Talk:Rod Laver

message: The lead says  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect of ban 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The easiest solution to the original research problem is to change "widely regarded" to "has been described". For example  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on article intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1966 Forest Hills Pro and 1967 Wimbledon Pro