Talk:Federer–Nadal rivalry

Rivalry Dominated by Rafael Nadal

Chu,

It's fine if you want to take some topics to the "talk" page.

However, please take a moment to consider this. Rafael Nadal has dominated the results of his head-to-head matches against Federer (i.e. the rivalry). This page is about those head-to-head encounters. That means this page should include superlatives about Rafa, not Federer. However, it seems pretty clear that Federer fans are attempting to distort the history of this rivalry by controlling this Wikipedia page. I'd request that you, and others like you, stop trying to do that. Make a GOAT page or go to Federer's wiki page to talk about how amazing Federer is, or to shoot down Rafa. But on this page, Rafa should be the featured player, not Federer. If nothing else, Rafa has earned that by going 23-10 against Federer overall, 22-6 on outdoor courts, and 9-2 in Grand Slams. This page does not read about Rafa's domination of the rivalry. Much of it reads like an extension of Federer's wiki page... BTW, Do you really think a one-sided rivalry like this will end up as the greatest in tennis history? If so you aren't paying attention. Most (like Mary Carillo) have already started talking about how Federer wasn't able to fight back, to find solutions to beat Nadal, which detracts from the rivalry considerably. Rafa and Djokovic now have the most meetings in the Open Era, and that rivalry, unlike this one, has had many points where each player controlled the rivalry, and then lost control, and vice versa. If Rafa and Djoker meet in one more Slam final then they will have tied the one final rivalry stat that Federer-Nadal still possess. Nadal-Djoker have already met in more overall finals, but one fewer in GS finals... --Liquid foundation (talk)

First of all, this is a talk page, about discussion for the contents of the article, not my opinions on the rivalry itself (as per WP:NOTFORUM), so I will not be responding to your last paragraph (you should probably delete this from your post, as per Wikipedia policy). However, on the content of the article, it should strive to portray a non-biased account of the interactions between these two players, whether it be on-court in their 33 (to date) encounters, or off-court such as in comparison of their overall (and ongoing) legacy, both of which contribute heavily to the dynamic of their rivalry. I agree that the page should not be used to "talk about how amazing Federer is, or to shoot down Nadal", as you said. However, the opposite is also true. Nadal should not be 'the featured player', as you suggest...rather, you imply that the sole purpose of the article is to bolster Nadal's image. This is made clear when you claim that "this page should contain superlatives about Rafa, not Federer". For the purposes of a (as neutral as possible) Wikipedia page, logic suggests that to satisfy this, either superlatives should exist for both players or neither of the players, and I tend towards the latter.

My intention in reverting your edits was simply because it was clear you had the express intention of making the article non-neutral, so the most sensible action was to revert it to a stable state where it had previously long been considered acceptable, pending a proper discussion here. Hence, I wish to discuss why some specific edits you made are not better for the article than before. You are insistent on the phrase "consider to be amongst the greatest in tennis history, despite the one-sided nature of the results." The 5 citations given at this quote make it clear that it is considered (at least by some) to be the greatest in tennis history, not merely 'amongst', hence the word 'amongst' is not appropriate in keeping with the citations, regardless of whether you personally believe the rivalry is the greatest or not. Furthermore, adding "despite the one-sided nature of the results", despite being ignorant of the off-court 'legacy' dynamic of the rivalry, only serves to show POV disagreement with the citations. I have more to say, but your insistence of having a Nadal-centric article was fundamentally against the principles of a Wikipedia page, so I will give you the opportunity to review what you believe the article should strive to be, before I continue.

P.S. Please sign your posts on the Talk Page. Chu pikachu (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree with Chu here - if there is an issue with this article being too "pro-Federer", then the solution is not to make it "pro-Nadal" - let's just point out the relevant achievements of both players with an NPOV and let the readers make their own judgments. Also, the "rivalry" is not solely a comparison of the head-to-head records: there are various achievements by both Nadal and Federer against other players to consider, both players chasing various records, etc... 159.18.26.96 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Significant Aspects

I tend to agree with the suggestion above that the article is riddled with pro-Federer bias. Life's too short to list all the examples but I'd salute anyone who takes the trouble to try and make the tone more neutral. The example I'm trying to fix is the following, under Significant Aspects: "Nearly half of the meetings between Federer and Nadal have come on clay which is statistically Nadal's best surface and one of Federer's weaker surfaces". Anyone familiar with this subject (or who understands basic arithmetic) will know that's an attempt to imply that Nadal's lead in the head-to-head is because a disproportionate number of matches were on a surface that suits him. But the counterargument is not mentioned, namely that a) even if you adjust the ratio of matches so that it exactly matches the ATP tour average (ie slightly fewer clay court matches, slightly more hardcourt matches, approximately the same number of grasscourt matches) Nadal would still have a commanding lead (around 2:1), and b) even if you remove ALL claycourt matches, Nadal would still lead. The best solution, I think, is to remove this blatantly partisan sentence. However, when I did so it was reverted, so, not wishing to get involved in a reverting war, I'm going to put the counterargument as briefly as possible. But I'd be interested to know whether people agree with me that it'd be better to do without all such POV statements altogether. (Not least because it's Wikipedia policy).Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks about right to me. It gives the numbers on clay, hard court, and grass and in majors. FYI, the person you are agreeing with above has been blocked as disruptive and a sockpuppet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? He was blocked for being a "sockpuppet"? I thought Wikipedia was a grown-up place where people didn't call each other names. Anyway, regardless of who he is, it's perfectly possible that his opinion on this subject is correct, Either way, let's try and resolve this like adults. We can start with the facts. I mentioned a specific sentence which, in my opinion, is not neutral. You countered that "it gives the numbers on clay, hard court, and grass and in majors". No, it doesn't. Read it again. The sentence in question does not mention the other surfaces. The next sentence mentions them, but I have no objection to that sentence (although I'm baffled as to why "3" has been changed from "three" - numbers less than ten should always be written out in full, according to house style across virtually all professional publishing, not to mention most of Wikipedia). That's exactly my point. There's no need for the first sentence, with its gratuitous reference to clay being Nadal's best surface. Why does it matter that the first sentence is worded as it is? Well, I suspect you know perfectly well why it matters but in case you don't, I'll spell it out. Because the reference to clay carries (and was undoubtedly intended to carry) the clear implication that the H2H has been played under circumstances that are advantageous to Nadal. If, as I assume, you are au fait with the topic under discussion here, you'll be aware of the widespread perception that Nadal only has a winning H2H due to so many matches being played on clay. (If you're not familiar with that argument, I suggest you get yourself up to speed urgently. You could start with Chris Chase's article in USA Today a few weeks back.). Nor is there any balancing sentence pointing out that the one surface on which Roger has a winning record happens to be the one that is statistically his favourite. If the "statistically favourite surface" argument is to be made, it should be made in a balanced way. Finally, clay is mentioned again at the end of the paragraph, in reference to grand slam matches, but the other surfaces are not. (You make no mention of this - you simply reverted this point without consultation or explanation). And while we're on the subject of balance, a reference is made to Federer having a better win percentage on hard courts and grass, but this is not balanced by a reference to the fact that Nadal has a better win percentage overall. Once again, two courses of action are open to us: balance it by referring to Nadal's win percentage or cut the sentence entirely. I propose the latter.

Either way, if you look at the logic of your own argument, you'll see that you actually agree with me. We both agree that the breakdown of surfaces is already mentioned in the second sentence, therefore there is no need for an extra reference to clay in the first sentence. Since you say you want to avoid "extra bloat", you will presumably have no objection to my original suggestion, which is to remove the first sentence, and furthermore to remove the gratuitous reference later in the paragraph. Better still, since there's nothing here that isn't available elsewhere in the article, I suggest we cut the whole paragraph. Since you want to avoid bloat, I assume you agree, but I'll wait for your confirmation before proceeding. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of calling names. His posts are very suspect now because sockpuppetry is quite bad around here. Being adult has nothing to do with it at all. With his track record his posts are just useless so lets leave him out of it. Back to the discussion. I guess I don't look at any one sentence, but the whole section. As to cutting the whole thing that's just being pointy and is uncalled for. I'm guessing the reason it's not mentioned that Federer leads on his best surface is because they've only played 3x on it. Remember, I didn't write the article. I think it points out that they have faced each other 15x on Nadals best surface and 3x on Federers best surface. That's significant imho. Had it been turned around I certainly believe the numbers would be different. I assume you do too. Had I written it I would have mentioned certain time period records. Since Federers prime, Nadal is 15-4 against him. 7-1 on clay, 1-0 on grass, and 7-3 on hard court. Nadal has certainly pounded post-peak Federer. No question about it. Prior to post-peak it was 6-1 Nadal on clay, 2-0 Federer on Grass, and 3-2 Federer on hard court. Much more even back then. You have a point about Federer's best surface not being mentioned even though they've only played on it 3x. I'll plop that in for evenness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, we're making progress. Your addition is a start, although I'd appreciate it if we could agree future changes in advance. I have my own ideas about how this should be worded so let's try and reach consensus first.

As to your opinion on why "the numbers would be different", I'm grateful that you've put your cards on the table so openly. It explains a lot. It's not clear whether you want that opinion in the article but either way it's revealing so I'll respond. First of all, they've played more on clay than grass because there are more tournaments on clay. Perhaps you're not familiar with the ATP calendar, in which case feel free to check it out. There's only one grass tournament they both play, and they've met there in exactly the ratio you'd expect, ie one fifth as often as on clay (there being five clay tournaments they've both regularly entered: RG, Rome, Monte Carlo, Madrid and, until the dates changed, Hamburg).

Perhaps your most interesting point is about "post-peak" Federer. I'm not sure why you mention this new aspect (unless it's some veiled suggestion to take it into the article, in which case bring it on!) but again it gives an interesting insight into your mindset. Eg you arbitrarily define "post-peak" Federer as post-2007. Not everyone would agree with you. For example, I heard someone say last month that Roger was playing "better than ever". This particular person is rather well placed to judge. His name is Roger Federer. Perhaps you should write and tell him he's wrong. (Wrong by nearly a decade). Anyway, if you want that discussion, let's do it. I trust you'll be just as ready to refer to "pre-peak" Rafa as to "post-peak" Roger. The fact that "pre-peak" Rafa was 5-1 before he was even out of his teens might be an interesting starting point.

But meantime I'll return to the discussion at hand. My questions are: a) you say it's "pointy" to delete the paragraph. Why? Is there anything that isn't referred to elsewhere? What happened to your desire to trim out "extra bloat"? Maybe "bloat" just means things you don't agree with. Anyway, I'm not sure what the raison d'etre of the paragraph is; b) Small point but I changed "3" to "three", in accordance with the Wikipedia style guide. You reverted this. Do we agree to changing it back to "three", in accordance with the guide? c) You still haven't explained why clay is the only surface mentioned in the context of their GS H2H. I've raised this point a few times now, I'd appreciate if you could address it.

In sum, I see no need for that paragraph. If it stays, it must be scrupulously neutral. Every time one surface is mentioned, the other surfaces must be mentioned, at the same time and with the same weight. If you don't understand the importance of impartiality re: surfaces, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the passion this subject generates. Either way, I assume you have no objection to neutrality. (That goes for everything else too: if career win percentage is mentioned for one surface then also for the others, etc). If it means a few extra sentences, so be it. If you don't think it's worth the effort, I'm happy to do it, and if your concern is still "bloat" then you'll have no objection to the deletion of non-neutral sentences, or the paragraph in its entirety.Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I never have a problem putting "cards on the table". I said, if I was writing it that might be how i would do it. But I didn't write the article... many others did, and I don't tend to trample on things without good reason. Of course I know the ATP calendar... that's why I assumed no one had really mentioned the fact Federer's best surface is grass. But as a compromise putting it in there seemed reasonable. Post peak Federer is not arbitrary at all... it's in so many sources that it's common knowledge. 2007 was the end of Federer peak. The end of 2007, all of 2008 and perhaps longer he was recovering from mono. That cut his peak short, but hey, that's just tough for Federer. Those are the breaks in sports. The paragraph seems just fine to me, and I assume those who have written much of the article. Parts of the section were removed before by the sockpuppet and were re-added by multiple editors... so they thought it was fine also. It's not just you and me here. This article is a summary on their career and the clay (and now grass) mentioning looks about right. Could it get more detailed, sure. But then we have to add other aspects like giving the peak record vs post-peak record. Like giving the mono and mono-recovery record. Like giving the head to head once Federer reached 30. There's lots that could be added but they would be bloat in my opinion, and simply not needed. It looks pretty fair now. I don't think the grass being Federer's best surface was needed either, but short of taking this to the full Tennis Project, it was my attempt to quell this with a simple addition you had mentioned. Using three instead of 3 is fine with me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Post-peak" is an opinion, not a fact. I'd assume you understand the distinction but your use of the phrase "common knowledge" makes me wonder. Maybe look up "knowledge" if you're still unsure. I don't particularly want to open the opinion can of worms and since you claim to be concerned about bloat I assume you don't either but, like I say, if you want to go down that road that's fine by me. As to the "open-ended mono recovery" excuse, that's widely referenced by Federer fans on YouTube but not so well documented in the real world. Federer himself said he'd contracted mono in Dec 07 and was over it by March 08, meaning that it affected precisely zero of his matches vs Nadal. Again, though, you seem to know better than he does. So put your sources out there. Meantime, we're going round in circles. If you have no intention of answering my questions, just let me know, so I don't have to keep asking them. You seem particularly reluctant to explain why clay is the only surface you'll tolerate being mentioned in the context of the GS H2H. I've asked this three times now. Some explanation as to why you reverted this is overdue. There are several other questions above that you seem unwilling or unable to answer. You're not obliged to address them but if you insist on reverting my edits, I'd have thought straight answers to those straight questions were appropriate, if only out of basic courtesy.

I really don't want to escalate this, because life is too short, so I'll try one more time. I suggest the paragraph is rewritten so there can be no suggestion whatsoever of bias. I've explained at length why the current version is not neutral, so, in the absence of any response to the specific points I've made, I suggest the following version. "Of their 33 meetings, 15 have been on clay, 15 on hard court and three on grass. Clay is statistically Nadal's best surface and grass is Federer's. Nadal leads 13-2 on clay, Federer leads 2-1 on grass and Nadal leads 9-6 on hardcourts. Nadal leads in Grand Slam matches (9–2), with five of those wins coming on clay, three on hardcourts and one on grass. Federer's two wins came on grass." That version is absolutely balanced, and is actually shorter than the current version. So it addresses your concern about bloat (assuming that is indeed your concern) and mine about neutrality. The only significant change from the current version is the removal of the reference to career win percentages, which seem to deal more with results vs other players than each other. But i'm not going to be dogmatic on that. If you want career win percentages, fine, with the proviso that, as I've said, we don't just mention them for one surface but overall. I do appreciate your prompt responses, and am sorry I'm not as quick as you, so I'm certainly not apportioning blame for the delay on this (apart from to myself) but let's try and bring it to a conclusion. I've addressed the bloat issue, my wording is neutral, so unless you have some new objection that you haven't as yet raised let's resolve this or else go ahead and refer it to someone else who can.Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course post-peak is an opinion. There are a lot of things about the rivalry that are others opinions and are subjective rather than objective. That's why we source things. I wouldn't call his mono open-ended. For some players it certainly has been, but it hits people in different ways. It hit at the end of his peak playing days and we'll never know for sure if his peak was done already or it shortened it. But I didn't add it or the sourcing figuring there's enough already. Federer was clear of the virus by March 08 but he was not free of the affects for much longer. I have no idea what you mean as far as clay and head to head. Grass is mentioned and so is hard courts. As for the paragraph, once again I had added the grass part and it seems quite fair to me. I really don't know what the problem is. There have been editors other than me that want it as is, so I assume they have no problem either. I guess it could be shortened a bit by having it: "Nearly half of the meetings between Federer and Nadal have come on clay which is statistically Nadal's best surface and one of Federer's weaker surfaces. Of their 33 matches, 15 have been on clay, 15 have been on hard court, and 3 have been on grass. Federer has a winning record on his best surface, grass (2–1), while Nadal leads on clay (13–2) and hard court (9–6). Nadal leads in Grand Slam Tournament matches (9–2). On hard courts and grass, Federer holds an edge in overall career win percentage, but trails Nadal in head-to-head results on hard courts." That would eliminate the fact that 5 of their 11 meetings in majors were on clay which I think makes the article weaker but it would address your concern in that sentence. I don't know if others would like it removed since it was probably compromise that has it where it is today. It's sort of like Evert/Navratilova... they were very even in head to head but it fails to take into account that in the majors they played more often on grass as opposed to clay. The courts are not that way anymore. There's a lot to be admired with these two greats but timing has not been perfect with them. Federer is much older and peaked out in 2007 (partly because of mono). Nadal has had the misfortune of having knee issues that is now hurting him against Djokovic. They've both been able to win titles despite those problems. Federer's a shell of his former self now but maybe Nadal can find some health to win a couple more majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you do appear to be making a sincere effort, which I appreciate. I think we're getting closer to a version we can agree on. Re: career win percentages, as I said last time I don't think they belong here but I'm not going to make an issue of it. However, if you insist on keeping them then I presume you agree that we don't just mention them for the surfaces that Federer leads on, but also overall. All of which just leaves the first sentence, which I do not think can be salvaged in anything like its current form. "Nearly half" is vague, opinionated (one man's "nearly" is another man's "not nearly"), arguably misleading and, in this context, demonstrably part of an agenda. (What other purpose does it serve?) To illustrate my point, would you be happy with changing that phrase to this (more indisputably accurate) wording: "Fewer than half their matches have been played on clay"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in what you think. I'd be grateful if you'd answer it as it gets to the heart of the matter. Either way, the phrase "nearly half" wouldn't survive 30 seconds in an article on, say, jury numbers (if five members were white, five were black and two hispanic then it would be highly inflammatory to say the jury was "nearly half black"). Although a tennis article is not going to cause riots, I don't see why different standards of neutrality should apply. Again, if bloat is the issue then the first sentence, which conveys not one iota of information that isn't available in my shorter wording, should be cut. Even in its current version it is bloated - the "nearly half" point is not only loaded but also surplus to the needs of anyone who can count. If on the other hand we're now happy with bloat then by all means let's examine in minute detail the issue of whether the rivalry has been skewed by too many matches on clay. As I've said from the start it seems clear to me that Nadal would have a smaller lead (maybe around 21:12, like the Rush album, or possibly 20:13 or even 19:14) if they had met each other in exact proportion to the tournaments they've played. But if we go down that road, we don't do it with vagueness and innuendo ("nearly half"), we do it by representing the numbers accurately. Just as we would in any other article in Wikipedia. That seems to me a bare minimum standard of fairness. But, to be clear, my preference is to cut the first and last sentences, and to be honest I remain dubious about the entire paragraph. The whole thing merely duplicates information readily available elsewhere in the article, information that readers are perfectly capable of interpreting for themselves.

But you evidently think the paragraph has a purpose (one you haven't yet explained btw) so I won't make an issue of that either. Anyway, my concrete suggestions: either a) cut the two sentences in question (my preference) or b) make them balanced. The last sentence can be balanced easily, the first one will take more work. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Cutting the first sentence would be a step backwards and it's inclusion is the only reason I would even consider cutting anything else. Far more matches have been played on Nadals favorite surface than Federers. It could even be stronger. From the viewpoints you are leaving I don't think you would want me changing it either. I don't think it's balanced enough because it doesn't take into account Federers peak being over in 2007, the 5 year age difference, nor his lengthy battle with the affect of mono. They would be simple statements to add. They aren't there because it seemed good enough and short enough the way it is. Others probably put hard work and compromised already to get it to where it is today. I like it even though it's incomplete. I guess if you can convince enough editors to agree with you it can be changed... but we've been talking awhile here and no one else has chimed in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume your bona fides but you're not making it easy. You point blank refuse to answer simple questions. For example, would you or would you not support changing "nearly half" to "fewer than half"? I've asked this question as clearly and politely as I can. Also, your apparently contradictory arguments are becoming increasingly baffling. Eg you introduced the mono issue. Then you said "that's just tough for Federer ... those are the breaks in sports", making me wonder why you'd introduced it in the first place. Now you've come full circle and suggest the section isn't "balanced" without it. Please make up your mind. If you want it in there then say which matches it affected and provide your sources. Otherwise drop it. Ditto "post-peak" etc. Please stop implying it's some great sacrifice that it's not there. If you want it in, source it and put it in. Otherwise let's move on. Besides, even if it were a compromise that you can't publish your post-peak opinion (which contradicts Federer's own opinion), bear in mind we're both compromising. I'm compromising by tolerating a paragraph which we both know is there to explain away Roger's H2H deficit. Similarly on bloat. You've gone mysteriously quiet on this point. You initially gave it as your reason for reverting my edits, yet now stand over a much longer wording. You seem unable to justify the paragraph, which restates information available at least three other times in the same article. There's no law against a FOURTH breakdown of surfaces but it does rather call into question your interest in avoiding bloat. But the first sentence isn't just redundant (and therefore the definition of bloat) but biased. Please explain its purpose. If you can.

Lastly, you've said several times you didn't write the paragraph (I never suggested you did), that it's the work of numerous others. And? Wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't matter how many people have edited a section. If it's not neutral, it must be changed. The guidelines are very clear on that.

In sum: a) What exactly is the purpose of the first sentence? If, as you imply, it's to draw attention to what you perceive is a skewing of the record, be upfront and say so. Then we can examine the issue properly. b) Do you have any objection to "fewer than half"? If so, please explain. I'm interested in all your points, and remain grateful for your prompt responses, but if you keep ducking those central questions we're wasting our time. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting way too long for me. I like it the way it is. I haven't seen you compromise at all... you want every sentence changed or removed. That's not a compromise. I think the way it's written now is a compromise that other editors have reached. You are not convincing me otherwise. I think it's neutral to unfair for Federer. You think it's unfair for Nadal. Best to keep it as is, as it's been for quite awhile. Just changing things isn't the way it works. If it's likely to be contested (as this passage has been before) we would need to convince multiple editors that our change is better. You have not convinced me so, and I don't think I would convince you either. Maybe the tennis project would have ideas. The first sentence could be re-written as "Federer and Nadal have met 5 times more often on clay than on grass, where clay is statistically Nadal's best surface and one of Federer's weaker surfaces." That's accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You had asked how I'd word the section and roughly it would be as follows:

• Things to consider in their rivalry are multi-fold. They are not the same age, Federer being five years older. Federer's peak ended in 2007, being cut short by mononucleosis. At this time Federer's record against Nadal was (2–0) on grass, (3–2) on hard courts, and (1–6) on clay. While the actual virus was cleared from his system by mid-2008, mono's aftereffects (which can last years) clearly slowed his entire 2008 campaign. It was during this recovery period in 2008 that Nadal went 4–0 and beat Federer for the only time on grass, in the dark at Wimbledon. In 2009 they were 1–1 and in 2010 they were 1–1. From 2009-present Nadal is 4–1 on clay and 7–3 on hard courts. They have not faced each other on grass, Federer's best surface, since 2008. In fact the two players have met five times more often on clay than on grass. Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1), while Nadal leads on hard court (9–6) and on clay (13–2). Nadal leads in Grand Slam Tournament matches (9–2), with five of these wins coming on the clay courts of Roland Garros. On hard courts and grass, Federer holds an edge in overall career win percentage, but trails Nadal in head-to-head results on hard courts.

That's in the neighborhood of how'd I'd have it, but it didn't seem worth the back and forth it would entail when others had already worked out an adequate paragraph. That's why I'd leave it as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, we evidently need a third opinion. You've abandoned all pretence of neutrality. You say you want to avoid bloat but now suggest a section that's twice as long (and would have to be much longer if it were even remotely balanced). Re: compromise, yes, I wanted the section removed (and have explained why), but you don't, and therefore I agreed (some time ago) to your suggestion that the paragraph NOT be deleted. That's the essence of compromise.

As to your new suggested wording, it's so absurdly pro-Federer I'm struggling to accept it's a serious proposal. You make a new excuse for Federer's deficit in virtually every sentence. Is it satire? Some sort of parody of Fed fans' sour grapes? The laugh-out-loud references to playing "in the dark" etc make me suspect it might be. Nonetheless, I'll assume it's made in good faith and respond. In fact I'm kind of glad to lance the boil. You keep issuing veiled threats to introduce your opinions re: mono etc, but I'm happy to call your bluff. It you want to go down that road, let's do it. It'll be a long road, and I'd still prefer to cut the whole sorry mess, but as you wish. We can keep your structure, as long as it's balanced, eg as follows:

"Things to consider in their rivalry are multi-fold. Federer is nearly five years older. When they first played, Nadal was 17 and Federer 22. Nadal won the majority of their matches in the first half of their rivalry (2004-2009) by a margin of 13-7 and so far leads in the second half (2010-2015) by a margin of 10-3.

Some say Federer's peak ended in 2007 , though Federer himself said in August 2015 that he was a better at 34 than at 24 [[1]]. Both players have had problems with their health. It has been claimed that Federer's peak was cut short by mononucleosis , though Federer himself said that he contracted mono in Dec 2007 and was free of it by March 2008 [[2]], meaning that it didn't affect any of his matches with Nadal. At the end of 2007, Federer trailed Nadal 6-8 (2–0 on grass, 3–2 on hard courts, and 1–6 on clay). While the actual virus was cleared from his system by March 2008, mono's aftereffects (which can last years but usually only a few months [[3]]) clearly slowed his entire 2008 campaign . It was during this recovery period in 2008 that Nadal went 4–0 and beat Federer for the only time on grass, in a match that began at 2pm and finished five minutes before sunset. Nadal's career has been significantly affected by injuries [[4]], one of which was described as career-threatening and prevented him defending his Wimbledon title in 2009 [[5]] while another sidelined him for seven months and prevented him from carrying his country's flag at the 2012 Olympics [[6]]. In 2009 they were 1–1 and in 2010 they were 1–1. From 2009-present Nadal is 4–1 on clay and 7–3 on hard courts. They have not faced each other on grass, Federer's best surface, since 2008. The two players have met five times more often on clay than on grass, a ratio that reflects the greater number of clay tournaments on the ATP tour [[7]]. Both players regularly play four or five clay tournaments together but only one grass tournament. If there were a hypothetical tour in which the number of grass events were "scaled up" to make an equal number of tournaments on each surface, and if their past results were replicated in exact proportion, then Nadal's lead would be reduced to 27:18 (13:2 on clay, 5:10 on grass and 9:6 on hard court). On the actual ATP tour, Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1), while Nadal leads on hard court (9–6) and on clay (13–2). Nadal leads in Grand Slam Tournament matches (9–2), with five of these wins coming on clay, three on hard courts and one on grass. Federer's two wins have come on grass. On hard courts and grass, Federer holds an edge in career win percentage. Nadal holds an edge in career win percentage overall. Federer trails Nadal in head-to-head results on hard courts."

Happy now? You've said from the start you wanted to introduce the post-peak excuse, the age excuse, the mono excuse (apart from the time you didn't, ie when you said "that's tough for Federer"), so now they're all out there, I assume you're satisfied? Or is there some new precondition you want me to satisfy? If there is then, like I say, let's get a third opinion and be done with it. I really don't mind. The paragraph can be 1,000 words long or zero. I'm happy as long as it's neutral. That's how Wikipedia works. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, no wonder we can't agree. I guess you didn't read the beginning or end. This is what I would write and I do find it to be correct. I didn't source it here but can easily do so, no problem at all. I did not suggest it be added as I have said from the very beginning which you seem to be ignoring. What it is, is an idea about why we can't agree. Wow is all I can come up with. You saying you want to remove the paragraph and or saying your compromise is to change it all, is laughably no compromise at all. I actually changed two or three sentences and that wasn't good enough for you. You want more... well it ain't happening. It's why I said from the beginning that what is there is good enough. It's short and has been stable awhile. It doesn't include what I would want nor is it blanked like you would want. But I'm pretty much done here, as you only seem to want to waste my time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've read everything you've written. I get that your FIRST preference is to refuse any change whatsoever to the sentence that I've objected to from the start. You've said it many times. But rather than defend the sentence on its merits, or even answer the simple question of what purpose it serves, your tactic has been to make veiled hints about a second preference, namely that the section could/should be written in an even more pro-Federer way (ie by referring to mono, post-peak, playing in the dark etc). After the third or fourth time you made such hints/threats, I challenged you to either substantiate your opinions or drop them, whereupon you volunteered a wording. Then, when I pointed out its many flaws, you immediately withdrew it and said it was never intended for the article. How convenient. So what was it? Small talk? Shooting the breeze? If it was, you misunderstand the purpose of the talk page (which, explicitly, is not a forum for opinions but a place for concrete suggestions about improving an article). Essentially, I called your bluff and you appear to have folded. Also, for the record, you have not changed "two or three sentences", you've changed one. You've made other proposals, some of which I agree with, some of which not, but you've only actually changed one (the least important one, in my opinion). Anyway, one of the many suggestions I've made that you've ignored is for a third opinion. I assume we at least agree about where we disagree, namely the first sentence. The last sentence is a battle I can't be bothered to fight, so I'll leave it. The one before that (about results in grand slams), I'm happy with the wording you proposed a while back ("Nadal leads in Grand Slam Tournament matches (9–2)". It's the first sentence that's the straw that broke my back. I'm assuming that if you had an objection to getting a third opinion you'd have raised it by now so I'm going to go ahead and get one. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No idea about threats you are talking about. You had been asking my opinion on how I would write it so I gave it. I think it is written fine as is, as have others that had been reverting a certain now-blocked editor. I feel it leaves out vital details about the Federer-Nadal rivalry but that in the scope of wiki-harmony, what's there suffices. I can live with it. It is actually not as it was to begin with as I did add what I thought was a reasonable addition you had mentioned. I didn't think it was needed, but again, it seemed reasonable to add it. I made other suggestions. But if we were to start re-writing the whole paragraph then I told you what I would put in. And I would have sourced it. You asked, I answered. Sorry if the answer displeased you but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer from WP:3O and am not taking part in this dispute yet. Could both parties once again summarise their present side of the dispute so that it becomes clearer to follow. The above posts, according to me, seem WP:TLDR and keep in mind, that not everyone who might want to join in will be familiar with technical terms. Thanks, ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

As noted above, a third opinion has been requested. I am the second of two volunteers who isn't sure that they understand what the question is. Can a concise question be stated on which a third opinion is requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the members of the dispute, though I didn't post the request so I'm not sure what the question is either. I can try and summarize my viewpoint. The original text of the fifth paragraph of Significant aspects is as follows...

Nearly half of the meetings between Federer and Nadal have come on clay which is statistically Nadal's best surface and one of Federer's weaker surfaces. Of their 33 matches, 15 have been on clay, 15 have been on hard court, and 3 have been on grass. Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1), while Nadal leads on clay (13–2) and hard court (9–6). Nadal leads in Grand Slam Tournament matches (9–2), with five of these wins coming on the clay courts of Roland Garros. On hard courts and grass, Federer holds an edge in overall career win percentage, but trails Nadal in head-to-head results on hard courts.

This was the stable version. The setup: 3 months ago we had a now indef-blocked sockpuppet (Liquid foundation) reverting this section. Multiple editors kept changing it back as perfectly adequate, but since then obviously the section had been watched. A month ago we had a new editor start changing the section, (Brooklyn Eagle), who brought this to your attention as I seem to be the main editor who reverted the section when BE started changing things. So it is a content dispute. I do not want to put words in his mouth so I will not summarize what he exactly wants but I can say what was changed by me and what I thought might help. There was concern about only Nadal being mentioned with a best surface. I changed "Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1)" to "Federer has a winning record on his best surface, grass (2–1)." I didn't think it was needed, but it seemed reasonable and an easy thing to do without any consensus. That's how the paragraph now stands.

Brooklyn Eagle has concerns about the first sentence and its generalization but I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. I suggested it could be changed to "the two players have met five times more often on clay than on grass" to be spot on, but that didn't seem to fly. My own thoughts, which i was asked for and which are explained above, are that much is missing from the section. Considering that this is a section on head to head aspects, I would have included the fact that Federer is 5 years older, that his peak ended in 2007, that he had mononucleosis that affected his 2008 campaign. I would have used numbers overall, and post-peak numbers, even mention Federers 0-4 record during 2008, and I can easily source all these things. I'm perplexed they were never added but let me make this clear, "I did not pursue adding these items." I had recently seen a kookie sockpuppet problem and boat-rocking seemed to me something that should not be done. As it stands right now, it's short, to the point and pretty fair. It may not have the details I would use in being fairer to Federer, but I'm fine with it as is. That's where I've been standing on this.

As for Brooklyn Eagle's question on what he wants changed or why he wants the entire section removed or what opinion he wants from a 3rd party... I assume that will be forthcoming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the discussion so far, I can see, first, that this is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, and that the parties are being civil. That is good. Second, however, the parties are not being concise. Maybe another editor will offer a third opinion, but this appears to be a content dispute that would benefit from moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer can help identify what the various specific issues about the neutrality of the wording are. I suggest taking this case to DRN, but that is only my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ugog Nizdast and Robert McClenon for helping with what is, I'll admit, a convoluted discussion. Yes, it is a content issue, but I hope it's still appropriate to seek a third opinion. Anyway, you request a summary, which I'll attempt, but first it occurs to me that anyone who's not a tennis fan (and there's no reason you should be!) might find all this baffling. Having said that, non-fans have the advantage of being free of pre-existing opinions. I'll summarise for non-fans. Apologies if that comes at the expense of concision. Anyway, here goes. First the background.

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have played 33 times and Nadal leads this "head-to-head" (H2H) by 23-10. But many of Roger's fans claim the H2H is "skewed". (Indeed that rather loaded word is actually used at one point in the article, which btw contains an extraordinary amount of "context" in which to view what Nadal fans would see as the simple fact that he's won more of their matches). Anyway, one of the main arguments is that Federer is at a disadvantage because so many matches have been played on clay courts (Nadal's favourite surface).

It's my position that the paragraph under discussion here is a clear attempt to advocate that view without putting any counterargument. The implication is particularly obvious in the first sentence ("nearly half of their matches have been played on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface"). This wording is problematic. My analogy is with a trial in which five jury members are white, five black and two hispanic. Describing such a jury as "nearly half black" would be inflammatory. (Clearly tennis is less emotive, though sometimes not much!). It would be equally valid to say that "fewer than half" of the Federer-Nadal matches were played on clay. What's more, there is currently no mention (here or anywhere else) of the fact that Nadal would lead even if none of the matches had been on clay.

My clear preference is to cut this sentence altogether, if not the whole paragraph. I can't see what purpose it serves. The breakdown of surfaces (ie how many matches were played on clay, grass and hard courts) is mentioned on four other occasions in the article - more than ten if you include the various tables etc. This particular reference is especially loaded, and especially redundant, given that the breakdown of surfaces is mentioned again in the very next sentence!

I'm happy to consider any proposal (eg above I suggest what I regard as a neutral wording) but all other options seem messy, and perhaps explain why this saga has gone on so long. I asked Fyunck(click) whether he'd support "fewer than half" but he didn't respond. Evidently, any comment will be interpreted as an attempt to put a spin on the numbers. Fyunck(click) suggested "five times as many matches have been played on clay as on grass" but this implies an imbalance, when in fact that ratio is what you'd expect, given that so many more tournaments are played on clay than on grass. Above all, it doesn't take into account that, even if there were some hypothetical tennis calendar on which there were an equal number of tournaments on each surface, Nadal would still lead.

I'm happy to put these arguments but cutting the sentence would be a lot shorter. When I tried to cut it, it was reverted by an unsigned editor. When I tried adding the counterargument it was reverted by Fyunck(click) on the grounds that it was "unnecessary bloat". However, he continues to oppose a wording shorter than the current version. His argument now seems to be that he regards the current wording as an acceptable trade-off, given the lack of other pro-Federer points he'd like included (eg his opinion that Federer passed his peak in 2007, that his career has been blighted by illness etc). To which I'd say: two wrongs don't make a right. If Fyunck(click) thinks those factors should be mentioned he's free to do so. They do not excuse wording the current section in a non-neutral way. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said yesterday. This noticeboard for third opinion is an extremely light-weight process, and works well if two editors each have a concise position and the third opinion volunteer can either quickly agree with one view or can propose a concise compromise. This disagreement is civil but not concise. This is, in my opinion, a content dispute that would benefit from moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where discussion can take a week or so. I won't be offering a third opinion here, but will leave the third opinion request open in case another volunteer is willing to address it. Even if a third opinion is offered, the case can still then be taken to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Having been part of the counter-effort against the recent sock-puppet edits, I tend to support Fyunck's position on this issue (as articulated above). For what it's worth, I agree that things are generally fair the way they stand, and any changes or additions (especially about the meaning of the head-to-head record) will only invite point and counterpoint edits by each side trying to add their own POV spin (which risks expanding the paragraph out of all proportion to its importance). Just my opinion, though. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Your post doesn't appear to be signed but I appreciate your acknowledgement of previous involvement. I also take your point that other editors might respond to any changes. But I don't think we can (or even should) second guess what they might do. Even if we could, that doesn't get us any closer to understanding whether the section is CURRENTLY neutral. What I think would really help here is if someone could explain what purpose is served by the paragraph in question, esp the first sentence. It seems clear to me that its purpose is to imply that Nadal's lead in the H2H is due to a disproportionate number of matches played on clay. If that's not the purpose, what is it? Assuming that is indeed the purpose, then fair enough - it's a legitimate opinion - but let's spell it out and put the counterargument for balance. If it serves no purpose, let's delete it. I'm happy either way. This may seem a minor issue but it's one of basic fairness. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I commend the IP (as well as Robert McClenon) for addressing this because, honestly, very few people would have read all of those extremely long comments from the original posters. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the extremely long comments, just most of them. That is one of the reasons I didn't really offer a definitive third opinion other than to go to moderated dispute resolution (in which the moderator could demand that the participants summarize their comments concisely). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. It's very long. Would it be worth re-listing but without the original discussion, ie just the two summaries? Granted, even the summaries aren't exactly pithy but they're a heck of a lot shorter than the original discussion (about a tenth as long I think). The issue may be somewhat complicated (esp to non tennis fans) but I don't think it's anything that couldn't be solved with little goodwill. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What I see here is two editors who are being reasonable and who reasonably disagree about the neutrality of the article. I also see two editors who have difficulty in being concise, because the basic issue isn't concise, because it is a whole paragraph. I personally wouldn't recommend relisting with shorter summaries. I have two recommendations, and they can both be followed. First, take this issue to WT:WikiProject Tennis and ask for one or more other participants, who will be tennis fans. Second, request a mediator at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Those are my suggestions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, belated thanks. Those sounds like sensible options, I'll look into them. Thanks again for your help. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll offer a third opinion. I am uninvolved in this article and new to the dispute and not a tennis fan. I have read this "third opinion" section, but nothing else in the talk page, and have read only a few paragraphs of the article.

Like the others, I am disappointed that no one has concisely identified the subject on which an opinion is sought. The easiest way to do that would be with a single sentence that ends in a question mark. But I can imagine a few such sentences, so I'll just throw out a few germane opinions.

The paragraph is inconsistent. It points out the players' relative performance on clay in the first sentence, but the same for grass and hard court in the last sentence. As the proportion of meetings on clay and hard court are the same, I can't see a reason for this disparate treatment. The record on grass comes with a statement of whose best surface it is, but the record on clay does not.

The paragraph doesn't seem to make a point. It has been said here its purpose is to excuse Federer's numerically poor performance. If so, it should start with that, and then the choice of which facts to present and in what order would make sense. Because the surface breakdown is so well covered elsewhere in the article, all this paragraph can do, absent a clear thesis, is juxtapose these with the players' surface preferences for the reader's own interpretation. For that, the paragraph should present those preferences in some symmetrical way. Today, it does not. And only cutting the first sentence would not make it better. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federer–Nadal rivalry. 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/20140328101203/http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/03/13/Miami-Roger-Rafa-10-Years-Rivalry.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/03/13/Miami-Roger-Rafa-10-Years-Rivalry.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605022801/http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx to http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Federer–Nadal rivalry. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/03/13/Miami-Roger-Rafa-10-Years-Rivalry.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704182501/http://msn.foxsports.com:80/tennis/story/rafael-nadal-retakes-king-of-clay-title-with-french-open-win-060610 to http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/rafael-nadal-retakes-king-of-clay-title-with-french-open-win-060610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523070633/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702070703/http://tennisology101.com:80/2011/06/10/federer-nadal-the-head-to-head-anomoly-2/ to http://tennisology101.com/2011/06/10/federer-nadal-the-head-to-head-anomoly-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"There are factors that skew..."

An anon IP has been removing sourced info. Perhaps it could be better worded but all it says is that Nadal hammered Federer during his recovery from mono (where with fatigue and lack of practice it can take 6+ months to get back into shape), and during his back injury. Those items are sourced and are facts. Would Nadal have won the matches anyway? Perhaps or perhaps not, that would be speculation. Heck, Federer beat Nadal on clay in the year Nadal was becoming hobbled by tendinitis in his knees... it caused Nadal to miss a lot of events. As long as the sourced facts are there and we keep to that, all should be good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Fyunck is either simple, or he thinks readers are simple. Yes, it is a fact that Nadal beat Federer in 2008 and 2013 - just as he beat him in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014. There is also evidence suggesting that it can take 6+ months to recover from mono: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/193/5/664/877191/Prolonged-Illness-after-Infectious-Mononucleosis. However, that evidence suggests that it CAN, not it WILL - it CAN - take such a period. Therefore, we cannot say conclusively that Federer had not recovered fully when he faced Nadal, especially, when he himself says he had fully recovered when he faced Nadal, http://www.indepenent.co.uk/sport/tennis/roger-federer-if-the-doctors-had-found-out-they-would-have-told-me-not-to-play-819603.html:

The first time I got sick [before Christmas] I didn't think it was anything out of the ordinary," Federer said. "The second time [before the Australian Open] I thought it was food poisoning. The third time I thought something was wrong. That was when the doctors told me I had mononucleosis, but they said that by then it was almost over.

By the time they'd done one more test they said it was over already, so it was never really a case of me saying: 'Oh my God, I've got mononucleosis'. It didn't really scare me. It wasn't as though I was in bed 24 hours a day for six weeks. I could play. That was what was so amazing. I was able to get up and play a five-setter against Tipsarevic at a time when apparently my mononucleosis was at its strongest.

"I hope I didn't take any health risks, because if the doctors had found out then they would have told me not to play. It was over before it started for me. When I started practising again I was feeling slow and not too good, but a month later, when I caught up with my conditioning trainer in Miami, he said how different a person I was to when I was with him just before the tournament in Dubai.

"After I won in Estoril people were saying how relieved I must be to win my first title of the year, but I really don't care about this stuff. I was never going to play very much at the start of the season anyway. This is a year when I want to save myself for the most important tournaments coming up now – the French, Wimbledon, the Olympics and the US Open. That's when I want to have extra energy. It was part of my scheduling that I knew maybe I wouldn't win a tournament early on.

Therefore, one can only assume that by choosing to ignore these facts and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that Federer lost those matches because of injury, the writer, whether it be Fyunck or someone else, is trying to make the reader think Nadal might not have won those matches if Federer had not been physically impaired during those years. Not only is this purely hypothetical, it is also violation of the NPOV and it sets a dangerous precedent. I mean, why stop here? Why don't we just had a caveat to EVERY sporting result EVER. David Haye might have beaten Tony Bellew if he hadn't broken his ankle. Djokovic might have won the French Open in 2013 if he hadn't touched the net. Djokovic might have won the French Open in 2014 if not for his recurring wrist injury. And so on and so forth.

Furthermore, Fyunck appears to think just because something is sourced, that makes it a fact.

Lastly, I continue to remove the entry because it serves no purpose in the article other than to ameliorate a h2h that is heavily skewed in Nadal's favour. Again, a violation of the NPOV.132.185.161.125 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) and 132.185.160.131 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

When the virus is out of detection you are considered over mono... the affects and malaise last months and you retain the virus for life. There is also the lost training. All of this is sourced. Another thing... we don't tag every possible excuse for every event in these player's lives. However that isn't so true when it's a one-on-one article about two players in a rivalry. Then things get more detailed and numbers are crunched more closely as every match is under a microscope. When Nadal has had his knee problems and the doctors tell him to rest for three months, it takes him a year to get back up to speed even if his knees are healed. Lost time and illness and injures are huge setbacks for these players. The mono-affects plagued Federer for most of '08 before he got back to speed. Perhaps his demise was coming already as his prime pretty much ended at the end of 2007... we'll never know for sure. And your snippiness in this conversation is being noted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now done my best to fix the original longstanding version instead of simply blanking it. I made sure it was clear that it was not just the mono but lack of training that hindered Federer throughout the 2008 season. I added Courier's sourced quote that Roger was ill all season long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And therein lies the violation of the NPOV, you are not only trying to explain to the reader why Federer lost those matches to Nadal, which one can never know, you are suggesting he would not have lost those matches but for injury/illness, and lack of training tied to injury/illness. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What you're doing is called editorialising. You aren't presenting facts, you are presenting opinion. Therefore, you are in violation of the NPOV. As I said previously, you seem to think sources make something factual. I can find sources saying the earth is flat. That doesn't make "the earth is flat" a fact.132.185.161.125 (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm saying he lost those matches while sick, recovering from sickness, retraining from sickness, injured, and recovering from injury. Those are facts and sources show those are facts. I have no idea if he would have won or lost those matches otherwise, that's not for me or others to decide. But a blanket removal is not kosher. Tell us how you might reword it differently. We even have a link to Michael Lanich's thoughts that the Mono issue only lasted until Spring. Every time you mention something I try to reword things or add new sourcing to myths and such. But all we seem to be getting from you is no, no, no, as opposed to some helpful input. We're all ears if you have a better way to present the facts beyond paragraph blanking. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. It's tough to keep track of who we are talking to since the IP keeps changing. Thanks.Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You want me to sign my name so that you can block me and prevent me from removing your editorial bias? Fat chance. First of all, Federer did not lose those matches (against Nadal) while he was sick, even by his own admission. You've cited Jim Courier. First of all, is Jim Courier a doctor? Is Jim Courier Federer's doctor. Furthermore, is Jim Courier's word more trustworthy than Federer, who said he was not affected by mono during the French Open and who has never said he was affected by the disease in any of those matches in which he played Federer? Are you saying Federer is a liar? Further, there is no evidence that Federer was sick whilst he lost those matches. Whilst it is true that mono can have lingering effects that last up to six months after recovery, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case for everyone who experiences. More importantly, there is no evidence that this was the case in Federer's particular case. What you're doing is called conjecture. Conjecture is always borne out of bias. It is therefore clear what the intention of you and those intent on keeping this entry in the article is. As I have already said, it is to suggest a factual causation between Federer's mono in 2008 and his back injury in 2013 and the skewed H2H. In other words, but for mono in 2008 and back injury in 2013, the H2H would not be as it is. But there is only one problem: that is an opinion - YOUR OPINION, and thus a violation of the NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.126 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this clear an explanation enough for you? Or would you prefer we keep going in circles?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.132 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh you can get blocked anyway so no worries there. What we would want from you is a way to word it that satisfies everyone. Every time you have mentioned something I have done my best to incorporate it. You have only blanked and that is not helpful. Write out how you would word it and we'll see if we can come to some compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not about incorporating what I have said. It's about keeping out editorially biased content? Let me make it simple for you by asking you this: what evidence do you have that "Federer was clearly hindered by [injury - whether it be mono or back injury] and the effects of a lack of training" during those matches in which he played Nadal in 2008 and 2013? None. You have no evidence of that. What you are doing is presenting an opinion and using sources to support that opinion. Prove me wrong. Provide concrete evidence that "Federer was CLEARLY hindered by injury...". Let me make it easy for you. If Federer was CLEARLY hindered, it must have shown during the matches, right? I mean you use the word "clearly", which implies objectivity, that is, the objectively reasonable man or woman watching the match, without any knowledge of whether or not Federer was ill, would have been able to tell than he was hampered by injury whilst watching one, if not all, of their matches in 2008; for example, if he called for medical attention during a match versus Rafa or any matches preceding his matches versus Rafa. So, present such evidence. Here's another question: are there any external articles you can cite wherein the writers says explicitly that Federer was clearly hindered when he faced Rafa in 2008 and 2013 and support these assertions with evidence? Because if there aren't, the only conclusion can be that you aren't presenting the opinions of external writers, you are providing your own opinion and backing it up with the writings of external writers which is a violation of the NPOV, as wikipedia contributors CAN present the opinions of external writers, for example, a journalist's opinion of events, but they (i.e. wikipedia contributors) CANNOT insert their own opinions into the article, even if they can cite sources to support their opinions - which is what you are doing? I don't know why this isn't getting through to you. I suspect it's because of your bias in favour of Federer. You're deliberately trying to whitewash the H2H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.96.200 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no wording that would suffice. You are presenting the opinion of the contributor, not that of external sources. The argument that "Nadal's head-to-head advantage is built on domination on clay and domination during two seasons when Federer had illness or injury, and undertook training recovery that ensued from these issues" is not one that has been made by any tennis pundits; not McEnroe; not Inverdale; not Bodo; not Foowler; not Petchey; not Koenig. Jim Courier is the ONLY professional pundit who says Federer was ill all season, and he cites no evidence to back up that claim, he merely points to Ancic having had the same illness and taken longer to recover. Hardly scientific, especially considering Courier's lack of medical expertise and access to Federer's record. Moreover, here is Federer in his own words, regarding his illness in 2008, during the French Open (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/roger-federer-if-the-doctors-had-found-out-they-would-have-told-me-not-to-play-819603.html): ""The first time I got sick [before Christmas] I didn't think it was anything out of the ordinary," Federer said. "The second time [before the Australian Open] I thought it was food poisoning. The third time I thought something was wrong. That was when the doctors told me I had mononucleosis, but they said that by then it was almost over. By the time they'd done one more test they said it was over already, so it was never really a case of me saying: 'Oh my God, I've got mononucleosis'. It didn't really scare me. It wasn't as though I was in bed 24 hours a day for six weeks. I could play. That was what was so amazing. I was able to get up and play a five-setter against Tipsarevic at a time when apparently my mononucleosis was at its strongest." Did you catch that, "they" - as in his doctors - told him by the time they got round to testing him for it "it was already over". Bear in mind, he made this statement during the French Open - that it to say, his bout with mono was already over by the French Open. His words. His. Words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.96.200 (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a Sky UK Limited IP rather than a BBC IP, but I assume I am talking to the same person. There are dozens of sources that tells us that the Federer of 2008 is not the same Federer of 2007 or 2009. As with Nadal's injuries, it takes many months to get back up to speed after a layoff or illness. Courier's quote tells us he had problems all season. Courier is not some run-of-the-mill player. He was No. 1 and has been a tennis analyst for at least 6 different networks. Tennis Canada also talks about Federer's 2008 sickness/injury year. I don't just pull these things out of a hat. Others wrote the paragraph, I checked the sources and added sources, listened to your criticisms, re-added things, listened some more of your thoughts, and added more sources. That's about all I can do. I opened up this discussion and had to listen to your claims of bias and simpleness. But I've about had it with your blanking. Are you some sockpuppet that shouldn't be editing here at all? Your single-mindedness is finally beginning to make me wonder. In editing here for years I get claims against me for being pro-Nadal, pro-Federer, pro-Murray, pro-Williams, pro-Graf, pro-Evert, pro-whoever... and anti for the exact same players. I guess it's par for the course if you edit long enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And if you look, now I'm being reverted by someone who thinks adding the Federer mono source from the Turner Broadcasting Bleacher Report is no good. They also have not been commenting over here. So I guess I'm anti-Federer now. I can't win. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"There are dozens of sources that tells us that the Federer of 2008 is not the same Federer of 2007 or 2009"? You say that as if it proves anything. It doesn't. you don't seem to know the difference between fact and opinion, as well as the difference between an editorial and neutrality. The fact that there are dozens of sources that tell us that the Federer of 2008 is not the same Federer of 2007 or 2009 is not evidence that mono played a role in any of Federer's defeat to Nadal in 2008. Furthermore, the "There are dozens of sources that tells us that the Federer of 2008 is not the same Federer of 2007 or 2009" would only be relevant if you were trying to make the argument that mono played a role in Federer's defeats to Nadal in 2008. If that is what you are trying to do - i.e. argue that mono played a role in the 4-0 h2h in 2008, you would be in violation of the NPOV, as it would mean you are editorialising - i.e. you are putting forward a position - a.k.a an opinion. Think of it like this: arguing as to whether the Versaille Treaty led to the Holocaust. Now, no one knows this for a fact. Rather, everything that has been written as to whether or not the Versaille Treaty ultimately led to the holocaust is an opinion. Now, if you were just presenting the opinion of these dozens of sources that suggest that the 4-0 h2h in 2008 was due to Federer's mono, that would be find by me. But that is not what you're doing. You are arguing a position. Which is different from presenting a position or reporting the facts. You're essentially turning the article into your own personal essay or opinion piece. As for these "There are dozens of sources that tells us that the Federer of 2008 is not the same Federer of 2007 or 2009", would you care to present them? All 12 of them?

Re "Courier is not some run-of-the-mill player. He was No. 1 and has been a tennis analyst for at least 6 different networks" that doesn't actually make him an expert though does it? He is not a medical expert. As far as I can tell, he has never himself suffered from mono. He has never coached a player who suffered from mono. And he was not actually part of Federer's entourage/camp in way that would mean he was "close to the ground2, and therefore his opinion carries more weight. Therefore, he is speaking from a distance. His opinion is therefore no more or less valuable than ours on the subject (i.e. Federer's injury).

You better brace yourself, because this edit war is not going to end anytime soon, not as long as you allow that pro-Federer slant in the analysis section to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.127 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That type of attitude in bringing forth your views is simply quite sad. Courier's opinion has far far far more weight than you or I. He talks to players behind the scene that you or I do not do. He coached Davis Cup and has a much better understanding of player ailments and how it affects their games, both during and after recovery. I retained your block quote of Federer but balanced it with a block quote of Courier. Not a big fan of the block quote style as I prefer a short statement and a link to the article. But if doing it in block quote style will get you working with others, I can live with it. Thanks for trying to work within the paragraph instead of blanket removal this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I found a quote from his personal trainer that can help with the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no link to that quote. It needs to be verifiable per the community rules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm going to remove it until you provide a link the reader can click on in order to verify the information for him-/herself. It's not that I don't trust you. But, I don't trust you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.75.196.139 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No prob, I added it back since it's sourced. If I find a re-quote from someone else I'll add it to make it even better. Bring other changes here to discuss amongst other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is your reading comprehension lacking? I'm starting to suspect that it is. Your source is not verifiable! That is to say there is no way for anyone other than you ro confirm that it says what you're claiming it says. You can lock the page all you please; as soon as it is unlocked I will remove the bias and restore neutral language. So, buckle up. The same goes for that other Fedfan "Praline". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.128 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

More personal attacks and editwar threats. My guess is that the IP lock will become indefinite so no worries no matter how many IP's you jump to or sockpuppet accounts you open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To the changing IP. Keep the attacks out of this or this page will end up being protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Will you extend that warning to Fyunck, who, at 19:50 on 24 March 2017 referred to what I was doing as "simply quite sad"? I'd say that was an attacks. Or is it okay when he/she does it?

@ Fyunck (talk), "more personal attacks"? "More"? When were the previous instances of personal attacks? Why are you accusing me of sock-puppetry? I haven't opened any accounts. I'm the same person, I just do this from different IP addresses due to circumstance (i.e. I edit from work, from home and via my mobile whilst on the move), not due to some ploy. I intend to be an honest actor about this and I'm not going to make the same mistake Liquid_foundation - whose history I'm well aware of - made. The only person being dishonest thus far is you. This is not your personal Federer blog or Praline's personal Federer blog, which is how the analysis section currently reads. I simply intend to keep the article neutral. If there is a debate about an issue, as a contributor, you should present the opinion of credible external parties vis-a-vis the debate with citations and let the reader form his/her opinion. For example, "X thinks A. Y, on the other hand, thinks B". You do not present YOUR theory, no matter how man sources you have "to back them up", in an attempt to make the reader think a certain way - which is what you and Praline are currently doing. So, currently, the section reads like this: "It is likely that A happened because B". That is called editorialising. If you would like us to take this to a neutral arbiter (which you are not, despite your protests), we can do that. And by neutral arbiter I mean someone with the relevant authority who is not concerned about tennis and they can compare our versions of the article and decide which adheres to the NPOV better. 132.185.161.130 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There are several problems here. One is that with ten switching IP's it's hard to keep track of who we are talking to. We can't even leave messages on a talk page because your next log-in won't see them. Two is your combative style that tends to personalize everything. That's not good for team play around here. Third is your refusal to abide by some simple wikipedia rules. When there is language on an article that several editors agree with, you do not remove it after the first time. You simply do not do it. You come to the talk page and convince others either that your way is best or come to a compromise agreement. Only after it's worked out should the changed language be re-entered into wikipedia. You have never done that. First all you did was blank over and over again. That didn't help at all. More recently you added but removed stuff. Others have reverted you but you won't listen.

Everytime you mentioned something specific, I tried my best to incorporate it into the section but nothing ever seems to be good enough. I was even chastised by those on the Federer side of things for adding too much Nadal info for balance. I can't win. You added block quotes which I don't really like much but I left it and block quoted the quotes you simply blanked, just to appease you and calm the situation. Again not good enough. You don't like tennis analyst Jim Courier opinions so I added Roger Federer's personal trainer's opinion. And books and magazines that aren't online are perfectly acceptable sources. I originally asked for you to bring this to talk. You did not and I had to start this section to get dialog going. Of course I get a parade of I'm simple or I have reading comprehension problems... that never helps diffuse anything. Get an account, follow some basic rules around here, learn to compromise, and work with people and not against them, and all can work out. You have been reverted by multiple editors and I don't know what else to do except leave it to administrators to handle your situation. I hate putting this all here but with your revolving IP it's all we have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What wikipedia rules am I in violation of? Pray tell, because I have reason to believe you haven't even read them, because if you had you would be aware of the fact that the NPOV states: 1) Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil; 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements; 3) Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested; 3) Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed; and 4) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

I will grant you that I should not have blanket removed those biased entries. But you did the same vis-a-vis my entry - when I rewrote those biased paragraphs to a neutral tone.

Your moral grandstanding notwithstanding, you ought to know that as soon the page becomes unlocked, I intend to resume my edits and intend to continue until that section is substantially fair and balanced and free of the insinuations, such as the insinuation that but for injury in 2008 and 2013, Nadal would not have won all those matches against Federer which he did in those years, and therefore the H2H would not be as it is. The fact is, there is no evidence for this. You keep repeating the fatuous mantra of "I have sources", but none of them are evidence that Federer would not have lost to Nadal. Furthermore, it is one thing to present the opinion of an external party - a source - that Federer would not have won those matches but for the injuries; but that is not what that section is doing. That section is opining on the matter; it is stating an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, it is a violation of the NPOV. Also, Federer's personal trainer is neither tennis analyst, nor is he a doctor. Lastly, have you heard of argumentum ad consensus? I doubt you have. It is a is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it; which is what this is: "You have been reverted by multiple editors". So, yes, let's bring in an administrator. Let he/she review my entry and yours and compare to see which satisfies the NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.126 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who the anon editor above is but my own opinion of what he writes is that a) his personal attacks are clearly out of order and undermine his argument, and b) his argument is otherwise sound. He's not the only person to have noticed that an extraordinary amount of the "Significant Aspects" section is devoted to explaining away Nadal's lead in the H2H. I myself tried to address this but gave up two years ago. I suggest we just go to dispute resolution because this has dragged on long enough. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Widely vs many vs some

"Some"

I have noticed that a Wikipedia editor is contantly changing the article and writing that "some" consider the Fedal rivalry the greatest in tennis history. I think this is highly biased. It gives the impression that only a few people think like that, maybe two or three, like it is even an anecdotical number of people.

"Widely"

On the other hand, to say that the Fedal rivalry is "widely" considered the greatest in tennis it is also biased but on the opposite side. Other people could consider more exciting the Sampras-Agassi, Djokovic-Federer, Djokvic-Nadal or Serena-Venus rivalry for example. We need to allow the debate, specially in a subjective issue like this.

"Many"

The term "many" seems to be more objective because it is in the middle point between "some" and "widely". There is no doubt that an important number of people consider the Fedal rivalry the most exciting, representative and iconic of tennis history. I have found 23 sources/references around the world of sport magazine articles considering the Fedal rivalry to be the greatest. I have found articles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French arguing that the Fedal rivalry is the best. 13 articles in English and 10 others in non-English languages for a total of 23 sources. And unfortunatelly I can't read Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog or many other Asian languages, but I'm sure many other people do think the Fedal rivalry is the best. Importantly, not only these 23 sources argue or think the Fedal rivalry is the greatest. If you look at Youtube comments, or in tennis fans conversations an important number of people also think the Fedal rivalry is the best. In sum, I think the term "many" is more objective than only "some" or "widely".

By the way, you can quote sources/references in different languages than the original language of the article, so there should be no problem in that sense. For example, the English Wikipedia article for Cristiano Ronaldo includes sources in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The English Wikipedia article for Cervantes also includes a lot of references both in English and Spanish. The English Wikipedia article for Dostoyevski also includes references in English and Russian. No Wikipedia rule explicitly forbid to include references in many languages. It would have no logical justification to delete non-English sources. It would give the impression that only people from English speaking countries can have an opinion on the Fedal rivalry. James343e (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

"Many" sounds reasonable to me. And yes you can use sources in any language and any format (digital, print). That is an important part of making the English Wikipedia less biased towards anglophone culture. Gap9551 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think "some" is more appropriate from almost all aspects of such a subjective term as goat. I guess I have never learned that "some" means "a few." If everyone feels we should turn all these multiple article "somes" into "manys", it's certainly not as bad as widely. I look at it as "some folks think rivalry A is the greatest", "some folks think rivalry B is the greatest", and "some folks think rivalry C is the greatest." I feel "some" works best with such a subjective subject as opposed to "many folks think rivalry A is the greatest", "many folks think rivalry B is the greatest", and "many folks think rivalry C is the greatest." It's also much easier to source since 5-10 sources is certainly "some" and more than a "a few." "Many" starts getting the feel of about 50%. "Widely" starts to feel like the overwhelming majority. James mentioned 23 references out how many sports sources around the world...10000? How many tennis analysts and historians...1000? I look at how all these articles relate to one another. The same thing about individual greatest of all times with 5-10 males and 5-10 females regularly vying for the subjective crown. We can change them all to many, but I think "some" works the best and is not the same as "a few". Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I just removed a bunch of sources that did NOT call it the greatest rivalry in tennis history. I couldn't read the foreign languages so I can only hope they called it the greatest. They may say it's a great rivalry, they compare it to other great rivalries, they may say it's the greatest of the 21st century... but nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The last addition only implies it's the best right now... hard to argue that unless it's Djokovic/Nadal.. But it does not say best or greatest in the history of tennis at all. And who knows about all those foreign language editions. If these were suspect and removed, those are now equally suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I have nothing to do with the first sources from 2009. So there is no correlation between these and my new sources. Yes, they were horrible sources but I hadn't read them and I didn't put them they were already when I came here. All my sources say it is the greatest rivalry ever because most of them were after the Australain Open final in 2017. If you only speak English that's not my problem. Second, Naoko splicitly said that Nadal-Federer is the greatest rivalry in tennis. It doesn't say "it is the greatest rivalry in tennis for the last 15 years", and it doesn't say "it is the greatest rivalry in tennis right now". It clearly says is is the greatest rivalry of tennis (in general). So stop giving the text your own interpretation and deliberaty being misleading.(talk) 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs)

I see your point Fyunck(click). "Many" or "some" may be vague as it can mean either "many commentators" or "many tennis followers". The latter would be an extrapolation of the sources, e.g. if "some" commentators call it the greatest rivalry, then probably "many" (thousands, millions) fans may think so too, but that is speculation. To avoid this we can be more specific and explicitly mention "commentators" or a similar term. "Several" is another option in between "some" and "many". "Several commentators" would be my preference. Gap9551 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/tennis/numbers-federer-vs-nadal-greatest-rivalry-tennis//

Here is the Wikipedia source he is deleting. The author clearly says it is "the greatest rivalry in tennis" (in general). It doesn't say it is the best rivalry in the last 15 years, the best rivalry since Agassi-Sampras, or the best rivalry right now. It says it is the greatest rivalry in tennis.

Gap9551 (talk) I really appreciate the fact that you participate in this debate always with a very relaxed style, without being aggresive and trying to be collaborative. With regard to "several", according to the Oxford Dictionary several means "More than two but not many". I don't think this term is perfect for the situation. It can be used as a synonym with a few. "More than two but not many" can be 3 or 4 literally.

Oxford Dictionary definition of several:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/several

I have seen that Messi Wikipedia article says he is considered by "many" to be the greatest football player of all time (and that is controversial), I have seen that Federer Wikipedia article says Federer is considererd by "many" to be the greatest tennis player ever (not controversial I think), Maradona is described as being considered by "many" to be the greatest player ever (controversial), and Pele is even said to be "widely" considered the greatest player in football history (controversial). My point is that the term "many" is correct for this situation. It's true that many consider Fedal the greatest rivalry. We could even put that is "widely" considered the best rivalry but I don't put it because I prefer to be more moderate and objective. James343e (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

I'm not sure how you are getting all the way from "the greatest rivalry in tennis" to "the greatest rivalry in the history of tennis." It does not not say or imply that. It is talking about these days in tennis and in that respect it is correct. It isn't even close to being widely regarded. My gosh Evert/Navratilova crushes it without even blinking. Of course after Australia you will get some pundits lauding over the match and saying things that stretch the truth, but as always when it settles down and reality sets in, the historians rank it among the best but not the best. I happen to like some better than several because I think "several" implies more than two and usually 3-5. But now we have a source that is completely bogus for a heavily read article, not a good thing for wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the author couldn't be talking about the greatest rivalry at the moment obviously. They had been 6 consecutive years without facing each other in a single Grand Slam final, so obviously the author was talking in a broad sense about their career and saying it is the greatest tennis rivalry in tennis (in general). The author doesn't say at the moment or in the las 15 or 20 years.

"Widely" is close because Federer and Nadal are the two tennis players with more Grand Slams of all time, and they faced each other in the same generation, and they played the legendary Wimbledon 2008 final, widely regarded as the greatest tennis match ever. But I agree many is better than widely to be more objective. "Several" is not used in almost any single sport article discusing greatness. Try to write that "several" people consider Messi, Federer or Maradona the greatest ever in their respective Wikipedia articles. The editors will delete your changes. They will not accept "several" because it can be used as a synonym with a few. James343e (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Nor does he say "ever" or "in history." It was a general comment that their rivalry is the best in tennis these days. And there goes that widely again with the 2008 Wimbledon final. I've never seen widely thrown out so casually as with a lot of these tennis articles. However I would say that the 2008 Wimbledon final probably does merit the term "widely" although the Djokovic vs Nadal 2012 Australian final is also "widely" regarded the goat, not to mention the final that really made tennis in the US, Rosewall/Laver in the 1972 Tour Final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you are so skeptical, I will put the exact sentence where I taked any single source from and I will translate it here in the talk page when I found time in the next hours. Give me time. James343e (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

I am only skeptical because some sources were wrong before and one English source that remains is still wrong. So what are we supposed to think about sources in a foreign language that were also added? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

This topic of this article's neutrality has been raised many times before and my feeling is that the issue now needs to be taken to dispute resolution. Specifically, the part that seems to have caused endless disagreement is the "Significant Aspects" section. A huge chunk of this section is given over to an entirely one-sided attempt to provide "mitigating circumstances" (aka excuses) for the fact that Federer has lost most of the matches in the rivalry. The clear implication is that Nadal only leads because of matches played in circumstances that were somehow unfavourable to Federer, eg when he was injured or ill playing on a surface he didn't like. One part in particular, in which an attempt is made to diminish the importance of every single match played in 2008 and 2013 (thus eliminating Nadal's most successful years), is the most blatant example of cherrypicking I've seen in the whole of Wikipedia. It's almost beyond parody. What's demonstrably non-neutral about the section is that there is no attempt to balance the scales, eg by referring to Nadal's injuries, which if anything have been more numerous (and better documented).

The obvious solution is to cut all references that insinuate that results would have or could have been different if the matches had been played in other circumstances. As they say in Australia "if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle". However, when I proposed cutting those references a few years back, I met with a brick wall of intransigence. So as an interim solution, I've added some other (sourced) content to redress at least some of the imbalance. However, the section still focuses disproportionately on the reasons/excuses why Federer lost his matches. It also still contains blatantly non-neutral language such as the suggestion that Nadal's dominance on clay "masks" the rest of the H2H. Do I even need to explain why "masks" is not an appropriate word in the context of a Wikipedia article?

Perhaps there can still be a compromise. I certainly hope so. But assuming there can't be, I propose taking this to dispute resolution. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Significant aspects section, there are too many back and forth statements. First Federer is said to have been ill in 2008, then it is said he was healthy in March, and therefore during the four matches they played that year. If he wasn't ill, then there is no need to mention it in the first place. Then, However, given that there is no evidence that any of the matches in either 2008 or 2013 was affected by injury or illness, there is no obvious reason why either year should be discounted from the record. should either be removed if it is wrong for either year, or if it is true, then the whole illness discussion needs to be removed. We Wikipedians are not in the business of "discounting matches". For balanced coverage, if Nadal's injuries affected some of their matches, that needs to be specified in the same way as for Federer. Overall, however, I'd prefer to replace the whole illness/injury discussion with a one-paragraph statement (if that), something like There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from blahblah for a while in 2008 and 2013, while Nadal was injured blahblah in 2012 and 20xx. For these reasons they did not meet for x amount of time in years 20yy and 20zz, and they may not have been fully fit during some of their matches. Gap9551 (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I left most of it but some was not correct. The Emerson quote was not about Federer so was removed. I noted it was a blog in one source, and there is evidence given by Federer's trainer. Also, Nadal's losses to Federer while injured are perfectly acceptable but as pointed out by others it can't be when Nadal was not playing. It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be more willingness to compromise, which I'm pleasantly surprised by. Some points I'd note. Of course the Emerson quote was not about Federer, in fact Federer wasn't even born when it was made. However, it was used by the writer in connection with Federer. That is crystal clear. There is no prohibition on such usage. Eg the article on the Challenger disaster quotes Reagan's famous use of the phrase "slipped the surly bonds of earth", written decades before the shuttle programme began. What's more, the Emerson quote was about players who play and then say they were injured. As such it could scarcely be more relevant to the case under consideration. Anyway, the source applies the quote to Federer so that's all that matters. I'm happy to specify that the quote was not originally made about Federer but if there are any other reasons not to use it please say so asap. (My own preference is that we just cut the whole injury/illness discussion, whose only purpose is to cast doubt over the value of certain matches. If there's any other purpose to it, please advise.)

Other minor points - why change "a number of" writers to "a few" writers? Elsewhere it says that "many" have suggested that Federer was hampered by mono in his matches with Nadal, but only two sources are cited (neither of which explicitly mentions the Nadal matches, incidentally). I cited three. If two people are "many", why are three "a few"? Please be as specific as possible because that doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense. Also, why the insistence on stating that the Kevin Mitchell column was a blog? KM is the longstanding tennis correspondent of the Guardian, the column was published on the Guardian's website. I wasn't aware that every time someone said something in a blog it had to be identified as such. If so, a lot of Wikipedia articles will need to be changed, including this one, which cites numerous blogs. Why single out this example? Again, please be as specific as possible because, again, this looks like selective policymaking.

Lastly, I note that the reference to the 2008 Wimbledon final as being widely considered "the greatest match" has been changed to "one of the greatest matches". However, the sources explicitly and repeatedly state that it was "the greatest match", not "one of the greatest matches". Why the change? 80.111.18.25 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Emerson quote really has no place here. It does not add to the article imho. As for "some" or "many", some is better in both cases. It's listed as a blog and that is usually quite different than an article. Usually blogs aren't used as sources at all... but I left it in and mentioned it was a blog as a compromise. That greatest match baloney is extremely subjective. I can find dozens of examples of different greatest matches of all time. It is either one of the greatest matches or some consider it to be the greatest match of all-time. Finally your "willingness to compromise" statement is ridiculous and silly as I have been compromising over and over and over. The non-compromisers have been on the Nadal-side of things with overt blanking, edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think the Emerson quote has much value here. Gap9551 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A note to improve interaction: there is no need to ask other editors to "say so asap" or repeatedly ask to "be as specific as possible", or express surprise at what other editors are writing. Talk page guidelines already demand clarity, and Wikipedia is a volunteering project with nobody required to do anything "soon". Gap9551 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, point taken, there's no need to ask for specificity. But I'm not sure how best to deal with answers that are not specific. I suppose I'll just ask again. Here goes.

Since the sources clearly state that the 2008 final was "the greatest ever", why the insistence on distorting them to suggest they say it was merely "one of the greatest"? All four sources state categorically that it was the greatest ever, and one of them says it was the greatest ever "by a mile". How many sources do we need? Here's a suggestion: pick any match other than 2008 that has been described as the greatest ever and for every source to that effect I'll find two that say 08 was the greatest. Is that enough, or do we need to set the bar higher?

Since numerous blogs are used without needing to be identified as such all over Wikipedia, why the insistence on such identification in this instance? There are multiple blogs used as sources in this very article, and the Guardian piece is the only one identified as such. Why the sudden change of policy?

As to the Emerson quote, if that's the current consensus then so be it but if so then we need something else to balance this article, which, I note on re-reading, is extraordinarily non-neutral. It's been a while since I read it from start to finish but, having just done so, it's shocking. Almost every section has some attempt to devalue Nadal's wins. Either it's the surface or Federer's injury or the fact that Nadal didn't make US Open finals (conveniently sourced with an 8-yr-old article written before the three finals Nadal made that Federer missed). When Federer wins a set 6-0 it's a "bagel", when Nadal wins a set 6-0 it's ... oh, it's not mentioned. Etc etc. Also the mono claim is repeated without challenge elsewhere, where it's extended not just for the whole of 2008 but into 2009. Ludicrously, the same New York Times article that says Federer was over mono by March 2008 is used in support of this 2009 claim. I could go on but life's too short. Maybe we need dispute resolution after all. 80.111.18.25 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Since those 4 sources said it was the greatest ever we can certainly say "a few call it the greatest ever." We could go so far as to say that "some call it the greatest ever." As I said we can be flexible in how we go about it. With the blog, there is no hard and fast policy on it. For my money I'd remove the whole sentence and not use the term blog. I haven't read the whole article since I've been concentrating on keeping a balance on this particular section between Nadal-fan and Federer-fan editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Especially given the disputes surrounding this article, we need to be strict with sourcing. If someone is claimed to be ill in 2009 without source, by all means remove it. I adjusted that US Open finals statement, which was certainly outdated. Feel free to rephrase. As for missed opportunities; in two months, one may add that Federer skipped almost the entire European clay season without being injured, with clay being Nadal's best surface. Then again, I'm not a fan of including detailed excuses for either player. Gap9551 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: blog - interesting idea of what constitutes compromise. Take out the reference to it being a blog by ... removing it altogether. If I might respectfully return to the question I actually asked. Since none of the other blogs in this article are referred to as such, why does this one have to be?

Re: final in 08, again, if I might courteously request an answer to my question. How many references to it being the greatest ever do we need? Will ten do? It's not just that there are so many sources that say 08 was the greatest, it's the extent to which it dwarfs all other matches in this respect. Re: the "dozens" of other matches supposedly in the same league, if anyone can find even one - not dozens but one - that has half as many references as "the greatest of all time" as 2008, I will be more than happy to concede this point. But no other match comes close. Yes there are others (mainly Borg-McEnroe) with their advocates but none of them has been cited half as often as Nadal-Federer 08. Even Borg and McEnroe themselves agree 08 was greater. Books have been written about 08. Every ball broadcast by both the American and the British TV channels (and probably others) that covered it has been released on multi-disc DVDs. One sportswriter described it as not merely the greatest tennis match ever but the greatest sporting event ever. It strikes me as utterly bizarre to suggest that any other match comes close but, like I say, if anyone wants to come up with a challenger I'd be more than happy to consider the evidence.

Re: the article in its entirety, I assume we can at least agree that we don't need more than one discussion of mono, injuries etc. As discussed above it's debatable whether mono or injuries affected even one of the matches in the rivalry, so given that we already have a massive discussion of these issues in the Significant Aspects section, I assume we don't need further discussion elsewhere. At the moment, they are cropping up all over the place. Eg in the 2013 section, there are three references to Federer's back injury within the space of five paragraphs! If we do need to have these injury/illness discussions multiple times, then they need to be balanced each time. Given how long the article is already, I'm going to go ahead and assume we don't want even more bloat. So I'll adjust the other bits accordingly, and leave the Significant Aspects section as is for now (other than changing the "a few writers" to "some", as previously agreed). I'm also going to take out some of the more obvious and risible bits of bias, such as the reference to the "dazzling, crisply hit groundstrokes" played by Federer in a match he lost "despite having had openings on Nadal's service games". That is a prime example of what I've been talking about all along, namely that this entire article, from top to bottom, is riddled with laugh-out-loud bias. Anyone who can read purple prose like that and still not understand my frustrations with this article is, I would respectfully submit, not trying hard enough. If that sentence is neutral then the word has lost its meaning. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem for me with most of the new edits by Brooklyn Eagle, though I did re-add two sources. I would have kept "a few" since i think it's more accurate in this case, but "some" can also work. As for the number of sources needed for "greatest ever", it's not just a question of number. It's also a question of other matches being considered the greatest. If there are 100 sources that say it's the greatest, but there are 50 or 100 other sources that say something else is the greatest, then none of those are widely held as the greatest. We would use "some." Some is also much easier to source, since editors can throw out 3–5 sources and say "some." We also have to take context into it. There is much more press coverage today then 40 years ago. It's easy to look up 50 sports sections and see the same thing many times, where we don't have as much of that from the 70s. We have to pay for newspaper or magazine archive retrieval. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm evidently not going to get an answer to my question about blogs so, as life's too short, I'm simply going to give up, albeit with some frustration. Re: "a few" being "more accurate", that is bizarre. As discussed above, the mono discussion refers to "some" (and originally referred to "many") yet only two sources are provided. Yet the counterargument, with three sources, should be "a few"? I appreciate that "some" stands but the continued suggestion that "a few" is more accurate is startling.

Re: Wimbledon 08, I have already addressed precisely that argument. It's not just that there are so many sources describing 08 as "the greatest", it's that that number is so much higher than for any other match. I repeat, if anyone can name a single match that has been cited half as often, I'm happy to concede this point. Re: newspapers from the 70s etc, that argument seems back to front. An earlier match is likely to have MORE citations as "the greatest", not fewer, since it has had longer to collect such accolades. In any case, an article from, say, 1980 saying that the Borg-McEnroe final was "the greatest" would, of course, be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It would be like attempting to rebut the argument that Federer is the greatest player by referring to an article from 2002 saying that Sampras is the greatest.

I was (and remain) prepared to let the Emerson quote go, even though it's directly relevant and sourced, and I'm also prepared to leave in the selective insistence on referring to one of the sources as a blog (despite the clear implication that it's just the private ramblings of some random amateur on blogspot rather than what it actually is, namely the opinion of an experienced tennis journalist on the website of one of the world's most respected media outlets). But I'm less willing to concede this point. Without at least some evidence that there are any other tennis matches that have been referred to as "the greatest" remotely as often as 08, I think we should just revert to referring to 08 in the way that it's described by all four sources, namely, as the greatest. If we need more sources, fine. As I said previously, I'll get the number up to ten, which clearly constitutes "many" in most areas of Wikipedia, very definitely including articles about tennis. And as I also said, if someone comes up with another match that compares, I'll consider that too. I think that's a reasonable suggestion for a situation that, while not quite akin to having to prove the sky is blue, is heading in that direction. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this gets tiring after awhile. When something derogatory gets written about a player in a blog, I would say that the fact it IS a blog should be mentioned (if for any reason the line isn't thrown out completely). The fact that the 2008 match gets mentioned more than any other single match is 100% irrelevant to the term "widely." It would need to be mentioned mush more than all other matches combined to be coined as "widely considered the greatest." I saw sources for the Nadal/Djokovic Australian final, the Gonzales/Pasarell Wimbledon match, the Borg/McEnroe match, the '36 Budge/van Cramm match, the Graf/Seles French match, Lenglen/Wills thriller, Laver/Rosewall WTC Dallas event (which was amazing). With something this subjective "some" almost always works best. If everyone else here wants to use "many" it's not like I'm going to faint or something. But "widely considered" is way over the top. And earlier matches get forgotten quickly since so many young writers go by the mantra that current era is always best. When there's 10-15 years between a player retiring and a press article, things tend to settle down about how great they were. It's just natural. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, we're both tired of this. At least we agree on that. So let's proceed to some sort of concrete criterion so that we can settle this once and for all. You say that "it would need to be mentioned more than all other matches combined to be considered 'widely'". Is that something you have just made up or is it official Wikipedia policy? Apart from anything else, it is, to put it politely, somewhat unrealistic. (Assuming it's even possible.) How would anyone ever be able to meet that standard? Are you seriously suggesting we track down every single reference ever made and then find out whether one match outnumbers all the others combined? Seriously?

In any case, I'm more than happy with "many". Many is used time and time again throughout tennis articles on Wikipedia, including this one. Eg Federer is described, in this article, as being considered by "many" to be the greatest ever. Three sources are provided, one less than we currently have for the 08 final. But I have no problem with three, because I don't doubt we could get ten more references to Federer as the GOAT, or a hundred more. It's only three because life is too short to get more examples of what every fair minded person knows to be true, namely that many regard him as the greatest. In the next line, Nadal is referred to as being regarded by "many" as the greatest clay courter. Again, three sources are provided. Again, I have no problem whatsoever with that. Again, it seems to me to be clearly the case that "many" regard him as such, and so three for me is plenty. In both cases, three sources serve for the many hundreds of others we could find if we had the time. I see no reason why the 08 final should be treated differently.

In short, neither the dictionary definition of "many" (nor of "widely" for that matter) nor Wikipedia policy, nor precedent, nor custom, nor anything else that I'm aware of prohibit the use of "many" in this instance. But I'm not asking for policy or custom or anything else. I'm asking fellow editors for their concrete suggestions as to what constitutes "many", so that we can reach consensus and not edit-war on this. So can we please agree on an objective and realistic standard for the use of "many" and get this over and done with. I've already made my suggestion, namely that the four we already have are more than enough to justify "many", as with the other uses of "many" in this article. But if four aren't enough, I'm happy to get more. Let's agree on a number and then call it a day. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be the definition of the word "widely." If The Froglegs are widely considered to be the best curling team in history, readers would read that as they are considered the best by easily more than 50% of sources... probably more like 75%. Widely has HUGE connotations and is completely unfit for this article. Federer's sentence should also say "some" instead of "many." I'll go with your use of "many" if it stops all the other nitpicking, but it will wind up changing other great players and rivalry articles to "many" instead of their current use of "some." Others, including myself, will wind up using this article as a template when they start adding "many" to a lot of bios....as what's fair for one is fair for all with this slippery slope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nitpicking" is a cheap shot. If you think that drawing attention to laugh-out-loud absurdity such "dazzling groundstrokes", or to shamefully non-neutral nonsense like "masked", or to decade-old sources for arguments that have been turned upside down by history, or to plain old-fashioned childishness like "bagel", etc etc etc, constitutes "nitpicking" then you evidently think neutrality is a trivial matter. If so, we disagree. As to the rest, I've conceded two of the three points we've spent most time discussing, and my main concern - namely whether it's remotely appropriate for a supposedly neutral article to spend so much time dwelling on issues whose only purpose is to cast doubt on the results of the H2H - hasn't even been acknowledged, let alone discussed.

As to "widely", what "definition" of the word are you referring to? Because it's certainly not the one in the dictionary. Re: your suggestion that the Federer sentence should say that "some" think he's the greatest, have you edited the main Federer article to that effect? I'm going to take a wild guess that you haven't. In fact for a long time I seem to recall that it said "widely", and last I checked it said "many". What it definitely didn't say was "some". And nor should it. He is considered by many - very, very many - to be the greatest ever, in fact I would say he is "widely" so considered. Whether he actually is the greatest is unknowable but that he is widely so considered is, in my view, pretty much a statement of common sense. Ditto Nadal on clay.

Anyway, as I said previously, I'm not pushing for "widely", so, since we seem to be agreed on "many" I'll make the change to that effect.

Update, I note you've already done that. Much appreciated. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Bzzztt... you'd be wrong since I have changed Federer to "some." I do not find him to be widely considered the goat, but I have no problem with many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've acknowledged and agreed with your sentiments about excuses near the start of this section. I'd prefer cutting those discussions back significantly by leaving out many details, like I proposed in the green line above, which merely summarizes the fact that various excuses have been made. All these mentions throughout the article can be grouped into one brief section "Circumstances possibly affecting head to head record" (or something more eloquent). Gap9551 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to post here just how you would change the section so we could take a looksee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a section may be too much and a paragraph may be enough, at the end of Significant Aspects. For example: There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from mononucleosis in early 2008, a back injury in 2013, and a knee injury in the second half of 2016. Nadal has had several injuries throughout his career that among others caused him miss eight Grand Slam tournaments including Wimbledon 2009 and the US Open 2014, where he was the defending champion. This has reduced the number of opportunities for both players to meet at various stages of their respective careers, and when they did meet, one or both players may not have been fully fit. These factors have potentially affected their head-to-head record. (The first sentence is already in the article and what follows could be replaced). With references (that are already in the article) in the proper places for all injury dates, as well as references saying that this may have affected the H2H. Gap9551 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Fyunck(click) - really? You changed Federer to "some"? The actual Federer article, as opposed to just this one? If so I take my hat off to you, and withdraw my suggestion to the contrary. I still think "many" is more appropriate but if you've changed it to some then I salute your consistency.

@ Gap9551 I second that suggestion. And yes, I appreciate that you did previously suggest that less time be spent on the whole mono / injury discussion. In the Talk pages we're corresponding with multiple people at once, and in this case over a span of a few years (this first cropped up back in 2015), so I'll be more careful in future to be specific. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've done it several times through the years, the last being January 31, 2017. I still think in an encyclopedia "some" works best for all these players and circumstances. "Many" opens up all the other circumstances for the same usage. I disagree with Gaps wording since we have multiple sources on Federer's 2008 sickness and fitness lasting through 2008 not just early 2008. I would also include his Nadal record during that time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree if "early 2008" is replaced with "2008" in my suggestion, and the 4-0 for 2008 is mentioned? Ideally we need sources that directly mention a causal relationship between Federer's 2008 illness to the 4-0 H2H with Nadal, otherwise there is a WP:SYNTHESIS risk. Also, are there matches where Nadal wasn't 100% and lost to Federer with reliable sources? If such matches exist, I think they should be mentioned along with any 4-0 for balance. Gap9551 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and I only mentioned it once. Gap9551 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think those changes would work Gap9551. I have never been a fan of the block quoting and only added some after others did so. I would leave all the sourcing links though so people could read the articles for themselves. There is a mistake in one item you wrote that should be changed. In listing Federer's knee you said "and a knee injury in the second half of 2016." That is wrong. I'm not sure the exact date he injured it but his surgery was on Feb 3, 2016. He took time off after surgery, came back, and finally took off the second half of the year but it was pretty much injured all season (since the Australian Open). So that line should say "and a knee injury throughout 2016." I would agree with the Nadal match balance if such matches could be found. I had checked before and it seemed Nadal either lost in a round before they met or was not in the event at all when he was injured. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I made those changes. I added a source with a list of Nadal's injuries. For now I left out the last paragraph criticizing Federer for making excuses, including those three sources (two of which were from Bleacher Report), but I'm open to reconsidering that. I believe the moral aspect of making excuses isn't relevant in a discussion about the effect of injuries on the H2H record. It was also unbalanced; I believe Nadal has mentioned injuries too after losses. Gap9551 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say "2008" rather than "early 2008", and then follow it up with "he lost all four of his matches with Nadal that year", there's a very clear implication that the Nadal matches were affected. That is highly contentious, and actually is a claim that not even Federer himself has ever made. Apart from anything else, it flies in the face of the evidence (the further he got from mono, the worse his results vs Nadal - the first two matches of the year were relatively close, followed by his heaviest ever defeat and his first ever loss to Nadal on grass). So for balance we need to include the references (from Federer himself!) that say he was over it by March. No one knows, or will ever know, how many of his matches were affected by mono. So I suggest we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide. This can be done relatively briefly and still leaves us with a far shorter article than before.

Otherwise we seem to be agreed. I'm happy to lose all the stuff about Federer's excuses - the only reason they were there was because these excuses were recycled at such length here. But now that they've been edited to what seems a more appropriate size, the reference to his excuses is no longer needed. Re: "morality", I don't suppose we need to get into a debate about it since we've now reached consensus but, purely for the record, the point of the references was that it is generally considered bad form in tennis (at every level) to cite injury/illness after a loss, just as it's considered bad form to argue with umpires (discussed at length in the McEnroe article) and to "tank" (Kyrgios article). It's relevant to the H2H because if one player breaks this protocol, and in so doing casts doubt on the record, while the other observes the protocol, it penalises the latter (by suggesting that his wins were less valuable). I think a clear distinction can be made between Federer and Nadal in this regard. Federer has fallen out with a number of players over his excuses, most notably Berdych but also Murray (who was furious about the mono excuse) and Djokovic (who according to Federer only won by hitting "a lucky shot"). As to Nadal citing injuries, he very rarely blames specific losses on them, and has often been praised for not doing so. Eg he was widely praised for his refusal to say he was injured vs Rosol in 2012, despite clearly being sub par and then missing seven months (including carrying the flag at the Olympics). Ditto vs Soderling in RG 09 (again despite widespread suspicion he wasn't 100pc, and again despite this being his last match before a significant lay-off, including not being able to defend his first Wimbledon title).

Like I say, that's just for the record. Every player has his strengths and weaknesses, personality-wise as well as tennis-wise. And just as Nadal is clearly the worst offender when it comes to time violations, and has rightly been criticised for this, Federer is clearly more prone to making excuses for losses.

Lastly, I've slightly changed the wording about Nadal's lead in the H2H being "built" on the clay dominance. I don't think "built" is the right word for a neutral article but since we seem to be agreed on the rest I'll leave it, albeit slightly re-worded to clarify that it's not just about clay. If he were hopeless on other surfaces he would be behind in the H2H. I also think there's an issue with dividing the H2H into clay and non-clay, as if clay-court tennis were a different sport. One could equally say that grass court tennis is a different sport (indeed it would arguably be more true to say so, given that so few people have ever played on grass, and that so few tournaments are played on it), but I doubt anyone would accept the grass court record being ghettoised in that way. By way of illustration, I wonder if anyone would accept the Grand Slam Comparison section being changed to say the following: "Federer's lead in grand slams won is built on his dominance on grass. On all other surfaces, Nadal leads by 12 grand slams to 11". I'm guessing that wouldn't be a popular thing to say. And yet the logic is identical.

Anyway, I'm leaving it in, just re-worded for absolute clarity. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want the actual sources re-added, I'm ok with that. But the object of Gap edit was to make it short and sweet. If you add what Federer said then we also have to add what Courier said and what Pierre Paganini said. We can do that, and make it a bit longer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the rephrased "clay dominance" paragraph. It is worth pointing out the deeper origin of his H2H lead but obviously without somehow discrediting clay. I believe that paragraph originates from the days that over 50% of their matches had been played on clay, and it was argued that this surface was overrepresented in their meetings. That issue has been largely "solved" with them meeting mostly on hard courts in recent years.

As for excuses, you only list excuses for losses by Federer to other players. For the purposes of this article, excuses Federer made for losses to Nadal would be better. (Although admittedly this article does already discuss more general aspects of their careers, like slam count, which do not immediately relate to their meetings). I think the more general excuse issue is more appropriate for the Federer article. For the record, Nadal and his coach aren't afraid to state Nadal was injured during losses, including Rosol, but usually not right after the match. But we're moving to forum stuff now. Gap9551 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm baffled now. It was me who put Courier and Paganini back in! (They were the "some" who said Federer had mono all year long.) And now you've taken them out again. If your objection is to having the words "Federer said he was over it" in the body of the article itself, fair enough, I'll take them out. Alternatively we could balance that by saying "Courier and Paganini said X, Federer and his doctors said Y", though that would obviously be longer. But there's no way we can suggest that he had mono throughout 2008, or that it affected any (let alone all) of his matches with Nadal, as if those were statements of facts. That is contentious and plainly not neutral, and also not what the two sources currently being used say. The bottom line is that some think it lasted all year, some think it didn't, so we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide. If the objection is to the length of the article, again, I'm not sure why the previous version, where the mono discussion was 5x longer, was allowed to stand for so long. If we really want a shorter article, the whole paragraph could be removed. Failing that, the logical compromise is to have one extra sentence that states that there are two opinions on this. Result: neutrality, and a much shorter article than the one we were discussing last week. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You say it but you back it up with the sources. If you say "Federer says this..." then we will also say "Tennis analyst and former No. 1 Jim Courier and Federer's personal trainer Paganini says that..." I would say we go with Gap's shorter version but you can't have one without the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't removing the whole paragraph but many editors prefer to have some discussion of this topic, and the single paragraph may be a reasonable compromise. A concise alternative for the 2008 situation is Federer suffered from mononucleosis in part of, or possibly all, 2008. Or something similar, with all sources. Gap9551 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition on the "record" or "significant achievements" section

Since it is semi-protected, and I don't have the credentials, I suggest the following addition in the "record" section: - In Men's singles, played the Grand Slam final with the most majors combined between the two opponents (31) at the 2017 Australian Open

Neutrality not achieved on "Significant Aspects" section despite "compromise"!

What is wrong with my contribution? It is only fair, for the sake of balance, that the reader know that Nadal's knee injury may have been a factor in his loss to Federer in 2015. After all, it is you who wrote "Also, Nadal's losses to Federer while injured are perfectly acceptable but as pointed out by others it can't be when Nadal was not playing. It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost". That was you! You wrote that at 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC). Moreover, I have removed the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal" because, as Brooklyn Eagle pointed out, "...there's no way we can suggest that he had mono throughout 2008, or that it affected any (let alone all) of his matches with Nadal, as if those were statements of facts. That is contentious and plainly not neutral, and also not what the two sources currently being used say. The bottom line is that some think it lasted all year, some think it didn't, so we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide." That line ("Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal") is overtly trying to suggest to the reader that mono was a factor in those matches wherein Nadal and Federer faced each other in 2008, despite word from Federer HIMSELF to the contrary! 132.185.160.131 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't the knee. There was much compromise on cutting down the size of the section. The 2008 mono is fine as it is with the sourcing it has. I can reword the knee issue after I fully read the sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I read the sourcing. The minute by minute source was odd but I left it in. I simply said Nadal was injured in the 2015 final and let the sources do the rest of the work. We didn't need the rest of the flower. That injury was a good find by the way. The rest of the mono stuff was already talked about here and worked well as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "The 2008 mono is fine as it is with the sourcing it has". I beg to differ, as the way it is drafted heavily insinuates that mono was a factor in Federer's matches against Nadal in '08. Re "I can reword the knee issue after I fully read the sourcing. ", fee free to do so, but know that I will edit your edit if I think it is unfair and/or unsatisfactory. 132.185.160.130 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "I simply said Nadal was injured in the 2015 final and let the sources do the rest of the work. We didn't need the rest of the flower". I disagree with this. You said at 05:39 on 6 April that "It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost". Unlike the mono excuse, it is sourced that Rafa was injured when he lost that match in 2015 to Federer. Therefore, my original wording should stay. Re "The rest of the mono stuff was already talked about here and worked well as is.", I respectfully disagree. The rest of the mono stuff is clearly designed to make the reader think mono was a factor in those matches against Nadal in 2008. There is no evidence for that. Now, we should include the mono stuff, but it is not for us to make the argument that it may or may not have influenced their matches. We simply state it and let the reader decide. Your wording does not do that. Your wording is actively trying to push a narrative. That violates the NPOV.132.185.160.130 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Re the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal"; this line is profoundly problematic. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst it is leading (as in "leading question"). Correlation does not imply causation: events which coincide with each other are not necessarily caused by each other. So, the coincidence of Federer's four losses to Nadal in 2008 was not necessarily caused by his short bout with mono in the same year. The wording of the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal", however, seems to be intent on doing just that - i.e. imply causation from correlation.132.185.161.130 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Then convinse us before re-adding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who's "us" that I need to convince? 132.185.160.127 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, I am not averse to Gap9551's suggested draft: "There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from mononucleosis in early 2008, a back injury in 2013, and a knee injury in the second half of 2016. Nadal has had several injuries throughout his career that among others caused him miss eight Grand Slam tournaments including Wimbledon 2009 and the US Open 2014, where he was the defending champion. This has reduced the number of opportunities for both players to meet at various stages of their respective careers, and when they did meet, one or both players may not have been fully fit. These factors have potentially affected their head-to-head record." I have also reviewed the exchange between yourself, Gap9551 and Brooklyn Eagle, and it doesn't seem to me like a compromise was reached,; or at least, the compromise that was reached, which is Gap9551's draft (reproduced above), is not what is reflected on the page as it is. 132.185.161.126 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I am unable to verify your Paganini source. The your link (http://gototennis.com/2009/10/27/pierre-paganini-on-roger-federer-as-long-as-he-plays-he-will-be-strong/) appears to be a link some sort of a search engine. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I can't find your source to verify its content and I'd like to be able to verify its content. So, could you please provide a working link to the Pierre Paganini statement? Thanks. In the means, I will remove it.132.185.161.126 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a new editor, the same editor with a different IP, or a blocked editor trying to step in. No way to know. We can go back to the pre-draft and work on things, but we are not just putting in your version of the situation without discussion and agreement. That is not the way wikipedia works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with my version? And please, I will not take lectures on the "the way Wikipedia works" from you. I have said that we should take this to dispute resolution as it appears that we are at an impasse, but you seem to be averse to that. I contend that you are trying to skew that section in Federer's favour. Every edit you have made to that sections teems with bias in Federer's favour. I am simply trying to avoid that and present a paragraph that isn't biased in either player's favour. You seem to be against this. In that case, let us bring this to dispute resolution or this will just keep going on. 132.185.160.125 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which person I'm talking to right now, but hey, if everyone else loves what you changed I'm not going to worry about it. As far as the "every edit" comment, that's just baloney and fabrication on your part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federer–Nadal rivalry. 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/20140328101203/http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/03/13/Miami-Roger-Rafa-10-Years-Rivalry.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/03/13/Miami-Roger-Rafa-10-Years-Rivalry.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/rafael-nadal-retakes-king-of-clay-title-with-french-open-win-060610
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20110702070703/http%3A//tennisology101.com%3A80/2011/06/10/federer-nadal-the-head-to-head-anomoly-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"By age" timeline

There is an error in the "by age" comparison timeline. Some results have already been filled in in the age 36 fields for Roger Federer even though he only turns 36 next month.Tvx1 18:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It says "Age at end of season". Gap9551 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Federer–Nadal rivalry. 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/20090325052656/http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.asp?playernumber=N409&selyear=2004 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.asp?playernumber=N409&selyear=2004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210102305/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3474615&name=bodo_peter to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3474615&name=bodo_peter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215150601/http://tennis.com/tournaments/2009/australianopen/australianopen.aspx?id=163418 to http://www.tennis.com/tournaments/2009/australianopen/australianopen.aspx?id=163418
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521114118/http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=173768 to http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=173768
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228214006/http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/02/26/10107056.html to http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/02/26/10107056.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410070716/http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2934/stories/20060826016200400.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2934/stories/20060826016200400.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026225909/http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=154026 to http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=154026

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Indoor/outdoor event

Per the ATP, Shanghai was an outdoor event. It lists Roger Federer as having won no indoor finals in 2017 and it also lists him as having played no indoor tournaments at all. Unless it can be shown by the ATP/ITF that his record is different, the Shanghai final with a closed roof should follow their official results. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong, the ATP officially list that match as outdoor:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409

However, I included an asterysk to specify that the Shanghai final was played on indoor HC due to rain. The reader will not know that data if we do not specify it. It's my last change today with good faith. I won't make any more editions in the next 24 hours. I hope I will not be blocked but I assume maybe you decide to to do it due to my 4th edition in one day. James343e(click) (talk)

You could be blocked for edit warring on this topic 9x in a week with multiple editors. 4 reverts in one day is only one of the factors for getting blocked. You revert one time ONLY, and then bring it to talk to convince others or come to a compromise. You do not keep reverting! An asterisk is not a bad idea however we do not know the definition of "indoor hard court" as defined by the ATP or ITF. It may not actually be an indoor hard court per their rules just because a retractable roof closes. It is still a long way from something like Madison Square Garden which is always indoors. The only source we really have is the ATP telling us the event final was played outdoor hard court per their listing. That's all we officially have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you prefer "roof closed" for me is OK. I'm happy to see we came to an agreement. James343e(click) (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to just me... others reverted you many many times before I came along. They may not agree with any of that asterisk addition, but it seemed ok with me and it got you to stop the disruptive editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federer–Nadal rivalry. 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/20090406212417/http://www.inthenews.co.uk/wimbledon/profile/sport/features/wimbledon-profile-men/rafael-nadal-runner-up-$1101912.htm to http://www.inthenews.co.uk/wimbledon/profile/sport/features/wimbledon-profile-men/rafael-nadal-runner-up-$1101912.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512050646/http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/08/andre-agassi-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever/ to http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/08/andre-agassi-rafael-nadal-greatest-tennis-player-ever/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)