(UTC)

Part III

What's with blanking out the names completely? So much for compromise. I'm going back to COUNTING the pre-1925 champions. Here's why:

1. The outside sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, list them.

2. All the arguments that could be made against the pre-1925 French tournament could also be made against the other three.

3. The idea of the "slam" didn't even emerge until the 1930s, with Don Budge...but do we see anyone black out pre-1938 Wimbledon champs?

4. It's clear that the French tournament was MORE open...their first champ was a Brit, as was two runners-up in the early decades. Interestingly, the US "Open" in 1881 was open only to Americans, and was for several years. Yet we count them, because that's the origin of the tournament.

5. There's also the pro-am dispute, pre-1968. 

6. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect pluralistic viewpoints, not just the one of one person such as Fyunclick who violates WP:OWN to contort this and similar tennis articles to reflect his own views, rather than reflecting outside sources that existed long before Wikipedia did.

 15:25, 3 July 2009