" July 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that what you are doing is imaginary...there was no concept of a ""Grand Slam"" when Wimbledon started in 1877, or when the US Open started in 1881, or when the Australian Open started in 1905. It was not until the 1930s that the idea of the ""Grand Slam"" emerged. What you are doing is an ahistorical revision of the past. Ok, many persons do that...it's called ""hindsight."" Some have an issue with counting ""slams"" before the challenge round was abolished; others have a problem with pre-open era counts because they excluded professionals. As there is no consensus and Wikipedia calls for pluralism...the article reflecting multiple major points of view...it would not be too much to come up with a solution that would list ""most slams, Open era"" and ""most slams, pre-Open era."" So why is it too difficult for you to accept the idea of, at the very least, listing the pre-1925 French ""Open"" winners? All your excuses are cop-outs (too much work? others don't agree with you, so you want to mess up the board?). Maybe if you stepped back and asked why were others adding the ""greyed-out"" cases to the slam counts, you might find your answer.

When I open the Encyclopedia Britannica (a BRITISH reference), they list all the winners of the French ""Open"" back to 1891. When I open the World Almanac (an AMERICAN reference), they list Suzanne Lenglen as having won 11 titles. So, what makes you more authoritative than THOSE sources? Clearly, you have NOT edited in a spirit of compromise and have instead WP:OWNed these articles. But history is not on your side. By the way, I have a degree in history, what about you? 19:48, 5"