Talk:Margaret Court

message: :"...with their image placed on a postage stamp of Australia as seen here."
There is no link or image.  (I failed to turn one up with a quick web search.) Molinari 00:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image required

message: Merely mentioning that the Bobby Riggs match took place on Mothers Day, without further context, is an invitation to regard this as a piece of apparently useless trivia, and remove it, as I did.  On the other hand, if Tennis Expert's edit summary "one of the leading theories for Court's debacle against Riggs was the match being played on Mother's Day. Riggs used that against Court" is correct, it needs to be included, with a citation.  --  JackofOz 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four years on, I've fixed it by removing the apparently irrelevant Mother's Day.  -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mothers Day

message: The article is overflowing with facts attesting to her skill, tirelessly enumerating her victories, but there is nothing at all describing her style of play.  What was it that made her so successful on the court?  Some material on this would be nice.  Pimlottc 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded CSMR (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  - as requested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of play 

message: :Why is the quote about Jankovic pertinent in a Smith-Court article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about Jankovic but what you removed are well referenced remarks regarding Smith-Court's views about homosexuality.--JD554 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe it warrants a separate section in the biography. How about this for a compromise? I referenced her support rather then the tabloid style "he said, she said". If we are going to add controversial quotes for Tennis players, then the articles here would be stuffed with them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that compromise--JD554 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not.  Given Court's athletic career, what Court said about Martina Navratilova and other lesbian tennis players is very relevant and should be kept in this article.  If anything, Court's opinions about Western Australia legislation are less relevant than what she said about tennis players.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in the same city as Court, I was unaware that she "campaigned" over the issue.  I wonder if the SMH journalist has taken some license with a view she held and espoused as a preacher and comments she'd made years before.  That word may be too strong a term and gives a false impression of the reality.  Also, I don't think that "ruining the sport and setting a bad example for younger players" is a quote but is more likely something paraphrased from what she meant from one of the cited news articles.   And certainly a whole section devoted to the issue seems like overkill.  But I agree with TE that the emphasis would be more appropriate on what she said about other players.  Perhaps something along the lines of: "In 1990 Court accused Martina Navratilova of being a bad role model for young female players.  12 years later, in 2002 when asked about Damir Dokic's concern about his daughter Jelena being exposed to lesbians, she said 'homosexuals commit "sins of the flesh" and can be "changed", and that when the open tennis era came in "there was quite a lot of it in there"'."  WP:Undue weight applies here. —Moondyne 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While not changing my opinion about the relevance of her opinion concerning Western Australia legislation, she DID campaign about this issue.  For example, I recently found and read a transcript of a radio interview program where Court fiercely debated the proponents of the legislation.  You can find it pretty easily through Google.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean this.  But as I said, an appearance in a current affairs tv panel show is not quite 'campaigning', more expressing a view.  Anyway, the more important issue is what goes in the article.  —Moondyne 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Tennis expert for choosing to take it to the talk page rather then simply reverting. I appreciate that you've chosen to respect consensus rather then overriding with your own POV. I agree with Moondyne that the new section is given undue weight. Why not for example, have a section on her her Christian Ministry work and corresponding quotes and citations, which have surely taken up a much larger portion of her time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because her Christian ministry work is not notable even if it is noble.  Given her tennis achievements, her views about homosexuality in tennis ARE notable.  I couldn't care less about the Western Australia legislative controversy.  I didn't add that originally.  I simply copyedited it and added/corrected the citations.  I'm reverting your article deletions until consensus develops.  As you know, you made the deletion without gaining that consensus first.  Tennis expert (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jankovic 

message: I'm not knocking Court's achievements but I feel mention should be made in the article that many of her Grand Slam titles came (for obvious reasons)in the Australian Open, which at the time she was competing did not attract a world-class entry field, to put it mildly. The best players in the world simply didn't make the trip down under in any great numbers. Although Navratilova's total of 58 GS titles is four short of Court's, by the time she was competing, the situation was very different and Navratilova faced much stiffer opposition. I think few would place Court above Navratilova taking that into consideration.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such observations would violate WP:NPOV, to put it mildly.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just about numbers 

message: There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis 

message: Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article?  Exaggerated edit summaries don't help anyone, wouldn't you agree?  Tennis expert (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with  needs a lot of work.  I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history.  I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word.  The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive.  For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary.  Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith.  When will you stop doing that?  And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status?  Tennis expert (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness for American spelling!  Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite tag 

message: Some users have attempted to delete from this page the following information about the 2012 Australian Open protest of Court's views on homosexuality:
:In January 2012, Court's views prompted the creation of a Facebook group, “Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena,” which urged spectators to display rainbow-colored gay pride banners at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open. Kerryn Phelps, former president of the Australian Medical Association and one of Australia’s most influential gay spokeswomen, called on the state Government of Victoria and Tennis Australia to drop Court’s name from the 6,000-seat show court arena that is named in her honour. Tennis Australia said in a statement that although it respects Court’s playing record as "second to none … her personal views are her own, and are definitely not shared by Tennis Australia." In response, Court asserted that the tennis was no place for a gay rights protest and confirmed to Reuters News that she remains "staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage."
The reasons given on the 'revision history' page for its exclusion are:
*The article is about Court, not Tennis Australia's views.
*Everyone has a facebook page, and this article is about Ms Court. What was there is sufficient.
*Random facebook pages don't get coverage in BLP's
I contend that the information is clearly relevant to the subject of Court's views on homosexuality. This is illustrated by the fact that Court herself has made several public responses to the planned protest, which once again revolved around her opposition to homosexuality. As is noted in the text, she  "...confirmed to Reuters News that she remains "staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage."" 
These comments, and the context in which they took place (the planned protest), were widely reported in the news media. It has been reported on hundreds of news sites worldwide. It seems rather absurd to me this page would not have any information whatsoever about the protest given 1) its direct relevance to Court's public views on homosexuality and 2) the very wide extent of its reporting internationally, all of which has linked the protest to Court's views on homosexuality.
The fact that the protest itself was generated from a facebook page strikes me as being no good reason for excluding the entire paragraph. It is the protest itself and its relevance to the subject which is important, not the particular means by which it was generated. 
The views of Tennis Australia (and Kerryn Phelps) were again widely reported and are directly linked to the subject of Court's views on homosexuality. Indeed the quoted passage from Tennis Australia explicitly references Court's "personal views [on homosexuality]". The  opposition to Court's views made by other female tennis players is already included within the article, and I don't see how responses made by Tennis Australia and Phelps are any less relevant. Edelmand (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of the protest, and the Tennis Australia position. I hadn't heard of the Facebook page until reading this. My news came from mainstream media. Don't show a Facebook obsession. It won't ever go over well here. There's far too much rubbish there. Stick to mainstream news sources. The same message can be delivered. So, include the news. Forget Facebook. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to amend the sentence as follows: "In January 2012, Court's views prompted the creation of a protest group which urged spectators to display rainbow-colored gay pride banners at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open." Edelmand (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This part sounds fine. The rest, just because you have a source doesn't mean it belongs in a Margaret Court article. There are plenty of sources that say what good she has done in the community but we don't add those either, nor should we. This is not a newspaper or Gay pride periodical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just one source - hundreds of news sites worldwide. Mainstream news websites, not Gay pride periodicals. They are reliable sources containing information which directly pertains to the topic. If there are plenty of reliable sources reporting what charity work Court has done in aid of the community, then I would argue that this subject would warrant a separate mention in the article. But I can't find them. The issue of her charity work has no relevance to the discussion concerning her views on homosexuality. Edelmand (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Something like that should help keep the peace. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the page accordingly Edelmand (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I think this should be put in a "controversy" section. There are enough reliable media reports about this controversy to support its mention in this article. But I would wait to include anything about rainbow-colored banners at the Margaret Court Arena until such a protest action actually happens and gathers significant media attention. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no a thousand times no. Not a controversy section. They're one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. Keep the various aspects of this particular story in one place. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same thing about undue weight. Her bio leans a bit too much on her homosexual thoughts. Yes she spoke out about it and we need to encompass that, but it's pretty much in line with the Catholic Church and 1/2 the USA. She does accept gays into their faith and she has some in her Parrish. But they are absolutely against gay marriage. You are right I think... about every two years some comments are made and we keep on adding it. I think you should summarize it but since it is a volatile subject we should have more source links than normal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already pointed out, and seemingly been ignored by the last two posters (I'm always suspicious of motivations when key pints of an argument are ignored - maybe they're really good points!), that this is NOT just an every two year event. This was the time Tennis Australia felt it necessary to make a public statement opposing her views. That to me makes this more important this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an every two year event. There is always some group opposed or in favor of things... this time it's Tennis Australia. But this is a Margaret Court article, not a Tennis Australia or even Australia Open article. Things need to be in proportion. This event is mentioned and sourced but how many sentences to apply to a "Margaret Court" article is what we are talking about. You aren't being ignored we are just looking at a bigger picture than you are it seems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for at least commenting on that point. Surely it's significant that this time the (quite formal) opposition is not from an activist group, but a body that would not normally be expected to comment on such matters. I agree that the quantity of material needs to be managed well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the incident has been mentioned. And let's not call them the opposition... they said their view is not her view. I have different views from my friends all the time without being the opposition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of 2012 Australian Open protest to this page

message: There reads: Court also was ranked No. 1 for 1973, when the official rankings were produced by the Women's Tennis Association.
However, according to List of WTA number 1 ranked players, the rankings started only in November 1975. 82.141.124.77 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure on that. The WTA page says it started "Computerized" rankings in Nov 1975. It could likely be that the rankings in 1973 were more informal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTA ranking? 

message: What gives with Australian Mixed in 1965 & 1969?  According to Wikipedia the finals were not played (why not?) and the title was "shared".
But in this case, should not Mrs Court be shown here as having 21 Mixed titles, bringing her total Major titles to 64?
Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Mixed Doubles 

message: I would like to ask you how you know that the Supreme Court's winner of the tournament in singles? What if there is a tennis player who won more than 192 tournaments singlových, but did not talk about it? I mean to tennis players who play or senior Wheelchair tennis. Why should one group titles should count and not another? This is the reason why not consider for Court's record holder in this area.  Mouchatm 05:00, 4 Oct 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Court record holder is not in the number of tournaments won in singles.

message: I want to tell you - the statistics collected in the number of tournament titles (now not talk about the grand slam, those are not affected) are counted only in the open era. Why? Counting all sorts of titles from the period before 1968 in tennis statistics would lead to chaos!! Mouchatm 11:00, 4 Oct 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Court record holder is not in the number of tournaments won in singles 2.

message: In tennis, there are three types of records:
the first is the Open Era record - this record is only valid for the open era (since 1968), not for the entire tennis history.
the other is the historical record - that applies to the entire tennis history (since 1877).
and the third record is the historical record, which, however, can only count as open era - it is just a record number of tournaments won.
If we wanted to define a classic historical record (Category 2) in the number of tournaments won, we would have to count all the tournaments in which he ever played tennis, and we did not distinguish at all categories - we counted in one bag titles amateur, professional, open, senior, junior exhibition, "just for fun" program.
The problem is, however, one considers the tennis tournament. Someone should resent it when added together junior and senior titles with ATP or WTA titles, but he should not mind it, adding a WTA titles with amateur titles (before 1968). Another, however, was the opposite ap.
In sum, if we counted all together, making a mess of it. Therefore, we must respect the threshold that we set the organization WTA or ATP - count only the titles of these circuits. Record number of wins WTA tournament is not open era record in the classic sense of the word, is a historical record of the WTA Tour, and the third record category!
Mouchatm 15:17, 9 Nov 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Stir titles is how to mix apples, pears ... in one bag

message: Very good page.  Interesting.  Mrs Court and her church are partners with Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, Texas.  She is featured on page 26 of the Copeland's just issued "2012 Covenant Partner Report."  There is a half-page picture of her on that page and a caption of her discussing her use of KCM teaching materials.  This is important info for the above-referenced section.johncheverly 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views and ministry---Involvement w/ Kenneth Copeland Ministries. 

message: After it had been changed several times, I finally removed the recent addition on apartheid. The final form had made it a comment more about US race relations, and it didn't match the heading. Anyway, it should be discussed here before being added back in. StAnselm (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... I was trying a compromise yet still including what was in the sources. An encyclopedic summary of a player with a comment from 53 years ago really shouldn't be in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the book in question is about an American tennis player, the context is his being excluded from playing in South Africa. (Maybe just from playing against Whites?) So I think it's misleading to turn it into a condemnation of US race-relations. By saying that SA 'has the racial situation better organized than' the US, she can only be saying that the US was not segregated strictly enough! Nick (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm told she discusses it and repudiates Apartheid in her 2016 autobiography. But Google Books won't even show snippets. Nick (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from a half century ago wasn't one of outright approval. It was saying she had friends there and that US race relations were even worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: She said "better organised than any country"! Without context, it sounds like she's condemning the US for moving towards integration. If we can get access to what she said in her 2016 autobiography, presumably she'll make herself sound more reasonable. But let's not pretend that this happened at a time when everyone thought that way. The reason why her comments are worth noting is because South Africa had already become an international pariah state. She wasn't the only one to violate the boycott but it's not as though she can plead ignorance. She heard both sides of the argument and chose the wrong side of history. Nick (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But with the tiny bit of extra context it sounds like she felt the US situation was even worse than South Africa. Heck in 1964 my family and friends probably thought the situation in S.Africa was fine, but by 1984 that had changed. The thing is, in a one page synopsis bio of a player, all we have is the highlights or most important aspects of a player's career. Commenting on a situation such as apartheid is hardly encyclopedia worthy, and the fact it was 53 years ago is even less so. Now, the fact she is a Christian minister and is against gay marriage, and continues to speak out against it, is part of her persona and should be included in this wikipedia, but within reason. We make sure readers know of her stance to accept all gays into her congregation but that her beliefs say they are sinning and should never be allowed to marry. That info needs to be here. But we aren't a tabloid or newspaper. We don't continue to add things every time she professes she is against gay marriage. Readers will already know that. We might say "to this day she continues to be against gay marriage" and add a new sources to back that up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Navratilova also condemned Court as "a racist" after she became aware of comments made by Court in 1970 in support of South African apartheid. Court had said, "South Africa has the racial situation rather better organised than anyone else". Sources per: source 1, source 2, source 3 Court defended South African authorities who refused to let African-American player Arthur Ashe play in the country. Per this source
This remains related to tennis by using Navratilova as a quote and Ashe as an example of discrimination, uses reliable secondary sources and is notable, being covered now by multiple sources. Of course, if her views have changed then that can be added for balance, but it still remains of interest that she held such views at the time of her playing career. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This suggested paragraph is not bad there'll need to be something more once everything has settled down. In her autobiography, her excuse was ignorance, she didn't really understand what apartheid was. But now she's telling The Australian that she doesn't know what she said and that she was never in favour of apartheid. Nick (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a lot of folks ignorant about it at the time that know so much more about it now. That quote didn't say she was in favor of it back then. She said the United States was worse. She said she had friends living there and those white friends, who were insulated from the situation, probably had a lot of influence on her view of the situation in South Africa. It's 47 year old trivia from one interview... for all we know, right after a tennis match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509203617/http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10190 to http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10190
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , what issues regarding the section based on her religious views do you have? I thought we were already resolving your qualms about having a section in an article about "one of greatest female tennis players in history" dedicated to her well-publicised, public statements about her religious and political views. After trying to prevent any mention of the latest controversy and then trying to bury the section under statistics, slapping a neutrality and undue weight notice on the section doesn't look great. Cjhard (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The same things I complained about the whole time. Um, the moving was talked about with another so back off your high horse and your agenda, which looks mighty biased. I don't see you adding important tennis-related items to this article so this looks ingenuous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1970 comments on apartheid are neither "post-career" nor "religious" - so don't really belong in this section. I'm not convinced they belong anywhere in the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, they really don't belong at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

text: It's pretty easy to change the section title to something like "Political and Religious Views". I think the three sentences proposed by Celia Homeford above seem appropriate weight. As for her views on homosexuality, I think we probably could trim that section slightly and still leave it clear that this has become her crusade post-tennis. Nick (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know that in the least. "Her crusade?" Her crusade is her ministry and church. When reporters ask her questions she doesn't flinch in her non-mainstream beliefs. Yes, she did write a letter to the Herald when the head of Qantas openly promoted same-sex-marriage, which is illegal in Australia. But a crusade? That's a far stretch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on her opposition to same-sex marriage, since approx. half of parliament is also opposed it can't be that notable. I mean her opposition to homosexuality more generally. I would strongly oppose the phrasing you used above, 'We make sure readers know of her stance to accept all gays into her congregation...', since she in fact believes in conversion therapy; that's what puts her beyond the pale. Nick (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I removed the line about her not hating gay people and accepting gay people in her congregation as it misrepresents what the sources say. "We have them in our church. I help them to overcome. We have people who have been homosexual who are now married" absolutely does not support the claim that "Margaret Court has homosexuals in her congregation."  It was also out of place in the article, looking like an attempt to artificially mitigate Margaret's own comments. Cjhard (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally have experience of her crusade over the last 20 years and I know it dates back to at least 1994. yes, that's merely anecdotal and I recognise my own bias. However, if I need to trawl through the archives of The West Australian to provide numerous citations I am more than happy to do it. There is a lot more I would like to add to this section, but I agree that brevity is necessary. I think three paragraphs is not too much to ask.PolemiCol (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and undue weight 

message: Court's been in the news internationally of late - would anyone here know her and be able to get a current photo under a free license? - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been in contact with her but Wikipedia made it too hard with too many hoops to jump through to make it work out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: I'm not sure why someone is trying to remove the information on Margaret Court's mixed doubles titles. I saw the removal, and reverted it, and it was removed again. I checked the Australian Open Official website on Mixed Doubles Champions to make sure the original info was correct. All seems to be in order. So my question would be, why is editor Mouchatm removing the info?... the same info he removed in 2014. It seems to go against the official source. See more discussion at Talk:Margaret Court career statistics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks.  Any recurrence will result in you being reported and will significantly reduce your chances of being able to contribute here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

text: "A History of Tennis" by Bud Collins (2nd edition). Page 377, mixed doubles titles of the Australian Open. 1965 Shared Title, 1969 Shared Title. Also "Encyclopedia of Tennis" by Max Robertson and Jack Kramer (page 374) shows Court with the Australian mixed doubles titles. Also, the International Tennis Hall of Fame recognizes the titles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be a tournament-by-tournament type of thing. There have been other examples of rained out finals in doubles and singles. Women's doubles final at December 1977 Australian Open was not played due to rain. ATP Volvo International singles final, Queens Club doubles of 1998, Rosmalen 1999 Doubles Championshipship, WTA Austrian Open of 1973, Virginia Slims Palm Spring 1991, WTA Eastbourne 1997, etc... According to newsprint the results have varied from from co-runnersup to co-champions to nothing said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed doubles titles 

message: There have been some crude attempts in recent days to add more to the lead about Court's anti-gay stance. While these were unacceptable because of the way they were written, I think they are understandable, and maybe should be guiding us to add more there in a better way. 
I am of mature years, and can remember her tennis success, but to a majority of Australians now she is just that old bigot from Perth with a tennis court named after her. She is (in)famous to them because of her extreme views, and the fallout from that (e.g. calls to rename the tennis court and other criticisms), not her tennis success. I think we need to somehow reflect that more in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. The only reason she has a place in this encyclopedia is because of her tennis magnificence. Adding even more on her religious practices is undue weight, especially in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is in my first sentence really. There are plenty of people out there who see her religious position as the most significant thing today. They want more in the lead. And will probably keep putting it there if we don't reflect her image more honestly there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But we are not a newspaper. Over her entire tennis career and 75 years of life, today is but a small part. If readers don't understand the catholic faith they can read up on it. The lead is a summary (and is actually a bit big now) and states that she is critic of gay rights. There is more in the body of the text and links to articles there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in that comment you have shown some of the confusion. This isn't about the Catholic faith. It's where she has gone to from there, and how she uses her fame as a tennis player to push an extreme social view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the Catholic faith per the Pope and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that is her church's view. She follows that same view. Usually that view gets expressed when the press asks her questions. Many in the celebrity Hollywood acting community also have extreme views, and while it may be mentioned in their articles, not usually in the lead. Even Jane Fonda's exploits barely have a mention in the lead section, yet it's forever part of her persona. So these items may be explained further in the prose (keeping to undue weight) but in the lead it either don't get mentioned or we give a sentence as we did to Margaret Court. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It bothers me that you aren't up to date with what the article actually says about her religion. She is NOT a Catholic! She "became associated with Pentecostalism in the 1970s and became a Pentecostal Christian minister in 1991. She later founded the Margaret Court Ministries..." I would actually like to know more about that. What led to her change? Was it the influence of any particular person? Etc..... HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was using the Catholic Church as an example, and I said "that is her church's view" also. Her Christian church happens to use the same philosophy as the catholic Church. Other Christian churches are more open. I really don't follow all the different Christian faiths much so I'm limited in my knowledge of all of them. That other info would be interesting. She wrote three autobiographies so you might find what you want to know in one of those. Even in her playing days her outward display and love of her faith found her ostracized by her peers and the press. I think it was in 78 or 79 that because of her mental and physical pain that she decided that the church was her calling. Why she changed from one church to another I'm not sure. A business decision? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I must say, I'm a little (but not completely) surprised there's no reference to her public commentary in the lead 6 years on. BoldGnome (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme social and religious views in lead 

message: Notable here is that before the Open era and  after 1927 very few women played on the professional circuit.  This  must  be included in this Wikipedia article to be fair to Margaret Court.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few women played professional tennis. So? Margaret Court didn't either. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Almost all women played amateur tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't play dumb. You  know  fully  well what  matters  here.  Wikipedia  is  right  in  the  Intro  very  quick  to  point  out  that  only  11  of her  24 wins  were  in  the  so-called  Open era. Many  news articles  run  with  that  claiming  her  24  wins  were  not legitimate  because  she  supposedly didn't  play  against  the  best  players in most of her wins, which is false. It  must  be  made  clear  here in  Wikipedia  that before the Open era, or after the Open era,  makes no difference here.  It  must  be  added  in  the  Intro  that Notable here is that before the Open era and  after 1927 very few women played on the professional circuit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a big Margaret Court fan. It doesn't say "only" in the lead sentence it simply says "She won 24 Grand Slam titles in total (11 in the Open era)"... it doesn't need any more than that in the lead. I always look at her 24 as legit. The press doesn't usually say her 24 titles are suspect because of the Open Era, they tend to say her titles are suspect because most of her wins came at the Australian Championships. They way you have it worded will confuse many readers because professional circuit has no real context yet. They think of professional as you would today's professional circuit. Most men didn't play on the professional circuit either, but the few who did were the very best players. The place to bring this up, with better context, is in the Playing style, Grand Slam titles and world rankings section, not the lead. But I'd take that chip off your shoulder before discussing in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like my wording then reword it. It does belong here in this article, not somewhere else. Many sportswriters incorrectly claim that she didn't play against the best, the professionals, who were not allowed in the major tournaments before the Open era.  But in fact there  were  very  few  women professional players  before  the  Open era. This must be made clear here, not somewhere else.  I think my wording was perfectly clear.  What I am pointing out is stated in this link if you will look, but it certainly also belongs here in the Margaret Court article, so sportswriters will stop saying she didn't play against the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#The_Professional_circuit47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not belong there. And you are incorrect about sportswriters claims. Most claim she did not play against the best because many of the best did not play the Australian Championships back then. I know that era so you are preaching to the choir in her achievements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. Sportswriters typically throw it out there that most of Margaret's wins were against amateurs and not professionals.  Look at this typical link where he throws it in that most of her wins were against "only amateurs" in the pre-Open era. Wikipedia should allow my wording inserted to set it straight. See his typical sportwriter garbage here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/01/23/serena-williams-doesnt-need-pass-margaret-court-slam-queen/2658894002/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

text: OK, it's time to say something here. Been watching this discussion. I agree agree entirely with what Fyunck has said. Because I had nothing different to say, I said nothing, but I note our IP editor has now unilaterally changed the article. That's unacceptable. I've reverted the change, and given our newcomer (who has so far contributed nowhere else on Wikipedia) a formal welcome on their Talk page. Hopefully that will alert them to our broader policies and bring them properly into the fold. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, the IP is correct in that for women the change to the Open Era meant pretty much nothing as far as missing players. Most men also did not go to professional tennis but those who did were among the very best. That wasn't the case for the women. Saying something about it in the main section, either under "Tennis career" or "Playing style, Grand Slam titles and world rankings" is not a bad idea. Just a short sentence probably, but we need a source that talks about the issue. However you will also get arguments that the Pre-Open Era wasn't as strong because only the rich could afford to play on a regular basis. Once it was open to anyone and money was to be made, within a decade the overall quantity of quality players started to rise. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is Unfair and Biased against Margaret

message: Russell Jackson is an Australian journalist.  Add "Australian journalist" to the text in front of "Russell Jackson," and the complaint about his name being "weasel words" should be resolved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:5CDE:3E90:D8B7:F7C5 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Who?" note at Russell Jackson should be removed. 

message: Needs a section.
Lots of archival material can be added on her historical support for segregation based on race.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for segregation