Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Duplicating records

I have removed records which were being duplicated in the records section of the article there is no need for them to be added twice its confusing.--Navops47 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Stats verify

The ATP site shows W-L as 691-146, whereas this article shows wins as 698.--Billymac00 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's because it hasn't been updated to include Djokovic's seven recent AO wins. 23 editor (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

"He would complete a career Grand Slam if he wins the French Open." wins or won? 2a02:1811:3502:6600:c473:c6a1:907d:c023 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"wins". Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Please change "He is considered one of the greatest players of all time" to "He is considered one of the greatest players of all time, with some considering Djokovic to be the greatest of all time." Citations: (1) http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/15452386/tennis-rod-laver-comes-goat-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-equal (2) http://www.foxsports.com/tennis/story/novak-djokovic-grand-slam-ranking-points-roger-federer-andy-murray-no-1-033116 (3) http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/novak-djokovic-federer-nadal-greatest-ever/ (4) http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/ Ohdarke (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think the number of refs at the note is already very high and people will get the point. Per WP:PEACOCK, no need to emphasize it. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Novak Djokovic. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://family-sport.com/en/about.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

27 masters won now, tied with Rafa

I can't change this because the page is protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Now 28.

Money leader

Add that he is number one all time money list, not federer Joelstevenwright (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Activism or 2016 section?

I wasn't sure where to put the fact that Djokovic has come under a bit of fire for his comments about ATP vs WTA payouts. I added three sources but could have made it 50 sources. I thought about its own section but that seemed too much to me. It could go under his 2016 section? I left it at one sentence as opposed to writing a paragraph on all the details, figuring that the sources would take care of that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the encyclopedia, is nothing controversial. Why are you making a case where it does not? Why Djokovic? You felt bad that he is the world's no1 and probably best tennis player in history, and you rooting for Federer!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What? I actually have no problem with what he said, but the world of sports seems to see it differently. It was only a single sentence but I will bring this up at Tennis Project since you object to a single sentence. They may want a lot more than i put in, since I was keeping it very brief. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is that a threat? And stop to satanism Djokovic, you always do, hidden and open...--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is coming from. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? I love watching Djokovic, there is none close to being better right now. But there is a minor controversy over the last couple days. That's why I thought a singles sentence. As for a threat to bring it up at Tennis Project... no... it's a promise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

From you, the hatred, you much hated Djokovic, so you doing this. I see no other reason for this.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess every sports newspaper and magazine in the world must have that same hatred because everyone is covering it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the encyclopedia, and nothing controversial. Just stop. No need for a new one. Encyclopedia is not newspaper.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is why it was only a single sentence. Maybe you're right that no one else at wikipedia thinks it's even a minor controversy despite the sourcing, and it's why I asked for others to chime in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so much failure to assume good faith. Soundwaweserb, cut the crap. methinks, based on the username, that there's a nationalistic bent to this incoherent rant. As for the controversy, I see some possible value in mentioning it in brief, as it has been widely reported, but nothing too much, as that would be an issue of RECENTISM and UNDUE. oknazevad (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that it's still being discussed with Kuznetsova now weighing in, as is The Miami Herald and US Soccer squad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And now also Billie Jean King wading in at CNN. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Many players talked about this topic,its just a little case,and Djokovic didn't said anything controversial.Andy Murray said it was unfair for men that women just play best of three set matches.So why don't you write down this on Murray's page?--Chinyen Lu (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know all the sources but if true, a single sentence that Murray thinks the women should play best of 5 (or men should play best of 3) would not be out of line. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also April 7 Tennis Magazine and April 8 ESPN. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Please change: Djokovic is tied with Rafael Nadal for an all-time record 28 Masters 1000 series titles

to

Djokovic stands alone with an all-time record 29 Masters 1000 series titles

Because of (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36240820)

Ritesh Sonawala (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Marko Djokovic

Novak's brother Marko is not an active tennis player. That shall be mentioned in the article.--178.223.78.167 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is that important for the article about Novak? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

change 29 masters to 30 in intro. he won again today http://www.rogerscup.com/match-detail/?id=MS001&from=live

98.204.228.159 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Already done Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Under career statistics 2011, the sum of matches won and loss should be 26-1 and not 25-1 61.12.40.177 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done 25–1 is correct. 7–0, 4–1, 7–0, 7–0 adds up to 25–1. Remember that walkovers count for nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

ATP WT

"he has won the ATP World Tour Finals five times (four of which he won consecutively, which is an Open Era record)" Actually it's an absolute record, since Open Era began before ATP World Tour. Alex. 93.35.1.140 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

Novak now has 29 masters 1000, no longer tied with Rafa. (Nadal page shoul b updated too.) 98.204.228.159 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Music1201 ^talk 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done This was done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Career earnings are 104,500,000 Joelstevenwright (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

Sanja263 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) can you change the picture

Can you specify which picture would be better? Gap9551 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

There was an image in the infobox that was pretty good... a profile upper body shot. I'm not sure why it was changed to a full body shadowed face image and then another weird faced full body image. I guess the perfect shot is an upper body head shot looking to the left instead of the right, but if there's consensus to change, let's see if we can find a better one than these weird images. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is better image [1]? What are you want?--Soundwaweserb (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It means you can change the images but others can't. ：）--Chinyen Lu (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That image is fine...but I wish he was looking the other direction. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Revision of detail needed

The section titled "Coaching, diet and personal team" says,"Djokovic made another addition to his team – nutritionist Igor Četojević who additionally focuses on Chinese medicine and does acupuncture" and then goes on to claim that "He discovered the tennis player suffers from gluten intolerance and cannot eat gluten, purging it from his diet." The problem with this is that it has not been mentioned how that diagnosis was made, especially because acupuncturists are typically not trained to make medical diagnoses of gluten allergy. I found this report which tells me that applied kinesiology was used to make that diagnosis, but I wonder if anyone has a better source to cite from. Applied kinesiology is not a medically approved method of making a diagnosis for gluten sensitivity. My concern is that this incomplete piece of information about Djokovic's "diagnosed" gluten intolerance might mislead readers, which is not what an encyclopedia should do. Knaveknight (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is more here and a lot at the Wall Street Journal article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid neither source mentions the name of the actual technique used by his nutritionist to detect gluten sensitivity. The WSJ source mentions only ELISA, but even that is not known to be a reliable method for diagnosis of gluten sensitivity. The real question, I think, is whether Novak Djokovic actually has gluten intolerance. Knaveknight (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you want. It mentions two tests used by Dr. Igor Cetojevic to determine Djokovic's problem. They may not be reliable, but it's what was used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just added that the diagnosis was made using applied kinesiology. I hope that's okay. Knaveknight (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Novak's mother

Novak'a mother is of Croatian origin, her family originates from Vinkovci in Croatia. We have two new sources about it Nikola Pilić Interview and Srdjan Djokovic Interview. I know that some people difficult to accept the fact but should not be censorship on Wikipedia. --Suzichi (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

She is not of Croatian origin, please read Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 4#Nationality and Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 4#"Croats of Serbia" category. 5 min. 36 sec. Novak father talking about his family (including Novak's mother): We are Serb, and we always be Serbs no matter where we went. Just stop with lies and stop with croatian nationalist propaganda.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

These are old talks, now we have two new sources. We have sources in Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian language. Show me where it says that his mother is Serbian. His father is talking about Novak's roots not about his mother. You are privatized this article this is not Serbian wikipedia. You trying to cover up the truth.--Suzichi (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You have nothing. Relevant references? No. Reference on english? No. Neutral reference? No. Please, again, stop with lies, and stop with aggressive nationalist propaganda, thank you.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Novak says: ...my mother is Croatian...

Nikola Pilić says: You may not know, but his (Novak) mother is Croatian.

Srdan Djoković says: The truth is that my wife is Croatian...

Soundwaweserb you're funny, and don't understand Wikipedia. On Wikipedia discussing with the facts. What are for you neutral and relevant references? You're talking about something that you do not know. And again and again the same of course with the insults. --Suzichi (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you are insult us, with all lies. She never said about her nationality, never said that she is Croatian. Nobody talked about her nationality. No relevant references, no reference on english, no neutral reference. Just stop man, she is Serbian, born in Serbia (Belgrade), and that's a fact. Deal with it and move on.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

OMG! This becomes painfully, how much ignorance. Her husband says she is Croatian. References in Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian language, are for you neutral reference. "Nobody talked about her nationality." Are you reading what I am writing?. "she is Serbian" Where does it say? Show me. --Suzichi (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzichi, you talk about some sources, but where have you presented them? I dont see them in your first comment. FkpCascais (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzichi here's one secondary source from previous discussions that can help you.

Novak says: ...My mother in a Croat from Vinkovci, and father Monteneigran...[2]

Searcher11 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Are you serious? Slobodna dalmacija is the yellow press, irrelevant source. Wikipedia does not deal with lies and sensationalism, and all your and Suzichi references are irrelevant.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No. The source is so relevant that I won't waste a second on your smear. I don't have feelings either way. Seeing you and others getting nervous so much because you realize that you are wrong, even if you manage to push your view, is enough for me. Searcher11 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb for you Nikola Pilic and Srdjan Djokovic are liars? Why would Srdjan Djokovic said that his wife a Croat? Also please do fix article about Slobodna Dalmacija and prove that the tabloids. You have no a single source that contradicts my evidence. --Suzichi (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

| Slobodna Dalmacija is a prominent Croatian daily and that's well known. Suzichi don't fall into his "guilty until proven innocent" scheme. Burden of proof for his claim is on him and he has provided nothing but a smear. It's a long way to prove that a prominent Croatian daily has faked an interview. The source is so credible that I see no point into searching for further sources, especially when it stands unchallenged against a few smears. Bring this source to non biased editors with a rfc and hope that enough non-biased editors join to outvote this 4 biased Serbian editors that I see here. They won't have sources but they will be aggressive with smears and personal accusations. That sadly works sometimes, especially if you get drawn into answering every smear. Just put the sources forward, they speak for themselves. Searcher11 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

All references are not valid. This is the essence. Do not twist my words, I did not call them liars, they did not give statements about shes nationality. Why it is so important a nation of his mother? Give me one reason? Why? I think, your intentions are malicious. She is born in Serbia, Srdjan state is that she is Serbian like all family 5 min. 36 sec crucial reference. She never talk about nation, never. Those are facts. It is obvious that you are trolls, from now on I will ignore such users like you.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we are not using primary sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research Searcher11 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, nationality Novak's mother is not important. What about Viktor Troicki and tens of thousands others nationality? Yes, she is born in Serbia as Monica Seles so what. You're not telling the truth about youtube source. There is no mention the whole family and especially the mother.--Suzichi (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic celebrates Slava Sveti Arhandjeo Mihael that is connected with middle age Serbian nobility, if he would have croatian or montenegrin origin he would not celebrate that, taht is a tradition celebrated ONLY by the Serbs her is the source that describes what SLAVA is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava ,ergo he is a Serbian and has a serbian origin , that is an evidence that prooves a lot more than some source of Slobodna Dalmacija , newspapers that are spreading lies and recently had a great problems during the EUROPEAN FOOTBALL championship I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how can someone even recognize this newspapers as a relevant source when even an english wiki is writing what kind of a newspapers are.... In May 2005 Slobodna Dalmacija was reprivatised again. This time it was sold to Europapress Holding, making it a sister paper of Jutarnji list. In 2014 it was bought by Marijan Hanžeković along with EPH and became more of a right-wing newspaper. There have been situations where left oriented journalist were forbidden to write what they want (such as Damir Pilić in 2015) and some were fired (such as Boris Dežulović). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodna_Dalmacija, and here is another source that claims that Djokovic is a Serb , in interview for FIGARO HE SAYS I am proud to be a Serb , here is the source http://www.b92.net/sport/rolandgarros2016/vesti.php?yyyy=2016&mm=05&dd=19&nav_id=1133434 , so this discusion has no sence at all 176.6.16.87 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC Novak's mother

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should in the article stand nationality of Novak's mother? Djokovic was born on 22 May 1987 in Belgrade, SR Serbia, Yugoslavia, to parents Srđan and Dijana (née Žagar). be changed to: "Djokovic was born on 22 May 1987 in Belgrade, SR Serbia, Yugoslavia, to parents Srđan and Dijana (née Žagar). His father is Montenegrin and his mother Croatian from Vinkovci--Suzichi (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes This is a notable fact. Although Novak Djokovic is Serbian by nationality, he is half Croatian and half Montenegrin by ethnicity.

Here's a secondary source [3], an interview Djokovic gave some time ago to prominent Croatian daily, Slobodna Dalmacija where Novak Djokovovic has himself said: "My mother is a Croat, although born in Belgrade...father is Montenegrin.". Also, a note for other editors, the above discussion. Searcher11 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Searcher11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No She is not of Croatian origin, and please read Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 4#Nationality and Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 4#"Croats of Serbia" category. She never said nothing about her nationality, never said that she is Croatian. Nobody talked about her nationality. No relevant references, no reference on english, no neutral reference. 5 min. 36 sec. Novak father talking about his family (including Novak's mother): We are Serb, and we always be Serbs no matter where we went.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't concern nationality. Also, we are not using primary sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Only published sources can be used. Thus, your complaints are not based in sources. You and some others have expressed your bias in the previous discussion, which led to this RfC in hope that more non-biased editors join than there is you.Searcher11 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

She is not of Croatian origin, and that is a fact. His father is Serbian, and that is a fact. Also, therefore can not be in article something that is not true. Wikipedia deals with facts, not rumors. There is no consensus for your request.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather believe a published secondary source and Novak Djokovic than your claim. You better find sources, secondary published sources.Searcher11 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes This is an important fact what we have in the tens of thousands of articles. For example in an article about Jennifer Aniston we have information "her mother's other ancestry includes English, Irish, Scottish, and a small amount of Greek". Serbian tennis player Viktor Troicki has information on his origin "He is of Russian, French and Serbian origin."... This is where the censorship by a group of editors. To them it is unacceptable that in the article stated information about Novak's parents. We have clear facts, even interviewing the family:
  • In first source Novak says: ...My mother in a Croat from Vinkovci, and father Monteneigran... Croatian language,
  • second source Nikola Pilić says: You may not know, but his (Novak) mother is Croatian. Slovenian language
  • third source Srdan Djoković (Novak's father) says: The truth is that my wife is Croatian...Serbian language--Suzichi (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • Here's another source which quotes Novak's father: "It's ture that my wife is Croat". [4]. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - right now it says nothing about the nationality of either parent because it's not notable enough to do so. That's how it should stay. It doesn't really matter if Djokovic's parents are Serbian, Croatian, Russian or Mexican since this article is about Novak, not his parents or grandparents. They are named and that is plenty. And if it's even remotely controversial then it's even more reason to keep it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Novak Djokovic is a Serbian tennis player of Croat-Monteneigran orign. This is certainly interesting info and since he himself had confirmed that, there's no reason to keep it out of article. Sure that some Serbian editors will hear none of it, but Novak's word is a bit more credible. 82.214.103.5 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said in this post: they won't have sources but they will be aggressive with smears and personal accusations. Suzichi, you can add "Novak Djokovic is a Serbian tennis player of Croat-Monteneigran orign" (as the ip suggested) to be added to the lead in your request, although the original request is fine, as many articles have it stated that way. This form completely avoids their already bogus complaints. Their intentions were obvious from the past discussion so there's no point into discussing with them. Hope that enough non-partial editors join since there are few of them more in line to jump in as necessary (for instance 23 editor who had already deleted source I had posted [5]). I'm done with this rfc. My final advice to you Suzichi is to drop the stick if they manage in their intentions. Unfortunately, that's how wikipedia works sometimes. Searcher11 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• No - per Fyunck. FkpCascais (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @FkpCascais: Fyunck(click)'s "because it's not notable enough to do so" is an invalid rationale; WP:Notability applies only to whether a subject may have its/their own article, and has nothing to do with whether it/they can be mentioned at all in an another article. There are better reasons to oppose this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I really wasn't using the word "notable" in a "WP:Notable" sense. I was using it in a more general sense as it being trivial. I do think you are more spot-on with your "ethnicity war-baiting" comment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • The thing here is that Djoković is a Serbian tennis player notable because of his sports archivements. What we are facing here is that some Crotiaan editors found some sources saying Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia. So, they want to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian. Pure nationalistic POV-pushing. A dead-end. FkpCascais (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the source has Djokovic himself saying: "my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade,... My father is Montenegrin" which is a bit different than:"Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia" as you claim. 89.164.128.37 (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No his parents are both Serbian (one born in N. Kosovo and the other in Belgrade). The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant. 23 editor (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - This is a complex issue with several sub-issues:

• First, let's not confuse nationality with ethnicity. They are two very different things. Saying that "Djokovic's mother is Croatian" is very different from saying "Djokovic's mother is of Serbian nationality with Croatian ethnicity." Let's respect that many people have really strong views on both of these.
• Second, is it sensible to mention a person's ethnicity in a biography article? I believe it is. One's ethnicity is an important aspect of one's identity, just as one's nationality, birthplace, or familial ties might be. Sometimes, one's ethnicity (or nationality, or familial ties...) is necessary to tell the complete story. Some have argued against inclusion of one's ethnicity because "it isn't notable", but that's not how I understand Wikipedia's notability guideline to apply. WP:NOTEWORTHY states that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, that leads me to a discussion of due weight...
• Third, if ethnicity were to be included in an article, how much should be said? WP:BALASPS states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." For most individuals, I think that ethnicity is a pretty minor aspect of the topic, and I believe this is true for Novak Djokovic. In a very short article, it probably does not justify inclusion. However, his article is quite long (as it should be), and there are many minor aspects mentioned in his article. So, I think a reasonable "due weight" treatment of his ethnicity suggests that it should cover no more than one or two sentences, depending on phrasing.
• Fourth, should it be mentioned in the lead? No, it isn't important enough. WP:BLPLEAD states that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Since Djokovic's notability is clearly due to his tennis career, his ethnicity does not merit mention in the lead.
• Fifth, does it matter if it is controversial? I cannot find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines to suggest that we should avoid mentioning controversial details. On the contrary, WP:DUE reminds us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So, if we had a balanced number of sources saying that his mother's ethnicity is Serbian versus sources that say his mother's ethnicity is Croatian, then both viewpoints could be mentioned. (It would be different if 40 sources claim one thing, and only one claims the opposite.)
• Sixth, do we have clear reliable sources in this case? I honestly do not know. IF we had clearly reliable sources (as defined by WP:RELIABLE) to establish that his mother was Croatian, then I would support mentioning it in the article in a single sentence outside of the lead. If we don't, then I don't support mentioning it. For me, it hinges on this single issue: are the sources reliable? When I look at the three non-English sources mentioned, I simply am not familiar enough with those websites to know if they are reliable or not.

Saskoiler (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, this article is about Novak, and there is no shown notability of his mother's ethnicity, therefore it should not be included. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes BUT only if reliable sources can be found that state the mother's nationality. If not, then just the father's nationality. A person's heritage is relevant in their bio and should always be included when reliable sources can be found. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• No, per Soundwaweserb's observation that the "Croatian mother" claims cannot be properly sourced. Even if it could, it's just tedious "ethnicity war"-baiting trivia. See the Village Pump RfC that removed |ethnicity= from infoboxes. This was done because WP does not want to dwell on ethnic labelling; it was a not a signal to try desperately to ramp up the ethnic labelling by moving it elsewhere in the article and extending it to earlier generations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Slobodna Dalmacija is RS [6] that is widely used on wikipedia. If needed WP:RSN can help. However, instead of writing about his parent's, I support "of Croatian-Montenegrin origin" to be included, so both his nationality and ethnicity is stated. 192.176.1.82 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — 192.176.1.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Single edit account. FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As I see this isn't an account but an ip. IPs change and this one has more than 1 edit. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Yes It really isn't that important but if the information is there and it is reliable, I don't see why this couldn't go in the Bio section. But honestly, it's not super important for this the article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Not in the lead, just mention it briefly ("mother's family from Croatia") and source it well.. I'm assuming it is sourced well? "Nationalist POV" goes both ways. -- Director (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per source which is uncontested by other sources. Saskoiler has a great post about notability. Notability and reliability were the objections. Source is reliable to the most editors and the 192.176.1.82 had suggested RSN. Two editors who had complained about the source didn't bring it to RSN. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — 89.164.170.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closer Strange behavior on the part of IP's here, please review [7]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not strange to change opinion. At the time I voted against I gave a superficial look. When I gave another look to the source and some arguments given by other users I changed my opinion. Also, I don't care much four your personal attacks about my edit count. First you approve personal attacks of other users that are under warning not to do so, then you make your own personal attacks. 89.164.138.228 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, use personal attacks, but that won't magically deny my arguments. The source is uncontested with or without my vote. Other users have done great analize of Wiki policies on notability (unlike you). Lastly the source is reliable as only a small portion of editors had complained without proper arguments. They even didn't put it to RSN. 141.138.54.39 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• No per common wikipedia guidelines. That info is irrelevant, its also a lye as both his parents are Serbian. Family prehistory should not be in the lede (or anywhere if you ask me, he is not royal). Also, it would raise incredible edit wars in the future, and its just a way to "claim" Novak Đoković and his success. Also, this is just a attempt to extend political nationalistic battleground attitude on Wikipedia. This edits should be banned, and not introduced. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

I just want to make ip's suggestion more noticeable. Should the sentence "Novak Djokovic is a Serbian tennis player of Croat-Monteneigran orign" be added to the lead?

• Yes Since some editors are "having" concerns that the original request isn't enough about Novak, with this request they surly will agree. I'm really interested in what excuse will they make up for this suggestion. Searcher11 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• No Simply, it is not true.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• No, for the same reason we don't state that "Andre Agassi is an American retired tennis player of Armenian origin" or that "Roger Federer is a Swiss tennis player of South African origin". The origin (through the parents) is simply not important enough to be in the lead. Note that in the case of Djokovic, both his parents were born in Serbia, while Agassi's father was born in Iran, and Federer's mother was born in South Africa, but we still do not state it in the lead. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have nothing against this. That info is corrent (everybody except one user agrees with the source), however, my opinion is that the original request is more appropriate. Vanjagenije, you have nothing against the original request?82.214.103.5 (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I never said that. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No because it's irrelevant. 23 editor (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No WP:BLPLEAD states that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Since Djokovic's notability is clearly due to his tennis career, his ethnicity does not merit mention in the lead. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• No, per BLPLEAD. The mania that a few people have for "race"-labelling people from that part of the world is PoV-pushing, tedious dispute-mongering, and not of interest to our readers. It would be totally aberrant if an article about my neighbor described her as "an American artist, of Ashkenazi–Irish–English-Scottish-Dutch-Italian–French background".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Good suggestion to write about Novak's origin, but not a lead material. 192.176.1.82 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong NO Adding "origins" is an incredibly slippery slope. Usually, when there is an argument about this in the talk page, the best way to go is to state only the subject's place of birth and then explain the entire complexity of his or her origin in the biography section. Basically, by trying to be succinct, we can create more confusion. In these cases, it's best to just lay the whole story out there and let the readers understand the complexity. And the lede sentence is not the place to do this. No one would put that Barack Obama is an American politician of Kenyan descent. It just creates more confusion than it dispels. But all of this is thoroughly explained in his bio section. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• No This should never be done. We use nationality in the lead - that's enough. We don't need to go down to ethnicity, country of origin, race. etc --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - why is then ethnicity stated in the lead for Nikola Tesla ? Shouldn't we be consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.205.239 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Not in lead though, (assuming sources are as strong as claimed), there is no reason to not include in 'early life'. Even parents aren't usually in the lead without good reason. There are circumsatances which I can imagine in which the nationality or ethnicity of parents is sufficiently important to be included in the lead, but I see no reason to think this is one of them. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, the suggestion shouldn't be in the lead. WP:BLPLEAD is very clear that it's not appropriate unless it is relevant for the subject. Djokovic's only relevant national identity is Serbian, as he's represented Serbia in international tennis. Wikipedia isn't a genealogy site. A Train^talk 07:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• No per common wikipedia guidelines, and specially BLPLEAD. Also, this is just a attempt to extend nationalistic battleground attitude on Wikipedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Extra discussion

To keep some of the arguing OUT of the RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Dijana Žagar was born in Belgrade to parents that moved from Vinkovci in Croatia to Serbia, due to Dijana's father being a JNA officer. This makes her Serbian of Croatian origin. The names of her parents, Zdenko and Elizabeta, indeed point to Croatness. Dijana does not seem to identify as Croat, however. Novak explicitly identifies as Serb and Orthodox. The suggested changed sentence is not adequate, but the fact that she is of Croatian origin is now undisputable.--Zoupan 11:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  First of all, this forms original research that goes against the only posted published secondary source. Secondly, someone moving to Belgrade from Croatia doesn't make them Serbian/Croatian. Neither do their names. Your whole logic if flawed. What does matter, is a secondary published source where Novak Djokovic himself provides a statement about his parents. Searcher11 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Fyunck(click): What about origin of Andrea Petkovic and Milos Raonic? Does it matter?--Suzichi (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  To you, however, it got published. I don't see how a published source could be "not notable enough" to get included in the article. The fact that it got published makes it notable.Searcher11 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  That's where you're wrong. They also have published Serena Williams shoe size. We don't include it because it's trivial. Most articles don't mention parents names at all. Here we do but their info is trivial and not notable to the article. And if it's controversial anyway it's better left out. Sources that link to his parents names should be good enough for readers who want more info. This is a summary of Djokovic's tennis career. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is controversial origin of Milos Raonic but it is mentioned in the article. And there should be removed origin. It's not true that parents or origin not mentioned in other articles. For example we know that the brother of Ana Ivanovic name Milos.--Suzichi (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I said most articles. Raonic does have a bit more. But it tells his parents names and professions, siblings names and professions, and a very rare uncles name, but only because he is the deputy prime minister. It doesn't go into detail about where any of those people were born. Djokovic's article also mentions siblings and their professions. It mention's his parents, but doesn't say what they do for a living. I'm just saying we don't usually go into that much detail on parents other than names. And if it's controversial we wind up getting RfC's like this one where it's eventually determined by consensus to leave any of it out of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Milos Raonic article (which recently passed through the scrutiny of feature article review) mentions these things with "due weight". The article is extremely comprehensive, and the entire paragraph which mentions his family and ethnicity is only six sentences, with the ethnicity component being only five words. All facts are drawn from reliable sources and carefully referenced. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@23 editor: You have a good explanation, born in Serbia are Serbs, born in Kosovo are Kosovar or Albanian. You have to be careful because Kosovo is now an independent state :)--Suzichi (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

He did not said that, don't twist other people's words please. FkpCascais (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Who disagrees with what arguments and with what sources to support that arguments:

1-Soundwaweserb- claiming the source is wrong, missing the rfcs subject and speaks of nationality instead of ethnicity, puts in original research to disprove the source

2- Fyunck(click) - not notable

3- FkpCascais - not notable, then goes into claiming that the source doesn't support the request, against his own quote from the source

4-23 editor-not notable

5- StudiesWorld-not notable

6- SMcCandlish - not properly sourced

• Several editors have touched on "not notable" reasoning. Original research can't go against a secondary source. SMcCandlish didn't explain his claim. 89.164.151.158 (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong bias

Note to closer Below is off topic discussion unrelated to the above RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho you had expressed your opinion below and it's not ok for you to push that opinion to the closer. He/she is capable of forming his/her own opinion without you "deciding" whether he/she should read it or just take your opinion as granted and disregard my opinion. You may have strong opinions but you should never ask other editors not to read what others had said and to take your opinion as granted. You may think that personal attacks are ok to make even if under serious warning no to do so, but I don't. Please don't modify my comments and don't ask of others not to read them as I'm not asking anyone to disregard your opinion. Asking others to disregard opinions of other editors and modifying the section so it's hidden is just another personal attack. Since you think that it's ok to act that way I'm not surprised you had done this. 89.164.128.37 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The closer is free to read the below as they wish. It's unrelated to the above RFC so there's no actual point in it. It offers no justification for either proposal in this RFC. It's focus is on another editors behavior. It belongs at ANI and it was taken there and was closed multiple times. Unless the closer finds you and the other Ip's here with few edits make good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines you shouldn't be given any weight in the determination of the consensus especially with the presence of Asdisis sock puppet Searcher11 above. If you feel at all that hatting this discussion or pointing out that this is unrelated to the RFC is a personal attack then please by all means take it to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in the content dispute above. I'm just pointing out that some users who have interest are lying, manipulating and personally attacking other users. That is very much related to the rfc above. It's not ok to personally attack others even if you aren't under warning. Lying about the content of the source is just plain disruptive. 89.164.138.228 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Suzichi: @Searcher11: @Saskoiler: @SW3 5DL: @Hamsterlopithecus: @Lemongirl942: @SMcCandlish:. Sorry if you aren't interested and i pinged you. Also, sorry but i will post this to talk pages if it is deleted. I don't know who of you is against bias and in-group pov pushing, so I'm letting you all know some past. Any admin who closes this should read this discussion. The discussion shows that certain Serbian editors have a strong bias.

1 FkpCascais makes this edit to the article. One can notice that the edit is the same as this rfc's request.

2 Soundwaweserb gets angry so he tells this to FkpCascais: What's your problem and why are you introducing lies and Croatian propaganda to the article.

3 FkpCascais responds: Why did you come to fuck me around here. We don't "know" here, but go there and move your ass and I shouldn't do all over there. They have a source where Novak himself said those things and you go and find sources to deny that one.

4 Soundwaweserb reverts FkpCascais

5 FkpCascais doesn't revert

So, we have FkpCascais doing the edit himself and saying: "They have a source where Novak himself said those things". Now, for the same source he claims this. So before Soundwaweserb had attacked FkpCascais that he is lies and Croatian propaganda to the article FkpCascais makes the edit he is now opposing himself by saying "They have a source where Novak himself said those things". Clear case of POV pushing and In-group favoritism. Now FkpCascais says "What we are facing here is that some Crotiaan editors found some sources saying Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia. So, they want to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian.". This is shameful and it's sad because it's hard to notice this kind of disruptive behavior unless you try to deal with it. Something only @Suzichi: will understand. Others probably don't want to "waste time" 141.138.55.81 (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... well... usually when arguments get heated in the talk pages, it is probably best to take a break from editing altogether and let other (less passionate) editors take a fresh look. A good idea will hold no matter who is evaluating it. That is what the RfC is for, and that is how I learned about this discussion. I think the people who are the most passionate about this article being better should, for the sake of the article, take a break and come back to see what happened. Nothing here is permanent and it's more of a disservice to feed biases to editors who have just arrived. My two cents. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The case is not that simple. At that time I was uninvolved at that dispute and I had just noteced it on my watchlist. I gave a superficial look and at time it sounded to me fair to say within the article the heritage of Novak's parents. That was all I thought it was about, however, once I noteced that the case and the source was being use to push into the lead the absurd ideia that Novak was somehow half-Croatian, I immediatelly dropped the case and stopped supporting such nationaistic POV-pushing which was being done by the IP. That is why I changed sides, because the other side wants to missuse a source to claim more than it really says. FkpCascais (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The source according to your quote of the source says "my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade, cause all her family is from Vinkovci, and I have plenty of relatives there. My father is Montenegrin". The rfc's request reads "His father is Montenegrin and his mother Croatian from Vinkovci". Now where exactly do you see "missuse a source to claim more than it really says". Where's that more89.164.232.66 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

All editors have biases; we're human. The question is whether the resulting content is biased, after various editors with their various biases have worked on the content with an eye to eliminating bias in the final product.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ It's also human to lie and deceive, but Wikipedia editors should not do that.

FkpCascais , in the referenced discussion, provided this quote from the source in question:

'Novak Djokovic: When I got into the quarter-finals of Roland Garros, I receved a call from prime-minister Koštunica who congratulated me for the archievement. I was in shock cause he knew all about me. That my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade, cause all her family is from Vinkovci, and I have plenty of relatives there. My father is Montenegrin, and I am...'

Now he has a different view on that source: "sources saying Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia. So, they want to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian"

No, the source doesn't say "Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia" with other editors "want[ing] to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian". What the source says is exactly what he had quoted earlier.

He's trying to deceive other editors and that's not ok, although deception is a human characteristic.

Note that he didn't initially attack the source. No, he went with "not notable" objection. Only after you had provoked them by quoting wiki policy. When that objection went to dust thanks to you and other experienced editors quoting wiki policies, he , wanting so hard to stop this edit went against his earlier opinion.

As i see this rfc: "not notable" objection is pretty much dust after several editors went to quote wiki policies on notability. Only 2 (or 3 counting FkpCascais's revelation) of 11 editors have "something" against the source. Six editors agree. Why exactly do you oppose the request. You say "Croatian mother claims cannot be properly sourced". Mind giving any explanation considering the fact that you are in minority? FkpCascais was very helpful for providing a quote from the source? Is it something you don't understand in that quote? 89.164.232.66 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My point still stands. Wikipedia editors will lie and deceive. As long as the content that comes out does not do so in the end, we're doing our "job". It's quixotic to try to reduce Wikipedia's editorship to only editors who are 100% honest and 0% biased. No one on earth qualifies, except maybe for some extreme case of a rare type of autism in an institution somewhere who is both incapable of deception and self-deception and unable to form a lasting subjective opinion about anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:My point also stands. That's not ok. Rfc was not needed with so clear and credible source, but because of that behavior we all have to waste time with the unknown end result. For instance I wanted to engage you to explain you claim but you ignored me. The source is credible, published and with Djokovic himself saying:"my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade, cause all her family is from Vinkovci, and I have plenty of relatives there. My father is Montenegrin". Your stand lacks proper arguments. We have your word against the published source. If you want to discredit a source you have to put in something more than your word. 89.164.151.158 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2016 (UT

Straw man; I haven't said anything at all that is anything against a published source. I am saying don't include race-baiting trivia in the lead or the infobox, because no one reasonable gives a damn about it. I decline to respond to any more of your trolling, such as this bullshit at ANI. I note multiple suggestions below that you're a sockpuppet of a banned editor trying to evade sanctions, so I don't have anything further to say to you, per WP:DONTFEED.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No need for outbursts. As I see, your main argument is: "Croatian mother" claims cannot be properly sourced". Then you said: "Even if it could, it's just tedious "ethnicity war"-baiting trivia.". Secondary argument is that it is trivia. Why do you think that the request isn't property sourced? I really don't understand. Am I being trolled here? I just don't think that unexplained claim like this is a good argument. We have a source and you are claiming that request isn't property sourced. I feel that you think that I'm pushing for the request to be included in the article while I'm just interested in this section. I couldn't care less for the suggestion. In fact I voted against.89.164.194.127 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is already overflowing with Asdisis socks, much as what happened at Talk:Nikola Tesla. One thing's for sure, the lad sure has got a lot of time to spare. 23 editor (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand.. WAS his mother's family from Croatia? Is that sourced? IF so, why not mention it, what is the issue? IF so, it does seem unreasonable to contest this. I will point out that Serbian (ultra)nationalist thought is based around how Croats, Montenegrins, and virtually all ex-Yugoslavs are "really Serbs anyway".

It is unreasonable, in my view, to describe Djokovic as anything other than "Serbian", but in the main body of the text its perfectly justifiable to add mention of his ancestry. So far as I know, he was from a JNA officer family, and many members thereof had parents of multiple ethnicities, and lived all over the place (Brotherhood and Unity and all that). -- Director (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If he himself says "my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade,... My father is Montenegrin" it really is unreasonable to contest this, however Director you know how their mindset works. You have dealt with them before. 141.136.205.239 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we introduce that as a quotation then? Pls ignore who this comes from, lets just be objective here.. -- Director (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you said ignore... ;) 89.164.199.102 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant ignore you, since you're banned. -- Director (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You got a little more. Also, I'm not banned. Didn't you notice the section title and the content when you asked for objectivity? Didn't you notice how some of them are even directly lying to manipulate other editors? [8]. You don't really expect that such people would turn around and start being objective? If someone deserves to be banned, then that would be someone who is POV pushing so hard that he even directly lies and manipulates. Since they can't do better than to ignore you and hope that their invalid objections will somehow stop a credible source enter the article, I have to answer you for them. No the direct quote can't enter the article. That goes against their nationalistic stand. I'm sick of dealing with them and their double standards and manipulations and banning of other editors as socks. No, the source is the least important to them. If they can't ban people who bring sources that go against their stand [9], they manipulate and lie to stop the edit. Yeah, of course I am a sock, as is everyone else who disagrees with them. I'm not important here. I didn't vote in the rfc, but when I saw this and the same manipulations that I had experienced on Serbs of Croatia and Yugoslavia article (where you had participated as well), I had to react. It's not ok to lie and FkpCascais was already been warned for the things he did on Serbs of Croatia (you remember it [10]). Now he's doing it again by claiming that: "What we are facing here is that some Crotiaan editors found some sources saying Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia. So, they want to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian. Pure nationalistic POV-pushing. A dead-end.", when the source says "my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade,... My father is Montenegrin". I agree, I'm not important here. I'm just bringing attention to the fact that FkpCascais was warned against such a behavior [11]. I didn't say anything when he had opposed with "not notable" argument. But when he went into direct lying and personal accusations I had to react, especially when, in this case he is directly opposing his earlier comments. One can not say that he didn't read the source carefully when he himself had provided the quote. Well, look at that he just did say exactly that [12]. Well he was smart not to comment further so not to engage me. He knew he is under warning. I just might make a report if I'm engaged further @Director:. I agree It's not me that's important here. I didn't lie and manipulate, FkpCascais did, and that is visible in his, and not mine comments. I'm just bringing attention to his earlier had his present comments and the warning he's under. Also, the source is kinda important, isn't it. Well, not to them. It's hard to notice how someone is biased until you deal with them. However, this case is the most clear example of someone directly lying that I have seen, and somehow nobody has a problem with it.I just might make a report just so it's deleted, to stand as a record, Like I did here [13]. Yeah I notice that they have no problem when someone is inserting pro-Serbian nationalistic material to the article that even goes against the standing consensus, but when it comes that someone tries to insert pro-Croatian material (even is the content is directly supported by sources) then they have big concerns that the person is sock, personal attacks are in bundle, lies and manipulations are not forbidden just so their POV prevails. If you didn't notice sock accusations were not targeted just to me, but to the two editors who had started this rfc. The pattern is the same as in Serbs of Croatia, where FkpCascais had tried to ban me and another editor at the point when we were the only ones present there. Now they tried to ban 2 editors who had started this rfc. One of them is banned if you didn't notice. You can't say the pattern isn't the same as in Serbs of Croatia. 89.164.201.228 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pipe down. -- Director (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So does anyone oppose the introduction of the thing as a quotation? -- Director (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I need to apologise in front , I am not an editor , just some guest who came here to read some stats about Djokovic and then read this and I want to write one or two things, as a person who lives in Croatia and know something about this subject , my opinion is that , first of all you can not take this qoute as a reliable source, because it came from the newspapers called Slobodna Dalmacija , right oriented papers that are extremly agressive against Serbs, recently they had problems after the second match of EURO 2016 when Croatia played against Czech Republic and the Croat fans caused a big mess in the stadium, day after that Slobodna Dalmacija wrote that those were Serbs disguised in Croatian fan shirts causing the mess, creating a huge scandal and reaction from the other croatian newspapers and the newspapers from the region, off course this was not true, the mess was caused by the Croat fans who had something against Croatian football association, but it proved a lot about Slobodna Dalmacija reputation.The same reputation have Kurir and Blic in Serbia, Dnevno in whole Balkan region, and so on. Personally I dont trust to the newspapers in this region because they are extremly bias and financed by all lot of sources , lot of them with the goal to constantly create tensions between people... I am not saying that Djokovic is not half Croat, I do not know that, but if you want to prove something like that you need to search in real sources, like genealogy sources, because it is a very very hard thing to determine someones actual origin , especially in Balkan region, where ther were huge migrations during the last 600 to 800 year period , I can tell you ,because I live in Gorski Kotar region in Croatia, that there are lot of Slovenian people with the last name Zagar, we can only then ask ourselfs are they Slovenians with cro origin or is Zagar slovenian last name, then we could ask ourselfs , what is the real Dijana Zagar origin , is she Croatian born in Serbia with Slovenian ,Hungarian , Croatian , Serbian origin, what that makes Novak then, half a Europe , native American originated Serb . or even better question is how far you need to go in a lineage to say that someone is something, you should do conzensus on that first...... It is an interesting subject 2. If you just trying to look at the newspaper titles then why don t you try to find it in some independent source , international newspapers , maybe some American, Djokovic gave a lot of interviews in the last 10 years, maybe even ask him yourself , because the way I see it , and knowing the mentality of Yugoslav people this discusion, or better call it a fight is going to last for the next decade ,until Djokovic career is over , and the new superstar comes, then it is going to be all over again. And one more thing I am half Croat , and part Serb part Slovenian , so I am not taking any side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.172.169 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You aren't and editor so it's understandable, but you can't disprove a source based on your own opinion and 1 article that you find to be factually wrong. Credibility of a source is reviewed more carefully. Anyway's it's most improbable that the interview was faked since Djokovic himself could easily disprove that he gave an interview. There's a reason that only 2 editors of all in this rfc find the source isn't credible. Even those 2 haven't provided any valid argument. I voted NO to prove a point. You gave a lot of effort to explain your opinion. You should vote. So far it was tied until I voted NO. Your vote against could make the situation more clear. Consensus isn't voting, but often it comes up that way on wikipedia. Just be careful cuz some persons here are pointing out that opinions of ip's with small number of edits are less valuable. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment The restate my position from the ANI [14], This is simply childish. Reviewing the discussion there is no reason to determine that there is a lie at all. There was most likely a misunderstanding of the source. "I was shocked because he knew everything about me. I think my mother was a Croat, although he was born in Belgrade, because all its Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives." is my translation of the source. And it would be easy for them to stumble and see this as Djokovic mother being born in Belgrade instead of Djokovic himself. This conversation about a lie offers no meaningful contribution to the heart of this rfc and should simply be ignored outright by the closer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: You can't notice the lie by reviewing this discussion alone because there's a history to this: [15] and [16]. FkpCascais very well knew what the source says then the above discussion on his talk page had happened. Few months ago he himself had quoted the same source: "my mother was Croat, despite being born in Belgrade, cause all her family is from Vinkovci, and I have plenty of relatives there. My father is Montenegrin". Now he claims this:"What we are facing here is that some Crotiaan editors found some sources saying Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia. So, they want to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian. Pure nationalistic POV-pushing.". He is lying about the contents of the source. The content is very obvious statement by djokovic that you had quoted here. He himself had quoted it. The content of the source isn't saying that Djokovic's mother ancestors are from a city found nowadays in Croatia with nationalistic editors drawing this conclusion from this:"to use that to say Djokovic is somehow Croatian". Plus there are usual personal attacks. For such attacks he was previously banned and he's under warning. He's also attacking IP's that they are socks and single edit accounts. I couldn't care less about this rfc. I just noticed it and had to react since the same editor had dragged another rfc for months. I had to deal him for months. He tried to ban all other editors that opposed him, including me. Then he personally attacked other editors that had joined after he couldn't manipulate them. It's hard to notice the manipulations if you don't deal with him personally . Read the referenced report. The user who made the report where FkpCascais was warned was at first agreeing with FkpCascais because FkpCascais had lied about the contents of the source, much as he is doing now. When I had warned that editor and pointed him the real content, that editor had changed his opinion. That led FkpCascais to personally attack him and to the referenced report. Now we have the same pattern. At first he simply went to disagree with not notable argument so not to contradict himself. After few ediors have quoted wiki policy on notability he did the same thing as in the discussion during which he was warned. He lied about the content of the source and accuse others of being nationalistic editors and pov pushers. If you read the whole rfc, you missed a few deleted personal attacks made by him. He's in fact doing the same thing for which he was warned. He didn't think that anyone will notice that other discussion from a few months. Well I noticed it and since I spent months dealing with his behavior I noticed his manipulations from the start when he was concerned about "notability". As I sad, I don't care about this rfc. I just can't stand that kind of disruptive behavior which I had experienced before. If no one has problems with this then ok, but I don't want to encounter him and deal with him or again. He's lying about the contents of the source as he did on Serbs of Croatia which led to the warning. That kind of disruptive behavior is hard to notice because at the end he can always claim that he had misunderstood the source. Even now when it's obvious that he knew the content because he had quoted himself the "i misunderstood the source" justification works. If you don't believe me how hard it is to notice that kind of behavior go ahead and ask the editor who had made the report. He was at first fooled by FkpCascais's manipulations, but as he had involved himself further into discussing with him he had agreed with my claims that FkpCascais is manipulating and lying and how hard it is to notice until you get to deal with that behavior.89.164.170.216 (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll just reference the whole history of this so someone who want's to read it doesn't have to read my comments at all. First there was this [17], then argument on FkpCascais's talk page [18]. Then he come to this rfc. Be sure to read deleted comments and follow up the chronological order. There that's all I have to say. He did this to himself. I don't want to deal with this any more as I'm not interested in the content of this rfc. My vote is no just to prove a point. Bye. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not ANI. You have offered nothing of use to the question presented with the RFC. If you have accomplished anything here it's simply disruption. I'm fooled by FkpCascais? I haven't even had a discussion with them. I have with you and your case is more conspiratorial than factual. Beyond that its a stale issue resolved by this RFC. This is not a forum. Drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:If it were the first time he acts like this...or you the first one to react like this. Even if you change your mind you won't be the first to do so. It seems ok to you for him to personally attack 4 users? I guess I shouldn't have problems with it either. They haven't complained. My work here is done. I pointed to the real content of the source as I did in the past discussion where he had tried to lie. If I notice him doing that again I'll drop in again and quote the sources. Read the rfc content before I dropped in and tell me where do you see the correct quote from the source.89.164.170.216 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I refer you again back to my prior statement. This is not ANI. This is not a forum. In this section you have offered nothing related to the actual question presented by the RFC. This right here is disruptive and nothing more. Drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Wanna bet the won't drop it if this passes. Let's see.89.164.170.216 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to edit that for clarity or coherency?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What? All that I'm saying is that FkpCascais had gotten a serious warning the previous time he did the same thing as he did here, lied about the content of the source and personally attacked people who agreed with the source, saying that they are in fact lying about the content of the source. I was involved in the rfc where he was warned against such behavior and when I noticed that he is repeating it here I had to react. I'm sorry that people can repeat disruptive behavior against a warning. I'm sorry that you think that personal attacks should be ignored, especially when they come from an user with known disruptive history and from an user who's under a serious warning against such a behavior. I'm more sorry that Director thinks it's ok and he is familiar with FkpCascais behavior. Maybe I'm reacting too strong, but I was the one who had dealt with this king of behavior for months in another rfc. When he was warned I thought he will settle down and stop with personal accusations and now when he had repeated them and when no none has a problem with this it's understandable that I had reacted in such a way. 89.164.128.37 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Wanna bet the won't drop it if this passes. Let's see. These are your comments. They are incoherent. They make no sense. That is what. To respond to your new comments, This is the articles talk page. It's for discussing the articles content. It is not for discussing FkpCascais behavior. FkpCascais behavior is not a factor that can determine the consensus. This long extensive discussion about their behavior is disruptive. Now some uninvolved editor needs to go thru this bullshit to determine that its Pure D Grade A Bullshit completely unrelated to this RFC. Now please drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, english is not my fist language so sometimes I say things like "I'm speaking the truth" which just make me sound paranoid and over-attached to the matter. I was saying that they are pov pushing and if this rfc will be concluded in favor of the request they won't simply accept it. You obviously haven't read the previous rfc. I agree that this is a page to discuss article content, but FkpCascais had once again started with personal attacks and lies. I had to react here because he had lied and manipulated other editors here. FkpCascais is not the factor, but lies about the content of the source can work, as I found the last time I had dealt with him. No, this section isn't useless. If anyone reads everything from the top he may answer how much familiar with the contents of the source was he up to this section and after. I suggest that you drop the stick and stop engaging me. 89.164.128.37 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's someone who also has problems with this kind of behavior as exhibited here. 23 editor had done the same things as here. He personally attacked another user and made "sock" accusations. He's now reported:[19]. If you look at that discussion you will notice that it's virtually the same as this one: one editor making an edit about Serbian sportsmen's parents. Funny how similar this is and how 23 editor reacts in the same way by making sock accusations. 141.138.54.39 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for link to Serbian language source: I am considering this RfC for closure, and have read the Croatian language and Slovenian language sources, but the links to the Serbian language article don't take me to the right article. Could someone provide a working link here please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Slovenian link works fine for me: [20]. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I said I had read the Slovenian one already. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sry, my mistake. Anyways the only source that is needed is that secondary published source with Djokovic's interview. The sources are uncontested so no need to pile them. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just want all the information before closing, given the contentious nature of the RfC and the amount of socking and short-term IP activity. It can't be that hard. If you can't find it, perhaps someone else will. There is no rush. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's one source that can also help. [21] . It contains the quote from Djokovic's interview to Slobodna Dalmacija and a quote from that Serbian source. To be precise this source quotes Novak's father: "It's true that my wife is Croat". 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Neciklopedija and crnogorska pitanja are fake newspapers, that is no source , here is one source where Srdjan Djokovic says something about his origin on 5 min 10 sec of an interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c9Ehr7WtSE , here is another source, an interview where Djokovic says , I am proud to be a Serb , he says Serb not just citizen of Serbia, meaning he has Serbian origin , http://www.b92.net/sport/rolandgarros2016/vesti.php?yyyy=2016&mm=05&dd=19&nav_id=1133434 , here is the source where Nikola Pilic says that Djokovic is a Serb , http://www.rts.rs/page/sport/sr/story/38/tenis/1229968/pilic-djokovic-im-smeta-sto-je-srbin.html , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.173.56 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How about logging in Soundwaweserb?213.202.111.130 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: are you referring to the Serbian source above provided by Suzichi?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I've found a source which has the same quote by Djokovic's father as Suzichi had provided. It also quotes Novak Djokovic's interview to Vecernji List. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Serialjoepsycho, that's the one I'm referring to. The links up there don't take me to the article mentioned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page but it's been a while since they've been on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Here Novak's father says [22] "The truth is that my wife is Croatian...". Source is Serbian.--Suzichi (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: there you are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 2 September 2016

Please change "publisher=[[The Telegraph]]" to "work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]".

Nick Number (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 04:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Grandparent's ethnicity?

I don't think it's quite ok to include Novak's grandparent's ethnicity in the article. To be precise "Novak's father is Montenegrin in origin and his mother is Croatian by background" says more about the origins of his parents than of Novak. I didn't really think about his grandparents since I was concentrating on Novak's statement that his father is Montenegrin and his mother a Croat. That was enough for me, but if some want to include that Novak's grandparents were Montenegrin and Croats, that should be supported by sources. -Serialjoepsycho- claims the sources support such claim, and I'll believe his word for now. I've also asked Peacemaker67 about this. I would like to be correct and I don't want to put the ethnicity of each of his ancestors, but it seems this inclusion has support among editors so I won't insist too much for it to be corrected. Kavonder 22:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account.

It seems strange to me that all people who had complained about Novak's ethnicity not notable enough are now not having problems with stating that his grandparents are Montenegrins and Croats. Strange indeed. Kavonder 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Djokovic is Serbian... no complaints about including that. I said his parents birthplaces and heritage is trivial. The RfC concluded with his parents heritage is just important enough to be mentioned. His grandparents/g.grandparents/gggrandparents heritage is beyond ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why I made a request without mentioning his grandparents. If you read carefully you'll find that the present formulation says exactly what I had written below. Kavonder22:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account.

Just to explain to those who can't read what the article says. Novak is not a Serbs by ethnicity but half Montenegrin and half Croat AND his grandparents are Montenegrin and Croats. Kavonder 22:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A better "explanation" would be that roughly, Novak is ethnically half Serb and half Croat. He is Serbian, a Belgrader. He is Serbian Orthodox Christian (would indeed translate to de facto Serb ethnic identity). Both of his parents are Serbian. His father was born in Kosovo of Montenegrin Serb descent (Novak's great-grandparents moved from Nikšić to Metohija), while his mother was born in Belgrade of Slavonian Croat parentage (Novak's grandparents moved from Vinkovci to Belgrade). The Balkans is patriarchal, and as all former Yugoslavs know, ethnic identity is most often adopted paternally. Calling him a "non-Serb" would be terribly wrong.--Zoupan 00:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of his parents are Serbs. Novak is not a Serb by ethnicity. Sorry if this is a blow to your pride but those are the facts. Kavonder 07:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.108.202 (talk)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account.

I recall reading that Djokovic's paternal maternal grandmother is Volksdeutsche. Will look for the source. 23 editor (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• You will believe me for now? That just brings me warm and fuzzy feelings and all, but you could just read the sources. With or without regards to that, I'm not interested in your nationalist nonsense or that of anyone else. DO NOT PING ME. You do not have to like the consensus. I do not care if you do or don't. Feel free to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but I still think it's a bit too much to state his grandparent's ethnicity, but if the sources say so I won't make much fuss about it. It's enough to state that Novak is half Croatia and half Montenegrin by ethnicity. Kavonder22 07:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account.

It doesn't exactly say that at either. Djokovic is a mixed mongrel including Serbian. He was born in and was brought up Serbian, and has always considered himself Serbian, as do his parents, regardless of where they hail from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, not to prolong this. I agree with the edit that was done. I hope that they will drop the stick. It really should not have to be so hard to accept Djokovic's own statement that his father is Montenegrin and his mother a Croat, however Serbian viewpoint is that everyone has to be a Serb and they are very aggressive with that stand. Kavonder 19:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account.

@Serialjoepsycho: You talking to me? 23 editor (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can apply that, DO NOT PING ME, to you if you like.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

So you were talking to me? Odd. I don't recall talking to you. Also, you're response is incoherent. 23 editor (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking to you. There's no reason that you should think I was talking to you if you have any common sense at all. I was responding to the person that pinged me. It should have been obvious since you hadn't pinged me until after. But as far as the incoherent response, DO NOT PING ME. Is that coherent?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please change "Djokovic was born on 22 May 1987 in Belgrade, SR Serbia, Yugoslavia, to parents Srđan and Dijana (née Žagar)" to "Djokovic was born on 22 May 1987 in Belgrade, SR Serbia, Yugoslavia, to parents Srđan and Dijana (née Žagar). His father is Montenegrin while his mother is a Croat from Vinkovci, Croatia." per upper RfC. 141.136.223.140 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done But it was corrected to the RFC recommendations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, please look this "serbian reference" [23], it is invalid. There is nothing about Novak? I know Serbian language. Do we give the lie to Croatian nationalists and chauvinists. Such people do not want a good Wikipedia. His father is not from Montenegro, he is Serbian, and his mother is Serbian born in Belgrade, not Vinkovci.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually per the RFC, there is consensus. It has been decided by an administrator, so take it up with him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's great that you can read Serbian, [24] here the Serbian source. It of course is at the bottom of that RFC. At the top of that RFC you will see a close by an uninvolved admin. The close determined the consensus. Save your nationalist rant.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the content in question need to conform word-for-word to what the admin wrote in their closing comments? What Zoupan added doesn't appear to deviate from the consensus (a term I use with some consternation, since there were seven "No's" and four "Yes's", not including Searcher11 and the three IP socks, who voted "Yes"). With Asdisis in the picture the score is 7–7, but once Asdisis is ruled out, the consensus shifts considerably in favour of No. 23 editor (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not a vote or hand-count... it is strength of argument that the admin used. I don't recall arguing for it, but the decision was made and we follow it. That's how it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is above, spelled out clearly. If you have a problem with the close then take up with the closer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, we have a 3 IP socks, and admin Peacemaker67 who closed RFC in favour to Croatian nationalists and chauvinists — on his page I spent some time there myself in 1990s (mostly in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina). Is he neutral, NO. He have favour to Croatian nationalists, reference is not valid, Kurir, Sl. Dalmacija is yellow press.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And please, how can Montenigrian and Croatian by background be Serbian? It is impossible, only if these nations declare themselves as Serbs? Novak father is Serbian, also his mother who is born in Belgrade.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the close take it up with the closer or WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Until then this is the consensus we have. Stop your edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The was decided so take it up with the closer and stop edit warring or it will be reported. I'd self-revert your last edit to the article if I were you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I send him message. Until then, do not change.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If it gets changed again, and you revert it, you will positively be reported. I expressed a no, but I also follow the result. You were blocked for a week in June for edit warring on this article. The same blocking admin will probably make it a month if I report it. I'd self revert right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And something else you have to realize about just taking a head count. Some who said "no" may have felt that the info was too trivial to be included, especially if it's the least bit controversial. I would be one of those. That doesn't mean I don't believe the sources on his parents origins. I just didn't think we needed to include it. We now have an administrator who looked over all the arguments and sources, and decided it did warrant inclusion. Not a huge bunch of detail on it.... just a 20 word passing mention on his folks background. Do I totally agree? Not on the basis of triviality, even if there are sources to support it. But I do agree on closure, and this was a reasonable decision on @Peacemaker67:'s part, and I do support that. It's such a minor inclusion and if someone tries to add more elaborate detail I will also help you stamp that out as being against this RfC. But we need to move on here. There will be much more to update here if Novak goes on to win the US Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb I object to the implication that I am not neutral and uninvolved in this matter. Having been to Croatia doesn't mean I am lacking in neutrality. I have also been to Brazil, that doesn't mean I can't close RfCs relating to Brazil. I am completely neutral as regards Djokovic, and I believe my closure was correct and took into account all the sources presented and the relevant policies. RfCs aren't a vote, and there were some IPs with interesting edit histories contributing. I didn't given them much weight, and I gave less weight to statements/claims that were not based in policy. But if you want my closure reviewed, feel free to ask per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll note here that the expanded formulation promoted by some editors seems fine to me (per the sources used), and that I have blocked Soundwaweserb for edit-warring. I suggest that all involved editors continue to calmly discuss the exact wording to be used. I'm sure you can all agree on something that reflects what the man himself has said about his origins. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OMG Soundwaweserb lying. [25] Here Novak's father says "The truth is that my wife is Croatian." and "I sincerely believe that Novak nobody will condemn why his mother is Croatian.". The fact that someone is born in Belgrade does not mean that he is Serb. This is a silly reason.--Suzichi (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But we have source that proves other thing so we must not include questionable things in article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing

@Serialjoepsycho: There you go what I meant when I said "Wanna bet the won't drop it if this passes". Also @Peacemaker67: could you explain why did you made a formulation that Novak's mother is Croatian by background. That can be said for Novak since his mother is a Croat, but presented sources don't say anything about Novak mother's background. They say that she is a Croat. For all we know her parents might be Serbs. We don't know her background. All the sources say is that she is a Croat. I'm afraid that I must insist that we follow the sources and do not insert claims that aren't supported by sources. Thanks. Also sources don't say that Novak's father is Montenegrin origin. We don't know his origin. All we know that Novak is half Montenegrin and half Croat by origin/parentage/ethnicity (call it whatever you want). We don't have sources that speak of the origin/parentage of his grandparents. Kavonder 16:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock, you guessed very well that you would never drop the stick. Believe it or not, I never expected any good faith on your part. Peacemaker67 can't help it that you can't read the sources.I read the sources and saw his father Montenegrin origin.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it. If that is what sources are saying then be it so. I know that Slobodna Dalmacija says that he "is Montenegrin", I'll look into other 2 sources. You didn't mention his mother. Slobodna Dalmacija quotes Djokovic saying that she "is a Croat". However you are not discussing with me in good faith so I will communicate directly with Peacemaker67. Kavonder 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

How can you put that Djokovic consider himself a Serbian WHEN HE IS A SERBIAN, there is no consideration about that , because it is a FACT , HE WAS BORN THERE . You just put the qoute of Slobodna Dalmacija newspapers with no research , and with that you just minorized Djokovic s Serbian heritage , because now it looks like that he is Montenegrin and Croat who decided to live in Serbia and therefore he is considering himself as Serbian , and also it also looks like you do not know any facts about Balkan . Who says that his father has Montenegrin origin , when he was born in Kosovo , and he said that he is a SERB, and also it is a well known fact that there is a lots of Serbs who still live in Montenegro, you can just see that there is a lot of Croatian nationalistic propaganda on this page , and it is quite pathetic. In lack of their own athletes , they are trying to take others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.85.184 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Both of the above IPs are single-purpose accounts, probably of two users who took part in the recent RfC. 23 editor (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Now there are "three" single purpose IP's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

188.101.85.184 is probably Soundwaweserb avoiding block. The rest are mine. My ip changes a lot by itself, but it's obvious that I'm the same person. My ips start with 89 or 141 or 213, all belong to my isp. If someone else appears with the ips from the same block I'll let you know that so there is no confusion. Until then you can consider those addresses mine. I also use other addresses, for instance when I'm editing from different places ,but if it's not obvious just ask. Kavonder 21:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not obvious in the least! Get an account or end with a name or something. Otherwise it's sockpuppetry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You know what, you gave a great suggestion. I don't want an account but this ip changes are often being a problem for me. I will sign my comments. Thanks for suggestion. Kavonder 22:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.125.36 (talk)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this revision constantly reverted? As already stated, there is no need to have three mirroring refs. Also, the "with Novak considering himself to be Serbian" is superfluous. He is Serbian.--Zoupan 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

One is the wording. It goes against the RfC result and administrator recommendation, and we don't need that much detail on his parentage since it's trivia. Djokovic could probably claim himself to be many things, but he's never shied away from his Serbian birthright. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is the wording going against RfC result recommendation. Why are other bios having this kind of information then?--Zoupan 00:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just read the recommendation. As for other bios, in most tennis bios you're lucky if the parents are even named. Nadal has just his parents names, as does Murray... no mention of where the parents were born or the ethnicity... because it's trivial... we aren't writing a novel. The fact that Djokovic has his parents heritage even mentioned is pretty remarkable. And that only because of the recent RfC and because of ridiculous chest pounding by some over lines on a map. All that matters is Novak's birth certificate and personal beliefs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not by ethnicity as we had established. To put it in the words you will understand. Tesla is a Serbs because his parents are Serbs, Novak isn't because his parents aren't. You can't mix ethnicity with nationality in that way. His nationality is clearly stated in the lead, his ethnicity is clearly stated in the early life subsection. No mixing of those is acceptable.Kavonder 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑Single-purpose account troll. 23 editor (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

143.210.200.116 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It claims Djokovic's mother to be of Croatian background but the sources for that are questionable. The first one is a tabloid magazine with no sources itself, the second doesnt even work and the third is completely irrelevant. Please remove or provide reasonable sources.

 Not done - this has been discussed at great length, and the current version is the consensus - see the very large purple box headed "RfC Novak's mother" at the top of this pagehere - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Novak Djokovic. 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/20110414115912/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915211631/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=D643 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=D643
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221181433/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=W367 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=W367

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) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

No.2 Singles Ranking, not No.4 Aperovic (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -He is ranked No. 4 currently, per ATP. Gap9551 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Novak Djokovic. 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/20100129064031/http://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news/article/-/6730661/djokovic-blames-illness to http://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news/article/-/6730661/djokovic-blames-illness
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716210527/http://news.tennisty.com/tennis-players-updates/nadal-and-djokovic-to-play-double-together/ to http://news.tennisty.com/tennis-players-updates/nadal-and-djokovic-to-play-double-together
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oks.org.rs/2010/12/proglaseni-najuspesniji-u%E2%80%932010-oj/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220182728/http://novakdjokovic.com/en/album/head-graphene-speed-racquet-promo/f/head_novak_speed_launch_03/ to http://novakdjokovic.com/en/album/head-graphene-speed-racquet-promo/f/head_novak_speed_launch_03/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HX05phg1?url=http://www.prva.rs/sr/video/zabava/docek_novaka_djokovica/mediaSet/1964/Do%C4%8Dek+Novaka+%C4%90okovi%C4%87a+-+Prvi+na+Prvoj to http://www.prva.rs/sr/video/zabava/docek_novaka_djokovica/mediaSet/1964/Do%C4%8Dek+Novaka+%C4%90okovi%C4%87a+-+Prvi+na+Prvoj

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) 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Novak Djokovic. 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/20131001214422/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sports/2011-09/13/c_131134905.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sports/2011-09/13/c_131134905.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160606183946/http://thewire.in/2016/06/06/novak-djokovic-becomes-first-man-to-hold-all-slams-on-three-surfaces-dawns-his-era-41010/ to http://thewire.in/2016/06/06/novak-djokovic-becomes-first-man-to-hold-all-slams-on-three-surfaces-dawns-his-era-41010/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atpworldtour.com/es/players/novak-djokovic/d643/fedex-atp-win-los
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522044854/http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/hot-shot-novak-djokovic/ to http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/hot-shot-novak-djokovic
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002040551/http://www.balkaninside.com/novak-djokovic-engaged-to-long-time-girlfriend/ to http://www.balkaninside.com/novak-djokovic-engaged-to-long-time-girlfriend
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120909185909/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEN_US_OPEN_MEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-09-13-59-18 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEN_US_OPEN_MEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-09-13-59-18
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/504849/20130910/novak-djokovic-u-s-open-rafael-nadal.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713040956/https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/tramlines/confirmed--andy-murray-signs-%C2%A315-million-kit-deal-with-under-armour-111648143.html to https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/tramlines/confirmed--andy-murray-signs-%C2%A315-million-kit-deal-with-under-armour-111648143.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.audemarspiguet.com/manufacture/news/novak-djokovic-newly-appointed-ambassador-99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924162714/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/idUS225331+08-Mar-2012+HUG20120308 to https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/idUS225331+08-Mar-2012+HUG20120308
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pressrs.ba/info/banjaluka/banjaluka-dobila-novak-cafe-na-banj-brdu-16-10-2015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227092734/http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/novak-djokovic-frost-over-the-world-the-number-one-video-tujxqNNZi-o-8645-7.html to http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/novak-djokovic-frost-over-the-world-the-number-one-video-tujxqNNZi-o-8645-7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204202341/http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/news/tennis-ace-djokovic-gets-expendables-role-161800835.html to http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/news/tennis-ace-djokovic-gets-expendables-role-161800835.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222093830/http://blog.novakdjokovicfoundation.org/education/register-for-iahp-lectures-in-belgrade/ to http://blog.novakdjokovicfoundation.org/education/register-for-iahp-lectures-in-belgrade

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) 01:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)