepted her as GOAT, for their own personal reasons. But achievements speaks for itself and it cannot be denied, regardless if you like her or not. So going by achievement and widely publicised sources, it is acceptable that the "majority" of the sports worlds, tennis community and the media have accepted Serena as the GOAT, which is why it is better to use "many" as a qualifier here. Using "some" suggests only a handful have accepted her, which is quite disrespectful. We cannot use "some" for Federer and we cannot use "some" for Serena. Not everybody might accept she's the GOAT, but MANY, MANY do. Just like they do with Federer.

And to answer Escape Orbit's question about how many is "many"? What measure is being used here? The measurement is simply majority. "Many" is not saying all. It is simply saying majority, which cannot be disputed. An alternative would be to remove "commentators, players, and sports writers" from the line and just have "Williams' accomplishments and success in professional tennis have led many to regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time". That is shorter, precise and makes more sense. Fatality1 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree, and the term "many" is much harder to source. There are other ladies whose achievements speak just as loudly and even more so than Serena's. Their articles should also only say "some." We don't simply add up quanities without perspective. "Some" does not mean a handful... it's means that some call her the greatest female tennis player of all-time. Some say it about Graf, some Navratilova, some Court, some Lenglen, some Wills, and a couple others. It's a small but distinguished club, just as with the gentlemen with Federer being the latest added to a list of Laver, Sampras, Gonzales Nadal, and Tilden. It's great we can talk about all these players, but I still think "some" works out best in terms of sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I literally haven't heard a single commentator in recent years not refer to Serena as the greatest ever. All of ESPN, BBC, Channel 7 all call her the GOAT. There are hundreds(thousands) of articles by different writers calling her the best ever. How is that = "some" just because a few don't. Clearly many is the best option.Svrodgers (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by recent. In late 2015 World Tennis Magazine called it for Helen Wills as GOAT. Two days ago FoxSports listed Martina Navratilova as having the greatest career in history. 2015 Forbes has Graf as number 1. There is always a bias for ceib since it sells tickets, but once Serena is retired awhile it will look a lot different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyunck clearly has a questionable bias towards Serena. Looking back on his posts on the talk page, it is basically him/her trying to diminish Serena's accomplishments and standing as the best of all time. Makes sense considering they are a huge Federer fan, but clearly doesn't want his page to be edited to "some" instead of "many" like Serena's.Svrodgers (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do like Federer. I also wish his article said "some." And just because I don't bow down and pray to Serena as you do doesn't make me biased against her personally. I tend to look at all of tennis history when throwing out subjective terms like goat. CEIB doesn't fly with me nor do your personal attacks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also see something else now. You have made 104 edits in your brief wikipedia career here. 98 have been about Serena or Venus Williams. So when you start talking about bias or objectivity you'd best look in the mirror. I feel pretty good about my own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet Before Serena's era, Steffi Graf was easily being referred to as the GOAT, regardless of Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert or Margaret Court's achievements, and nobody had a problem with that. Her Wikipedia page was happily naming her the GOAT. Nobody even talked about Margaret Court's record of 24 being a thing of importance or something that was worth chasing. Hence why Steffi never bothered with it. It was never even a conversation and it was never used against Steffi Graf. But as soon as Serena Williams got to #18 and it became apparent that she could reach 22 fast, it became uncomfortable for some folks to call her the GOAT or they just weren't ready, so they suddenly started talking about Margaret Court's 24 being something of importance and the record to beat, even though these same folks had agreed years earlier that only the open era record mattered and Margaret Court had only achieved 11 Grand Slams singles titles in the open era.

Serena Williams has 23 Grand Slam singles titles and she is the undisputed GOAT. Any argument against that and you are either just a racist or a hater, especially when the bigger tennis community, sports media and majority of the viewing public have accepted her as such. I am not a Roger Federer fan, but I can accept that the majority or many see him as GOAT, so nobody here should have a problem with giving Serena the same courtesy and respect. It is not bias and it doesn't need to be sourced. It is popular believe and pure common sense. So if you folks could accept Steffi Graf being referred to as the GOAT on Wikipedia for many years with her 22 majors, what is your problem with Serena?

More importantly, the statement is NOT even declaring her or hailing her as the GOAT. It's important to make that clear. It is simply saying that many see her as such, so what is the problem with that? If you watch tennis, which I assume folks editing Serena's page do, you cannot argue with that. Fatality1 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not here with all the fan fanatics, but among tennis historians the "goat" was always up for debate. Even with Graf there were plenty complaining about what would have happened if Seles wasn't stabbed and that Graf's record is tainted. It's a very subjective subject especially when the goals of tennis players have changed throughout the decades. There was a time when players would skip majors if it could possibly tire them out for Davis Cup. Serena being undisputed goat is a load of hogwash. And it absolutely needs to be sourced as this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet When you apply the same argument across the board, e.g Federer and Graf's page, I might just look at your point. But right now, you seem like a bitter hater lost in the dark recess of his or her own mind with an issue against Serena. And I cannot take you seriously. Yes, this isn't a fan site, nor is it a site for you to display your bitterness or insecurities against Serena. I haven't seen any fan fanatic or pro-Serena edits on her page, so I really don't understand what you're yapping on about. And pay attention, this isn't an argument or a discussion about whether she is GOAT or not. This about how the MAJORITY of the tennis community and the public have received her career and accomplishments. So while you or your fellow haters might have issues with Serena being referred to as GOAT, the majority of the tennis world don't and are fine with it. Besides, from what I can see on her page, that GOAT line has already been sourced multiple times. So what more do you want? Fatality1 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What I want is;
 * You to calm down.
 * Stop insulting other editors. Accusations of "bitter haters", "insecurities" etc etc is disruptive and combative behaviour that is very likely to get you blocked.  Please learn to assume good faith and stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground.
 * Stop changing the article until the change has been discussed and consensus is reached.
 * Understand what the problems with saying "many" is;
 * It is peacocking.
 * It is imprecise. What measure is being used?  Is it 10, 50, 100, 10 million?  Is the reader to guess what is meant?
 * Let's say it's 50. Is that "many"?  In your opinion it might be a lot, in another's opinion it might be not much at all.
 * It's unavoidably an opinionated word that we can't use. Far better to detail who says this.  Are they experts, authoritative?  If so, their opinion carries far more weight than a imprecise head-count and tells the reader far more.
 * What it says on other articles are problems to be address on them. Just because they fail to address the issue is no reason for this article to make the same mistake.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet, You need to calm down yourself and watch your aggressive tone, before lecturing others to calm down, and you also need to stop the disruptive editing on Serena's page. Majority don't have a problem with using "many" as a qualifier for her achievements, except you and, which is suspect. Majority that follow tennis and her career understand why that qualifier is better and the makes the best sense. It has been sourced multiple times and the word "many" doesn't need to be dissected in this regard. If you don't understand it, I suggest you do some research, educate yourself on the subject and get an insight into why it is better to use "many" rather than "some" to qualify how the career of someone with an unrivalled achievement, fame and success in the sport has been received by the sports world, media and the general public. Using "some" is disrespectful and has no NPOV, especially when the accolades of the athlete speaks for itself. It's like saying only "some" people in the world regard Usain Bolt as the greatest track and field Olympian of all time, when there is abundant evidence and sources to the contrary. Moreover, the original edit of the line has been kept, which says "Williams' accomplishments and success in professional tennis have led many to regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time". So any further changes or disruptive editing to that is coming from you. Not me. This is an encyclopedia, so the question you need to ask yourself is, when you or someone new reads that line about the athlete that has been sourced abundantly, is it true? Factual? False? Can it be disputed or countered? Or is it just cutting you personally because you dislike her? If it's the latter, then there is no further discussion needed on this. Fatality1 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there are more than two that have a problem with the term "many". One editor does not even want the term "some" used and that there should be no mention of subjective greatness. And I would never say that Usain Bolt is the greatest track and field Olympian of all time... too many disciplines get left out like decathlon, shot putt, discuss, marathon, etc... However as an Olympic sprinter he's as good as there's ever been. I also disagree with "unrivalled achievement, fame and success"... that is your opinion. She has won the most singles majors in the Open Era... that is a fact. She'll probably wind up with 30. That's what makes her one of the all-time greats, and we are lucky to be able to have her around for so long. She's like baseball's Cal Ripken Jr. in being able to keep going at a pretty high level. There are also a lot of records she hasn't matched. But "Some" fits the situation well and is easy to source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of your assessment of this discussion. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You are capable of editing positively, and some of your changes have been good.  But you appear unable to discuss anything without lashing out and I've lost count of the number of times you've insulted others, suggested bias edited and produced red-herring arguments.  Your example of Usain Bolt is flawed.  We don't need to emphasise how many people regard Bolt "the greatest", his achievements speak for themselves.  As do Williams.  We don't need the peacocking of "many" opinions.  Being a great tennis player is not determined by a popularity contest, but by winning matches.
 * So here's fair warning. You've already breached WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. One more uncivil outburst and I'll be requesting a mod takes a look at your disruptive and unpleasant behaviour. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet, If you truly believe that "some" fits the situation well in regards to any athlete, then why haven't you applied the same logic to Federer's page? Which brings me to many editors' suggestion that you have an anti-Serena bias, which should be not tolerated here. Your edits should not be about your personal feelings towards Serena or any other athlete. This is an encyclopedia, and you are not the only one who will be reading her page, so it needs to portray factual logic and common sense. And if you are happy for Federer's page to have "many" while he hasn't matched all the records in his sport, then I question your motives for not wanting the same for Serena or Usain Bolt for that matter, who are evidently the leaders in their field. Someone here was asking about measurements? There are billions of humans on the planet, so unless you are going to ask every single human on the planet what they think of Serena, there can never been a truly defining measurement in this situation, which is why common sense and logic is important and has to apply here. Nothing here is my "opinion". It is the opinion of many sources (over 15) attributed to that GOAT line on her page that the MAJORITY of the tennis community, pundits, sports writers, commentators, players (active and retired) consider Serena Williams the greatest of all time. I noticed Federer and Graf's page only have one source saying they are GOAT, but you are okay with that? You also seem to be missing a fundamental point. Nobody here is declaring Serena the greatest. If this discussion was about that, you may have a leg to stand on. But this is not about that. This is about what majority in her field think, which you CANNOT dispute in any shape or form, unless you are just trying to be disruptive. And if you cannot dispute it counter it, your argument is futile and problematic. And just because somebody disagrees with you on something doesn't mean that they are not being civil or constructive. Fatality1 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you even looked at the Federer article? I've taken about all the attacks I'm going to take from you and Svrodgers. You are seemingly new so I've given you some latitude. Knock it off!!!! Keep the bias crap to yourself. I look at the Federer article and see 13 sources for his "greatest" claim... you seem to see one. I never claimed that he is the greatest and in fact I don't think he is. He is the best of his era just as Serena is. Oh and lookie there.... it says "some" on his article right there in sentence two. And who had already done it? Me. Did you look? Obviously no, so you owe me a big fat apology on top of stopping your attacks. With your attacks, your non-reading of "some", your miss-reading of source numbers, I've about had it with you and I begin to question your motives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet, I noticed on your page, you have complained a lot about people attacking you when all they have done is simply disagreed with your opinion or logic and constructively countered your argument, just like I or another editor have done here. You are crying wolf without a valid reason to get others into trouble, and judging by the aggressive attack you have just launched against me, I'm very confused why the morality police or administrators here haven't called you out on it or warned you?

As for, I am not going to put 1 million or 100 million sources to a single line in an article just to please you. In a world where tens of milions watch tennis, you and any reader should be able to define what "many" means against an athlete such as Serena Williams through common sense and just simply following the sport and understanding how the measurement of greatness is defined in tennis. And I don't think any of those readers, if objective and without prejudice, would disagree with having "many" regarding her as GOAT, given her accomplishment and success in the sport. It doesn't take anything away from other players who those readers might also think are GOAT, because the line is NOT declaring Serena as GOAT. It is simply saying that "a lot" regard her as such, which is a factual language/statement and a non-issue, given the multiple sources already available in the article to back it up. I'm also not going to quote what every expert or pundit or player in the sport has said about Serena. Again, there are multiple sources attributed to the GOAT line from sport writers, commentators and various magazines, so read them! There is nothing opinionated about my argument when there are multiple sources to prove and fact-checked it. What I haven't seen from you though, or from is a valid counter argument not based on your personal opinions or prejudice that "many" have not regarded Serena as the GOAT. Fatality1 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave you a 3RR warning for your 4 reverts. That is an instant block by an administrator if they see it and I thought maybe you would revert yourself before that happened. I guess not, but I tried. And people who disagree with me I welcome... people who spread falsehoods piss me off. And people like you who don't even read Federer's article correctly and then complain about it aren't worth my time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Roger Federer seems broadly applicable here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have updated the status of the request to "no" again, as the crux of the request is "I would simply like to change the word "some" in that line to "many", because using the word "some" falsely minimizes how Serena's accomplishments and success has been received by prominent experts in tennis and the general public" - and despite any vitriol, this is still being discussed, ergo no decision has been made. I see that the status was changed before however since then there have been 42 edits to the discussion - by any reckoning that means that the discussion is not over, and in any case the rationale for closing the discussion was "Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request" - at no point does Fatality ask for a reduction in page protection.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppetI'm beginning to find this discussion pointless and tedious, given the fact that this is an absolute NON-ISSUE, and the two editors ( and ) who are constantly throwing tantrums and arguing against Serena having "many" regard her as GOAT, are basing their argument on personal opinion and prejudice rather than NPOV or constructive disagreement. They haven't provided any valid points or sources to dispute or counter that "many" in the tennis world do not regard Serena as GOAT, and neither have they applied any common sense or logic to the discussion. They have simply engaged in obstructive disagreement because they have a clear anti-Serena agenda, and to keep arguing/engaging with such folks is pointless, tedious, boring and a waste of my time, because it would never end. And changing Federer's article just to be disruptive and provide an obstructionist POV on Serena's article is just as tedious and does not represent a NPOV or constructive fact-based argument. I suggest this be referred to an administrator or someone senior that actually knows and follows the sport and can provide a neutral, non-prejudicial resolution. Fatality1 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Closing request from sockpuppet. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why anyone should apologize to Fyunck because Federer's page is still the same as it's always been. Not sure why you use amount of sources as validation for Federer. I can easily pull in 50 or more sources dated within the past year that call Serena the greatest ever. Would that be fine with you to use the word "many" then?Svrodgers (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one needs to apologize since we found out we had a blocked trolling sockpuppet. That conversation is as if it never was. As for Federer, if you check the logs you would see I had changed it to "some" but it was changed back to the longstanding version. I had tried, but the blocked trolling sockpuppet had insinuated I didn't care that Federer's article said "many" when all he had to do was look. The amount of sources meant nothing in that conversation. It was said by the blocked trolling sockpuppet that Federer had only one source. I simply pointed out that that was wrong and he had 13. So there were also reading issues. That was it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there better wording we could use in the lead?
Not withstanding the clones, socks, and fandomites... is there better wording (or removal of wording) we could use with this article and perhaps other articles? the words "lots", "many", "multitudinous", etc... are extremely difficult to source and not always truthful or clear. using "some" in sentences so subjective as "some commentators, players, and sports writers to regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time" is much more straight forward in sourcing. And this goes for articles such as the ones on Laver, Graf, Sampras, Federer, Wills, Court, etc... It would be good to find the best balance and common ground on this issue. Questions on greatness arise such as, should it ever be mentioned in the lead? Should it only be confined to sections such as "Legacy?"

I know these things come out of the woodwork whenever a great player such as Serena wins another event, but I'm just sitting back wondering if there is a better way to handle it. Tennis has had handfuls of truly sensational GOAT players (when judged against their peers) in its 140 year history. I'm not convinced that we miraculously have the GOAT man and woman at the exact same time in history and that the 125 years before them mean little... I've seen this over and over with the press and players. Every 10 years or so there is another GOAT, and after 10 years and new fans and press and players arrive, there will be another goat drive. I just want to find the best way of wording these things to try and keep the spamming down to a minimum. Maybe there is a better way to do it that I haven't recently seen? Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note
Note that 92.42.* is blocked one week for disruptive editing. --Neil N  talk to me 03:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Block extended to indef for continued socking and personal attacks. This means any posts by that user may be freely reverted. --Neil N  talk to me 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Bear
Nothing said about Fancy Bear publications. World Anti-Doping Agency confirmed this informaton is true. Looks like the article athors avoiding facts about Serena's drugs incedints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladmikluho (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017
There's a misspelling in the "Williams vs. Henin" section that needs correcting: "Williams leads series 8–6. Henin and Williams met fourtenn times". [User:37.132.200.29|37.132.200.29]] (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
Can we simply remove the "female" from the sentence "Williams' accomplishments and success in professional tennis have led some commentators, players, and sports writers to regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time."? With her passing Steffi Graf for most singles titles (male or female) in the Open Era, the timbre of the conversation has shifted. At the *very* least, Roger Federer is the greatest male tennis player of all time, and Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player of all time, but it would be rather impossible for the "greatest X player of all time" label to just flatly always fall on the male side. So let's begin to change that knowledge, either by removing the "female" on Serena's description to make it equal to Roger Federer's description on his wiki page, or by adding "male" to Roger Federer's description to make it equal to Serena Williams' description on her wiki page.

Thank you, Seleeke Flingai, PhD Seleeke (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. I'm not sure where "the very least" comes from but it is inaccurate. We are not a blog nor into speculation. The top woman players can't beat the top 500 male players so female is accurate for Serena. As to all-time, there are many intangibles other than just number of majors won which is very subjective. Rosewall and Laver had 23 and 19 majors, and Laver won the Grand Slam "twice." Gonzales was No. 1 longer than any other male player. Don Budge won the Grand Slam but then WW2 intervened and his shoulder was butchered. Nadal and Djokovic's careers aren't over, and they may have plenty to say. On the ladies side, Connelly won 8 majors in a row and the Grand Slam and then had her leg crushed by a cement mixer. Graf won the Grand Slam and 22 majors in 13 years. Serena only had 13 majors in her first 13 years. Evert and Navratilova had probably the greatest tennis rivalry in history and were forced to split evenly 36 majors. If one of them didn't exist, who knows how many the other would have won. In 14 years Margaret Court won 24 majors and the Grand Slam, and during that stretch took time out twice to have kids. And that brings us to helen Wills, who didn't lose a set for 6 years, didn't play the Australian Open yet amassed 19 major titles, and was No. 1 for 8 years. She beat the No. 8 male player in an exhibition. And Serena has played a high level of tennis for longer than any other female tennis player and amassed 23 majors in 19 years the process, and will most likely win more majors.


 * What this whole thing is saying is that "greatest of all time" is very very very subjective with people usually thinking the old ceib (current era is best) baloney. The debates are fun around the water cooler, but really not for the likes of an encyclopedia. All these players should say something more along the lines of "among the greatest of all-time" or something like that. Sure you can have some quotes of analysts calling them the greatest, but the final say of this encyclopedia should be more along the lines of "among the greatest" or possibly "some say they are the greatest." I made this a long explanation because you are brand new to Wikipedia, this being your first edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "We are not a blog nor into speculation", says the person who insists on leaving a theory about what-might-have-been if Federer hadn't suffered from Mono in the Federer-Nada rivalry page. 132.185.161.122 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)