Talk:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

French 'Open' controversy

I think it is unfair not to provide an historical background on the French players from 1891 to 1924. Note other tournaments, like Wimbledon, tended to be entered by only UK players at the start. Even the Australian 'Open' was the Australian Championships before 1969.Ryoung122 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that bios for pre-25 French should be included but most aren't written yet. However they should remain grey with the links maybe a different color and they should not count towards slams. Fyunck(click) 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a few arguments against the present layout:

  • A. The women's page isn't 'greyed out'
  • B. There are other 'rules' such as the 'Open era' and the 'challenge round' that also affect who won
  • C. Read the article on Suzanne Lenglen. She went to NY to play the US 'Open' and was treated terribly. Open on paper only.
  • D. You can't link an article if it is greyed out.
  • E. Most of the people have different versions, a simple notation for '1925' should be enough.
  • F. The 'Australian Open' certainly wasn't before 1969.
  • G. Look at the Wimbledon list, when do you see the first non-English flag? Except that Ireland was a part of the UK then so its a phantom?Ryoung122 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comparing being treated badly as opposed to "French Players Only" is a big deal. I have no trouble linking the greyed out text. An American won the Aussie in 1908. Fyunck(click) 07:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The first 30 years we don't see any non-UK winners of the British championships...and since Australia's head of state is the Queen of England, really we don't see the emergence of 'modern' tennis until the 1920's.Ryoung122 07:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

However it was open to all countries. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we to say that Babe Ruth's home runs shouldn't count because the US prevented non-whites from playing pro baseball from 1880 to 1947? Hmm....Ryoung122 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but the Negro leagues records aren't incorporated into MLB records either. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should take George Washington off the dollar bill because he owned slaves? Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson too?Ryoung122 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, someone still had to compete and win despite the rules being restrictive. In reality, since from 1877 to 1920 nearly all titles were within each individual nation, the best comparison to be made is to not grey out. Notably, stars like Henri Cochet and Jean Borotra did just as well after competition was 'open' as before.

ok... I agree to not have it greyed out. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In reality, however, consider this: all four were 'amateur' because tennis was an elitist sport. By not paying money, only the 'idle riche' were expected to compete. There were complaints from Suzanne Lenglen to Althea Gibson about this. So, just how 'open' were these national championships, anyway? Truly, the 'Open' era began in 1968, but we should not 'diss' those who still played by the rules in their own time. If someone won 7 times, they must have been really good.Ryoung122 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Really good yes, great maybe, but not included in the tennis slam records. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The real point here is that the four championships today each trace to 1877, 1881, 1891, and 1905...more than a century ago. During the past century-plus, there have been many changes, from the elimination of the challenge round, the elimination of the amateur requirement, the renamings, the surface changes...the 'Australian Open' was once the 'Australiasian championships'. Not only that, it was common practice for one person to compete only in their home nation. Persons like Federer today have a decided advantage...even as recent as the 1970's, Bjorn Borg didn't bother to go compete in the Australian Open which had so little respect, people like Brian Teacher were able to win it. The move from Jan. to Dec. denied Martina Navratilova a calendar-year Grand Slam. Now, however, since 1988 everything has come together, the 'Aussie Open' and the 'Big Four' are all highly competitive.

I agree here, but pre-Connors there a great deal of respect for the Aussie Championships. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The real purpose of this article is to lay out the history of the championships over the years. I note that some of the reports for Venus William's victory yesterday only mentioned the recordholders from the 'Open' era...no Helen Wills, Molla Mallory or the like. So, the media will do what they want.

No, the purpose of this article is to lay out the SLAMS (hence the title). Pre-25 the French was not a Slam in that only French were allowed... all the other Slams allowed all countries even if those other countries had few entries or were treated badly. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What we SHOULD do on Wikipedia, however, is to present the information incorporating multiple points of view. It is not for you to decide that the pre-1925 French championships shouldn't be counted...they are, after all, listed in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, so why not Wikipedia?

List away but don't go adding to the Slam total. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, people make of what they will here. The number system (1/7) is used to help people visually find multiple winners, so it should be included for everyone. Even for single-time winners, because that way there is no need to look to see if there's a second title or not, plus it is aesthetically more pleasing.Ryoung122 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is for Slams not small "French Only" tournies. If you start adding non-slams you could also throw out all the Slams after the professionals started their tournies. Wimbledon/French/US/Aussie meant nothing in the 40s-60s so you should actually count the Pro events instead. But that's for a different article as it should be, just as pre-25 winners of the French should not be included in slam totals. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

French 'pre 1925' controversy, part II

Let's take a look at some outside sources. ESPN lists the pre-1925 French winners:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/history?type=men Ryoung122 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The history of tennis is that it was a French game ('royal tennis') that the Brits adapted to the lawn, to create a new game called 'lawn tennis':

http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp Ryoung122 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article also said the French may have taken it from Egypt but that has nothing to do with our conversation. Fyunck(click) 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ndtv.com/sports/frenchopenpastwinners.asp?gender=menRyoung122 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, like golf, where there is dispute about how many 'majors' Bobby Jones won, the best thing Wikipedia can do is to present all the data and let the reader decide.

Unfortunately the only way to do that is to remove all the total numbers from the columns and I don't think that is a really good idea either. Fyunck(click) 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of work to do yet and to get into an edit war isn't really the right idea. Ryoung122 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the original makers of this page were on the right track when they greyed out the pre-1925 French Champions. Ungreying them opens up all kinds of problems since people might think they are true slam champions. Should they be on this "Slam" list at all when the French Tourney wasn't an international event then? (I don't think it was even a country event, being open only to its own club members). I guess it lets the people reading this article know that the French Title has been around longer than 1925 and many websites (cbs, msnbc, etc...) don't show pre-1925 at all. But I think it's best to remain grey so as not to confuse it with a slam victory. This is a slam article not a French club website. Other viewpoints? Fyunck(click) 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

French 'Open" Controversy, Part III

What's with blanking out the names completely? So much for compromise. I'm going back to COUNTING the pre-1925 champions. Here's why:

1. The outside sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, list them.

2. All the arguments that could be made against the pre-1925 French tournament could also be made against the other three.

3. The idea of the "slam" didn't even emerge until the 1930s, with Don Budge...but do we see anyone black out pre-1938 Wimbledon champs?

4. It's clear that the French tournament was MORE open...their first champ was a Brit, as was two runners-up in the early decades. This did not happen at the other three, which were less open...yet you're excluding this because it was more closed? That shot clearly misses. Interestingly, the US "Open" in 1881 was open only to Americans, and was for several years. Yet we count them, because that's the origin of the tournament.

5. There's also the pro-am dispute, pre-1968.

6. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect pluralistic viewpoints, not just the one of one person such as Fyunclick who violates WP:OWN to contort this and similar tennis articles to reflect his own views, rather than reflecting outside sources that existed long before Wikipedia did.

Ryoung122 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that pre-1925 the French was open only to French nationals. Is this not the case? This did not happen at any of the other three, which were open to all nationalities, at least in theory.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not just French Nationals... also foreign players living in France who were members of one particular club. No sources list them as slam winners (which this article is) and this was pointed out long ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As an added followup, while those pre-1925 names do not belong on a list of slam winners there was time they were here in a grayed out fashion just so people could see the non-international winners. I know that was very pov to leave them here at all since no sources list them as slam winners, only French Championship winners, but we thought as long as their totals weren't in any charts they could stay... but colored out and footnoted to differentiate them. This proved to be a poor choice because new editors were seeing the grayed out names and adding their totals and other stats to the main charts on the page more and more frequently. We were starting to miss some of those changes and had to go back weeks to correct them. That is why the grayed out names were eventually removed. I hope that helps a little Pawnkingthree (I like that handle), and thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way if you're unsure about the situation please go back and read back in these talk pages and Talk:List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions on the French open. And please visit a book store or library and you'll find the sources overwhelming in excluding the French titles before 1925 in slam counts. Remember that a French Open list will include all the players before 1925 as it should since they are French Open champions (really the French Championships before the open era but we always combine them into the French Open article). But a total slam list almost always says no to pre-1925 French club titles as far as slam counts. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you that what you are doing is imaginary...there was no concept of a "Grand Slam" when Wimbledon started in 1877, or when the US Open started in 1881, or when the Australian Open started in 1905. It was not until the 1930s that the idea of the "Grand Slam" emerged. What you are doing is an ahistorical revision of the past. Ok, many persons do that...it's called "hindsight." Some have an issue with counting "slams" before the challenge round was abolished; others have a problem with pre-open era counts because they excluded professionals. As there is no consensus and Wikipedia calls for pluralism...the article reflecting multiple major points of view...it would not be too much to come up with a solution that would list "most slams, Open era" and "most slams, pre-Open era." So why is it too difficult for you to accept the idea of, at the very least, listing the pre-1925 French "Open" winners? All your excuses are cop-outs (too much work? others don't agree with you, so you want to mess up the board?). Maybe if you stepped back and asked why were others adding the "greyed-out" cases to the slam counts, you might find your answer.

When I open the Encyclopedia Britannica (a BRITISH reference), they list all the winners of the French "Open" back to 1891. When I open the World Almanac (an AMERICAN reference), they list Suzanne Lenglen as having won 12 titles. So, what makes you more authoritative than THOSE sources? Clearly, you have NOT edited in a spirit of compromise and have instead WP:OWNed these articles. But history is not on your side. By the way, I have a degree in history, what about you?Ryoung122 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The very first French "Open" was won by a British, one did NOT have to be a French national.Ryoung122 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fyunclick vs. Outside Sources

Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" and as such, should reflect outside sources, not one's own POV. Not only that, Wikipolicy calls for PLURALISM which requires the articles to reflect major points of view, not just one. However, in this case probably the majority, if not a plurality, of sources reflect my POV. For example:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/history?type=men

When ESPN lists the winners of Grand slams, they don't worry about issues such as Open era/pre-Open era, challenge round, or pre-1925 French. Not only that, but research has shown that the French was actually MORE open to outside competition than the US Open and Wimbledon were in their early stages.Ryoung122 20:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

There is still work to be done to make this more conformational. For example, there are still some first names, instead of last-name only with a link (i.e. Federer, Roger). Also, for multiple winners there's no need to have the first name several times...Ryoung122 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Wolbo 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, you were supposed to include the first name for the first mention...Ryoung122 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say 'supposed to' are you refering to an accepted consensus on this? If so, can you point me to that? The overview does not contain any first names at all in the Open Era part and just a couple in the recently re-added pre 1925 part of the French Open so at least now it's consistent. Again if it's accepted consensus that the first mention of a player should include a first name as well I'll be willing to contribute to an update. Wolbo 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to all the first mentions of a person have a formula...you don't see the first name on the page but the first name is visible on the 'edit' page. This allows three things:

A. to disambiguate between those persons with the same last name (i.e. Ernest and William Renshaw)

B. allows for a wikilink to a (potential future) article on the person.

C. It allows a person to find out the person's full name without forcing the table to be too large.

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself.Ryoung122 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Colors

When there were color bars for 3x and 4x per year champions I saw no problems but with the addition of 2x champions in a year this table has become much more difficult to read. If we must include the 2x winners as a separate color could we make it a closer off-white? Heck even the 3x and 4x could be softer... just a hint of color change would be more readable. Fyunck(click) 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we 'must' include the 2 x winners but it seems logical to indicate them as well. I could understand only highlighting the calendar Grand Slam but see no reason why 3 x winners should be highlighted but not 2 x winners. At least now we highlight all multiple winners which is more logically consistent and IMO also deserved as it is after all a special achievement. I agree that extra colors can make tables harder to read but tried to pick a softtone to minimize that effect (you should have seen my earlier choice ;-) ). I guess that's always somewhat subjective but feel free to select a better color if you can find it. Wolbo 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i do not agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.206.83 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

Needs a cleanup, why is Sampras (4) below some with 3? Federer in the wrong place. Also, I suggest if a player does it multiple times, they should be listed multiply. For example, if Federer wins Wimbledon 5 times that is different than winning the US Open 3 times, so the listings should be split. This would give proper credit. The current situation alternately discredits (only the 'best effort' counts) and over-credits (a '3' ahead of '5').Ryoung122 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Open Grey-Out?

Reading direct from the U.S. Open Wikipedia page:

The US Open originated from two separate tournaments: the men's tournament and the women's tournament. The event was first held in August 1881 and staged at the Newport Casino, Newport, Rhode Island (men's singles only). The championships were known as the U.S. National Singles Championship for men. Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter

Hmmm...so the US National championships count from inception, even though they were originally restricted to Americans, but the French don't? Once again, If Funclick would stop being such a bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, self-appointed prophet and soothsayer and stopped and considered things a bit more, he'd realize that all four tournaments were 'embryonic' in the early years, limited in scope and entry, and geared toward a 'national' championship...which is why they were called 'national' championships.Ryoung122 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In checking Wikis source for this it is unclear if this innagural 1881 tourney was the only event which was restricted to US clubs and it is also unclear whether that was a restriction only for US players. There is evidence of other countries at the US event in the 1890s and foreign winners in the 1900s. France however through 1925 forbid other countries and other french clubs from entering. This is why ESPN, NBC, CBS, my set of world book encyclopedias, and many other sources refuse to classify the French Championships as a slam caliber event until 1925. I have no doubt that some sources do include it but that doesn't make it right. Fyunck(click) 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is: you should be attempting to arrive at a 'fair' position. Your position right now is NOT fair; it is like demanding that Wikipedia reflect the position of a political party (Democrat or Republican) when in fact it should be neutral. So far you have overstated your case: the FACTS are that there was no such thing as a 'slam' before the 1930's, and this list is meant for primarily historical relevance. Titles must be taken within the context of their era. Of course, some would argue that Pancho Gonzales was one of the greatest players of all time and that Roy Emerson, with 12 'slams', was a second-fiddle player who survived because of the pro-am rule until 1968 (notice no titles after 1968). This compares to the French situation, where the likes of Lenglen, Borotra, Cochet etc. continued to win AFTER the rules changes. This strongly suggests that the pro-am rule was in fact worse. Also, there seems to be too much repeating of things and not enough investigating. France has long been inclusive to include people 'within the French empire' which is why people like Yannick Noah, from Cameroon, represented France in 1983...over 50 years later. This compares well to the elite British tennis establishment which has been lily-white.Ryoung122 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair was allowing it to be ungreyed not numbered. And the more you dig at British society and put France's openess on a pedestal, the more your appearance of a whore for France. And I look at Gonzales as one of the all-time greats, but not Emerson. Fyunck(click) 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the French Championships

I love it... Ryoung asks for a compromise and edits like a banshee when I'm not around... adding more and more to a controversial subject and burying it amoung dozens of edits every 2 minutes. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should.

But this article is "Grand Slam Men's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must. Fyunck(click) 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now also being discussed at WPT:TENNIS. Fyunck(click) 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I despise your informalist language usage. "Slam" is a media term; Wimbledon is properly the Championships, Wimbledon and the winners are called 'title holders.' The holders of the most 'singles' titles is what you are talking about. Quite properly, if a 'slam' is winning all four titles in a given year, then we only need to be discussing Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, and a few others.

LOL... you mean the Grand Slam... boy oh boy. here I am opening this up for discussion amoung peers and you are still being snotty. Fyunck(click) 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Second: the first-ever winner of the "French Open" was an ENGLISHMAN in 1891:

I see... an Englishman living in Paris and a member of that French tennis club. As were the guys below most probably. Nice source too. Fyunck(click) 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that destroys your 'French-only' theory. More likely, like the U.S. Open it was a "French clubs" only rule...but foreigners could join a French club and then play in the tournament. All in all, I suggest you reconsider.Ryoung122 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We also see that in 1892 and 1897 the French finalist was British:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists

Year Champion Runner-up Score 1891 H. Briggs a British resident of Paris P. Baigneres 1892 Jean Schopfer Fassitt 1893 L. Riboulet Jean Schopfer 1894 André Vacherot Gérard Brosselin 1895 André Vacherot L. Riboulet 1896 André Vacherot Gérard Brosselin 6-1 7-5 1897 Paul Aymé F. Wardan 4-6 6-4 6-2 1898 Paul Aymé Paul Lebreton 1899 Paul Aymé Paul Lebreton 1900 Paul Aymé Alain Prévost 1901 André Vacherot Paul Lebreton 1902 Marcel Vacherot Max Décugis 6-4 6-2 1903 Max Décugis André Vacherot 1904 Max Décugis André Vacherot 6-1 9-7 6-8 6-1 1905 Maurice Germot André Vacherot 1906 Maurice Germot Max Décugis 1907 Max Décugis Robert Wallet 1908 Max Décugis Maurice Germot 1909 Max Décugis Maurice Germot 1910 Maurice Germot François Blanchy 1911 André Gobert Maurice Germot 1912 Max Décugis André Gobert 1913 Max Décugis Georges Gault 1914 Max Décugis Jean Samazeuilh 3-6 6-1 6-4 6-4 1915 no competition World War I 1916 no competition World War I 1917 no competition World War I 1918 no competition World War I 1919 no competition World War I 1920 André Gobert Max Décugis 6-3 3-6 1-6 6-2 6-3 1921 Jean Samazeuilh André Gobert 6-3 6-3 2-6 7-5 1922 Henri Cochet Jean Samazeuilh 8-6 6-3 7-5 1923 François Blanchy Max Décugis 1-6 6-2 6-0 6-2 1924 Jean Borotra René Lacoste 7-5 6-4 0-6 5-7 6-2

Note above, in 1924 Jean Borotra had to win a 5-set marathon against Rene Lacoste (inventor of the 'tennis shirt', usurped by Ralph Lauren to become the 'polo' shirt in the late 1960's).

And we see that players like Paul Ayme and Max Decugis of France played in the Olympics and Davis Cup:

http://www.answers.com/topic/1904-international-lawn-tennis-challenge

Thus, a little research shows that France was at the forefront of tennis (perhaps not the best, but already competitive). I don't see a Frenchman competing at Wimbledon in 1877.Ryoung122 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN not only lists all of them, but mentions Max Decugis as the all-time recordholder: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/ Ryoung122 09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As it should, I would list him also in an article on French Championship winners. That's never been the issue and it's why there is a French Open wiki site that has all that info. I can plop open ESPN records and CBS records and encyclopedia records as I'm sitting here and find that they list each individual championships players including the French, all the way back. But when counting slams they each stop with France at 1925 because of it's severe restrictions before then. Fyunck(click) 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Slams by the Decade

I feel this is a good addition but apparently RY does not as he dissed mine and Wolbos edits. I'm reverting it back. FreepRipper 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I already stated I had NO PROBLEM with Wolbo's edits (so far). Rather, his edits got caught in the cross-fire. I see just how destructive you are, setting up sockpuppets to make it appear you are more than you are and then attacking/editing at convenient times to incorporate others' changes to within your fold. Evil, but effective.Ryoung122 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently FreepRipper is a Fyunclick sockpuppet...he did not exist until July 19 2007 (see his contributions list).Ryoung122 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What, when one signs up has a bearing on edits? I've edited for quite awhile without joining but I see you are engaged in multiple edit wars over several articles. Is this habitual with you? Get over yourself. FreepRipper 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Correcting Trivia

I was attempting to correct the 'trivia' lists (i.e. put Pete Sampras, with 7 Wimbledons, ahead of Bjorn Borg, with 6 French Opens) when...voila!...FreepRipper/Fyunclick reappears to vandalize again. It's bad enough that he won't negotiate, but to falsely misrepresent someone else's position is UNCONSCIONABLE.Ryoung122 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, join the crowd. My posts got vandalized by you so I put them back. I could really care less about what happens to your own edits now. FreepRipper 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'Editing' and 'vandalizing' aren't the same thing. I re-made 'your' list (this is your personal page, after all?) to conform to multiple major sources (i.e. Encylopedia Britannica, World Almanac, CNN, ESPN, etc). Then I did a little history-digging and discovered evidence that the assertion that no non-French persons were allowed before 1925 was simply a falsehood that has been repeated one time too often. Then I discovered that the early U.S. 'Open' was also 'exclusive.' Despite this evidence, you chose to completely ignore it and turn this into a 'turf' battle instead of finding a happy medium. I am disappointed mostly by the lack of an 'open' mind on your part. Apparently, reasoned arguments couldn't penetrate a stubborn will.Ryoung122 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Numbering System

This is really getting old Mr RYoung and I've tried to just ignore your petty little tantrums but let's look at the facts here instead of your lies. I don't have access to "World Almanac" or "Britanica" online but I have a "World Almanac" on my desk along with ESPN's Sports Almanac, Time Almanac 2006, Comptons Encyclopedia, Concord Encyclopedia, Tennis - History of the Sport.... NONE of them have a list of slam totals that include the pre-1925 French Championships. NONE of them! Now, they do include winners of just the French Championships and that list of course has all winners back to 1891. But when it comes to adding up slams (which they do)... nada, nothing, zilch for the pre-1925 French Championships and that goes for MSNBC and CBS also. I have misplaced my UK Sports History book so I won't include it here. There are plenty of sources for the fact that the French only allowed certain French Club players to participate and you brought up a source that said Englishmen living in France who were members of those clubs were also allowed to play. There may be some grey areas here or there but the French Tourney was far and away more exclusionary then any of the other 3 tournies. That is why it is excluded from so many slam lists. This page was set up to also exclude the pre-1925 French Tournament which was why those names are greyed out and not counted among slam victories...they are just French victories which are included on this wikipedias' French Open Championships article. That's fine and as it should be. You say I am being unfair? Well I said I would agree to ungrey the names so I did not revert your change to black. But you took it further to include numbering them as international SLAM victories so I reverted it back to grey. You now say that you asked me if italics would be ok and I admit I didn't notice that request through all your insults. I have no problem with italics either if it will ease this conflagration and allow better linking to player bios. However they are not slams so numbering them as such is still out in my book. I put this issue before the Tennis wikiproject collaborate to see if they could come to some sort of agreement on whether to keep the status quo as I believe is correct, or change the article to include the pre-1925 French champions as you propose. It may take some time to come to an agreement but for some reason you want to put the cart before the horse and change it now. This makes it tough for others to edit and where I've tried to incorporate others edits by just weeding your changes you seem to just blanket undo... this seems unfair. So while we wait for a ruling if you want to ungrey and italicize or color the pre-1925 names to make it easier to link I have no objection to that compromise. But we must wait until we see some sort of consensus amongst our tennis peers before we fiddle with numbering them as slams. Fyunck(click) 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyunclick and WP:OWN

I see that no one else really cares, but again I think it is WRONG to 'grey out' early French champions (when the very first winner was British!) and while the early US championships were closed to international competition. Such listing smack of anti-French bias, not fairness. Even the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with '12' women's grand slam titles. Your insistence on 'having it your way' is simply mis-informing a great deal of the public. Ms. Lenglen was one of the greatest players of all time and beat the best that the UK and the USA had to offer. To grey out her victories is simply unacceptable.Ryoung122 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, an acceptable compromise would be to list championship totals in three ways:

'all-time' 'since the elimination of the challenge round in 1922' 'in the Open era' (since 1968)

'All-time' should be 'all-time', not 'grey-out' all-time. After all, we can't say that the titles of Richard Sears are strictly comparable to Federer's with the elimination of the challenge round. We can't say that Rod Laver or Pancho Gonzales should be judged by their 'amateur' victories alone when much of their career was spent professionally. It would be more fair, honest, and open to everyone to produce the data in these three ways. Despite giving you the time to arrive at 'consensus,' I see that instead you simply 'sat on' the results 'your way.' If you really want to go at it again, let me know.

I note a comparison to ML basball, which considers the 'modern' era to have begun in 1901...but this is silly. There's no such thing as a 40-game winner today; there was no such thing as hitting 40 home runs in a season in 1901. ML baseball needs a tier system as well. Ryoung122 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not listed are French champions 1891-1920's.Ryoung122 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View' states that:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Yet we see just one person insist that French pre-1925 titles are 'not viable for slam-counting purposes'...this is a violation of 'original research.' In fact, we see many sources from the World Almanac to the Encyclopedia Britannica list the pre-1925 champions. Thus, this article must be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV.Ryoung122 22:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Ryoung122 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my encyclopedias and World Almanac do not have a "Total Grand Slam Victories" heading at all. It lists a French Championship going back to the 1890's but that is covered completetly in other Wiki articles. This article doesn't cover the French before 1925 for reasons stated many many times. But good to see you back. Fyunck(click) 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grey colored text of Pre 1920s French Open

I removed the grey colored text for the following reasons:

  • It is hard to see and not readable.
  • Those winners were recognized by various media/encyclopedia
  • The POV is whether to count them or not. I have no position on that. I just left them as is.
  • Persecution on backwards looking on history is trivial and an insignificant pursuit.
  • NPOV tag is left in place, since this edit does nothing to edit the current listing policy of not counting those slams against the winners.

- RC 04:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the greyout but it makes it easier to see that a block of players are not counted as "Slam" winners by a major proportion of sources. I would suggest a darker color or maybe italisized for clarity. Leaving it ecactly the same as legitimate "slam" winners will likely have someone accidentaly re-do the totals. It's not persecution... their names could have been removed completely but I feel it's better to leave them in place and yet show readers they are not generally accepted as "slam" winners. Fyunck(click) 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, when a discussion is active on talk, don't persuade by RVs. You make valid points and I agree with them. But, they still are champions and thus encyclopedia and every other tennis historian/authority has accepted them as is. Your point of NOT counting them towards their slams may or may not be accurate. But I am not debating that. It is just an issue of listing them as is, as they were awarded trophies that were legacy French championships, whether national or international. Insisting on displaying them different for the sake of being different is somewhat trivial. Clear footnotes has been made showing when the tourney name has been changed and thus started including them. If you feel that it doesn't distinguish enough, feel free to make a statement in the beginning of the article mentioning, "Pre 1925 French Opens were exclusive to French nationals who are part of the club etc.. and hence tradition suggest not counting them towards individual slam count etc..". That along with NPOV tag should be sufficient for all parties concerned to make the distinction you are seeking. Again, I am not taking a position on counting or not. Merely shading them grey IMHO just indicate persecution. If someone still makes them include on slam count, then RV as you desire - RC 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If this were an aticle on the French Championships I would heartily agree with you. In fact there is a wiki article on those championships and those players are not greyed out, nor should they be. But this is not an article on the "legacy" of French Champions. It is an article on Grand Slam Championships and those men are not Grand Slam Champions. This is where you seem to be going astray. The encyclopedias and historians list those pre-25 men as French Champions only. When they include a list of Slam champions they are not included because it was not recognized as an international event. Technically they should not even be listed here but for the uninformed it is a convenience to show they existed but that they were not "Grand Slam" Champions. I didn't have time to italisize or change the colors on all those players so I left it up to you to do. And FYI when this has been discussed forever here you don't persude by removing first and explaining why later. Had you posted here and expressed your opinion that it was hard to read, replies would have been short and on the order of "what's a good color?" Fyunck(click) 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I had taken chance to read over all the discussions on it. I would politely like to refer you to WP:OWN. I have yet to see anyone other than you representing this POV. I would like to get this discussion going and see if other active WP tennis experts can chime in. If the encyclopedia refer to them winning French, that is good enough for me. This list is just a compliation of all those winners irrespective of the nature of grand slams, however you choose to perceive it. Ryoung has taken time to refer to links that indicate the familiar club players playing in most of these slams not just french. If you would like to take time to quote authortative sources that explictly state that they do NOT include them, I would be very happy to agree with your view. Till then, I am disinclined to distinguish them in listings. And I take no position in counting them. More over, lets see if we can get some consensus and common ground. I defer to you in making this article more comprehensive of various POV. - RC 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr RC, There have been others with my pov but most here (as Mr RYoung has found out also) are of the quiet variety. I have listed the books and encyclopedias that do not count the pre-1925 French as Slams. You say this article is irrespective of slams... where is that statement coming from since the article name is GRAND SLAM MEN'S SINGLES CHAMPIONS! You cannot separate out GRAND SLAM from that title however you can change the title to reflect a new meaning. You also have to understand that I believe this article is of the prevailing media/authoritative pov, so it is not for me to change. If someone else wants to include a chart that says something like "While not the mainstream view there is a minority opinion that includes all non-international or non-slam Champions" I would have no problem. Then you could list those French titles in that chart. We could even debate moving older challenge rounds into that chart since it was an unfair advantage to automatically advance to the final if you won the year before. The trouble with that is it might be considered original research since most books and publications only cut off the pre-1925 French titles, not the challenge titles. And then what does one do with the Pro titles from 1935-1968? There are publications that list those titles as true Grand Slam Titles since the best players in the world could compete in them to vie for Worlds Best. Those 3 titles; Wembly Pro, U.S. Pro and French Pro were the true "Slams" of their day. Those were the titles that mattered to Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Jack Kramer... those titles determined who was number one (also the Pro Tour but that's another kettle of fish). Fyunck(click) 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I enjoyed your post. Please add some citations that can be used to defend such a POV in this article. I would be happy to agree with you. References and citations (both older encyclopedia citations and any article from tennis historians would be awesome). Also, I agree with your comment about Pro slams. Maybe we need a better clarification on Grand Slam as the current article on that title Grand Slam (tennis) doesn't do justice to this issue. - RC 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. First: Comptons Encyclopedia 1974(the edition may actually be 1972) and Concord's Encyclopedia... these volumous editions do not say "Slam" they say "Major Championships". Neither of them have a list of slam totals that include the pre-1925 French Championships. Now, they do include winners of just the French Championships and that list of course has all winners back to 1891. But when it comes to adding up slams (which they do)... zilch for the pre-1925 French Championships. I checked msnbc and cbs websites and they do not include pre-1925 French Championships for their Slam totals. I went to the store TODAY just so I could get an up-to-date Sports Almanac. I found two: 2007 ESPN Sports Almanac and 2007 Sports Illustrated Guide. Checking each I found for individual tournies they both list Australia from 1905, French from 1925, Wimbledon from 1877 and US from 1881. Mr RYoung has been quoted as saying it may be for space considerations (I don't believe it). They each have notes saying the French was not a viable tourney before 1925. They both list Borotra with only 4 Slam titles and they do not list Decugis with any titles Off topic here Sports Illustrated list Suzanne Lenglen with only 8 titles (skipping her 4 pre-25 French titles). Checking websites I found: The BBC sports website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/statistics/2950744.stm, The Grand Slam Tennis Archive - http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/, ESPN French Open History - http://espn.go.com/tennis/french01/history.html, and another http://www.tennislovers.com/. Now here at wiki we can't do original research or type in what we feel is right... We need sources. The vast majority do not include pre-1925 French titles and that is how this article was set up (I did not set it up... I'm a late-comer here). Those pre-1925 French title-holders should not properly be listed at all. I will not deny that a few publications include the pre-1925 French names... I haven't seen them but Mr RYoung has, and I do believe him, but they are a minority view in the published world. But since they are a minority view it seemed a good idea to me to keep them listed and "greyed out" (I came long afer the original authors greyed them out). As I said above, if someone wanted to make a separate little chart of leading slam winners that includes the pre-1925 French I have no problem with that at all as long as it is properly noted that it is not the accepted viewpoint. We might then be able to remove the pre-1925 French names from the main table of Grand Slam Champions. Fyunck(click) 00:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Good work on refering the encyclopedia. Though historically they are correct, we don't have to take their word entirely on it. Also, I got a chance to look at the web urls you cited. I guess the issue is the desire to present all the grand slam winners in one table. And your other comment indicated, it is a great idea to split them into different time periods to show the evolution and beef up the citations. I would have some time this weekend to split them into different years. I am thinking of the following and your ideas would be appreciated.
  • Pre-1925
  • International Amateurs (1925-1968)
  • Pro slams (1927-1968)
  • WCT/ITF rivalry (1968-1978)
  • 1978-current
I would also like the list to indicate that time period when AO emerged as a slam with top pros regularly participating in it (from 1988 Flinders Park edition). - RC 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RC, Some may really look at your project as POV but I'm willing to try some things to break up a logjam. Here are the potential problems with your proposed tables: 1. There is a difference between 1924 and 1925 at the French... there is no difference between 1924 and 1925 at the other three events. If most major sources do not include the minor French tourney winners before 1925 because they don't deem it "slam-worthy" it seems unfair to include those French winners in the same table as legitamate slam winners. They may need to be in a separate table... but then you could also have the tourneys that had challenge rounds in a separate table also. Or you could leave the table we have now intact, write below it that a few sources dispute the non-tallying of pre-1925 French champions and include them in a revised table below the main one. Maybe look kinda clunky though. 2. The international Amateurs were 1925-1967 (except the Aussie). The pro slams varied a lot in the earliest years but for the most part there were only 3 big ones (US Pro, French Pro, Wembly Pro). Those were the Pro Slams. 3. The AO didn't really emerge as a top slam...it was a top slam from about 1969-1974 and then dropped off the map till about 1983 or so. It's a tough one to catagorize. But it would be interesting to see what you come up with so we could all take a look. It seems daunting to me so Good Luck Fyunck(click) 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyunclick:
1. First, when you use terms like 'going astray,' you are yourself veering off into POV, WP:OWN violations. Wikipedia is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH...it should reflect what other sources show. Further, it is very biased and POV to devalue early French champions while overlooking the fact that all four tournaments, in their infancy, had limited competition, and no one envisioned the 'Grand Slam' idea until the 1930's, over a half-century after Wimbledon was founded. it is simply POV, historical revisionism to present the list the way you do. You also misspelled 'italicized.' And though this has been discussed 'forever', you have shown little or no inclination to compromise, listen to others, respect others points of view, or rework the article into a more inclusive frame. I note, for example, that many tennis TV sources only count 'open era' titles for 'slam-counting purposes.' Would it be too much to ask to develop three sets of data: all-time, since 1919 (addition of the challenge round), and since 1968 (the start of the 'open' era). Despite misperceptions, we find that the French tournament was open to non-French natives (one British winner, two British runners up in the first decade) while the US 'Open' in its early years was limited to Americans only. So, should this list go with what the facts show, or what you want it to be in your mind? Perpetuating a misperception ultimately does a disservice to everyone, including yourself.Ryoung122 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr Young... good to have you posting again and thanks for the spelling lesson. I agree that wiki is not original research... I have done none. MOST sources do not include the pre-1925 French Champions as slam winners. Those other tournies were limited in players mostly by long distances, not exclusion. Those early British winners were living in France and belonged to the one French club that allowed one to participate. Other French players were banned also. I have said change the color. I have said italicize. I have said change the article name to not include Slam Champions. If someone wants to take the time to re-write this article into 3 tiers then do it and present it to the group for evaluation. 1919 is arbitrary (The challenge rounds ended at different times for wimbledon and French titles) so I suggest 1925 since all the tournies were international at that time. 1968 won't work either since the Aussie wasn't open till 1969. You also seem to fixate on the fact that the term Grand Slam was invented in the 30's... we all agree. So should we include only events from Budge onward? I would say no. Actually the term Grand Slam should only be talked about in the sense of winning all 4 titles in a calendar year... the individual titles since Budge should and had always been called "majors" or "slams" until the 1990's. Somehow errors kept popping up in the press and the uninformed and before long even the tournaments themselves started calling each title a Grand Slam Championship. It was improper in the 70's, 80's and 90's, but through usuage it has become the proper terminology. And books extend it backwards in time, all the way back to the 1925 French, the 1905 Aussie, the 1881 US and the 1877 Wimby. That's the way they do it. Fyunck(click) 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order

Keep this listed from newest to oldest, as is every other grand slam list; they've been this way forever. Obviously when people come to this article they are going to be looking for the latest slam winners 90% of the time. They shouldn't have to scroll way down to find this information. Charles 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So we should begin people's biographies with the latest events in a person's life because that's what most people will be looking at? Besides all grand slam tennis champions lists are sorted in chronological order (newer at the bottom). This is the standard way it is done in Wikipedia and logical way to do it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Charles is correct on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting here per the request at WP:3O, generally such lists are ordered in chronological order from earliest to latest. For instance, take a look at the sports-related featured lists that largely all follow this model. As a regular at WP:FLC, I can safely say that if this list came to FLC ordered from newest to oldest, then you probably would get a request to switch the ordering. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the standards are. I'm simply saying that the article has been this way since it's inception, and that it gives the most important information at the top. Even if you don't believe that newest = most important, consider this: many of the early cells are empty because not every slam took place in those early days. Therefore, sorting the list from earliest to latest initially provides the reader with as little information as possible. I'm more than happy to forgo featured list status if it makes the article much more presentable and helpful to the reader. Charles 04:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're aware of what the standards are and are deliberately ignoring them, then that's essentially a WP:POINT. If you're worried about empty cells, then put en-dashes as placeholders. The reader isn't going to go to the top of the list and suddenly stop reading because it doesn't list the most recent item first. You're talking about two seconds of scrolling down a list to see the end. Heck, don't even consider sports lists here, look at other lists. Look at List of Japanese submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film or 50 Cent Discography. Is the most recent submission or single listed for the reader's benefit? No, as the list follows a natural progression and follows consensus on the matter. Anyhow, if you're concerned about some of the events not existing in the earlier years, then it becomes more confusing for a reader to grasp this with the list inverted rather than see the natural progression of a earliest to latest list show the event being created. On the flip side, there isn't a FL that follows your format, and you should be following the formats of FLs, as they represent our best work, and working against the style guidelines established there isn't productive. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe they represent our best work, I believe their represent an arbitrary standard of quality. Wikipedia has a massive problem with policy overriding logic. Look at what you are saying, you can't even tell me I'm wrong without quoting Wikipedia policy. I don't have a problem with empty cells per se, I have a problem with the fact that they convey no information. People don't read articles to be wowed by their adherence to your made up policy. They read them to gain information, and I dare you to defend the position that showing slam winners from 1881 at the top of page allows people quick access to information. Obviously you are not trying to sabotage the article, I know you are just trying to help (I requested the 3O and I appreciate your input), but put aside Wikipedia policy and try to logically explain why empty boxes and old news should be given primary placement. I don't think you can. In addition, I am not trying to make a point, I am trying to prevent changes to a status quo that works and is the preferred system for this article. Obviously many of the featured lists who work on have chosen a different method, but I would absolutely not edit those pages unilaterally because I think newest -> oldest is better. Oh, and another addition: I would argue that Cielo is the editor who changed this article to make a point. Just because that point agrees with policy doesn't make it any different. Charles 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not keep adding to my previous post so I will start a new one. I feel I need to explain why I am fighting so strongly for this article. This (and the corresponding women's list) is an article that I read fairly often. The first time I found it I thought it was incredibly helpful. To me, this is what Wikipedia is all about: a repository for information that is more accessible than any other source. To see people trying to change this for the worse simply in the name of policy is not just disgusting, it's annoying to someone who wants to be able to access this article down the road and still find it useful. Charles 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think that following the natural progression of time for a list is making the list worse. If I'm a reader and going onto a list like this, I'm not necessarily looking for the most recent winners. I expect a logically ordered list, which is one that goes from oldest to newest. It doesn't really matter whether there are empty boxes at the start of the list, it's still following a natural progression of time. Anyhow, following your own horn in the face of editorial consensus on the matter is a WP:POINT, whether you like it or not. It isn't even a matter of policies and guidelines, none of which I've mentioned besides the aforementioned POINT. We operate as a community and come to decisions on these matters. If someone disagrees, then they try to change the present consensus instead of ignoring it. That's simply the way the process works. In any case, you seem to be pretty devoted to your point of view on the matter, and it probably is in both of our interests not to continue this discussion, as it's probably going to slip into tendentious editing and endless, roundabout discussion from both of us, and we both likely have better things to do than sit around arguing this. I respect your point of view on the matter, but if a situation arises in the future in which you're opposed by multiple editors on the issue (say this comes to the attention of WP:TENNIS, or there is a RfC on the issue), please abide by consensus on the matter. It's one thing to disagree on this here on a local discussion, but doing it should the aforementioned venues occur is going to get you blocked. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, a consensus had been reached simply because of the fact that this article has been newest to oldest for years. If Cielo wants to break that consensus to enforce arbitrary standards then I can't necessarily stop him, but I simply can not back down from my point of view that newest to oldest is the correct way to order a list in THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO. Again, do it your way on any other article and I will gladly support you, but people on Wikipedia understand that you can't apply blanket policies to every article and expect it to work. And again, can you not speak for yourself? Why do you continue to quote Wikipedia policy at me? Instead of saying "it's going to slip into TE," just say it's pointless. Do you see how that works? Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a bureaucracy that is spiraling out of control, and this is only a very minor manifestation of it. And furthermore, I'm not editing to make a point. Cielo changed the article, I noticed that it was much less helpful and appeared poorly organized, so I changed it back to the status quo. If anything his continued insistence on adhering to arbitrary standards in every possible scenario constitutes editing to make a point. Charles 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* Please calm down. You're not helping things by ranting more or less. To make a long story short, community consensus overrides whatever local consensus forms on these issues. I would love to make certain changes on Wikipedia that the current policies and guidelines are against, but I don't choose to do it "my way" because I respect the current consensus on the issue. Wikipedia as a whole doesn't work if it doesn't follow consensus on whatever issue. One user makes a change, other reverts him, they argue, more people come in, a rough consensus is formed, and everyone abides by that consensus. We would be hell of a lot more dysfunctional if this system didn't exist. Anyhow, railing against policies, guidelines, and consensus on Wikipedia in general is a red herring. Are they perfect? Of course not. If you have better alternatives, bring them up at WP:CENT. In any case, I'm ending the discussion because I can see quite clearly that neither of us are going to convince the other. I can accept that. I hope you can accept that statement, end this discussion, and go do something productive. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to, but Cielo is likely going to continue to try to reorder the article, so I must continue to stop him. Charles 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First off I want to say on the obverse side that consensus isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Too many times an item is simply wrong but since there has been long time consensus it's tough to change without starting a revert war. Also many times it isn't really consensus, it's simply the fact that no one cares enough to say anything and that seems especially true in these tennis articles. I don't know how many times I've asked for opinions only to hear the sound of crickets chirping. That said, this case is different since nothing is "wrong" either way. It's simply what functions better and what looks better; I can't worry about what editors do in the millions of articles I don't really read. And what works well in a single page almanac may not work well in a scrolling wikipedia entry. This is the case here. I would welcome a cabal of 3-5 mediators with little to no interest in tennis to look at this article and not take into account policy or any other articles. Just looking at this table on its own merits and deciding what looks better and what is more important to be on top to a person thumbing through wiki. It seems hard to believe, to me at least, that they would choose to head up this table with ancient wins vs who won what yesterday. I look at this page often and it's certainly not to see who won in 1880... it's to see who won last year or when was Samprases last Major victory. I think the vast majority of viewers would agree to that and they are really the ones we write this for. There are already some chronological ordered tables on other tennis pages but this one, when I click on it, I want the most pertinent info right up front and I don't want to see holes staring at me. I can scroll down if on those rare occasions I need esoteric information about a player who won Wimbledon in 1877 and I would think that most encyclopedia readers (as opposed to editors) would agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cielo's genius idea of having two lists solves the problem to my satisfaction. Charles 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we remove the 3O tag now? :) ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Also, I noticed that someone made the table sortable, which is a pretty great idea as well. Maybe we should start working on adding first names now. Charles 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I had already given up on sortable as a solution, due to the nature of the table (it breaks the table). Do you really think it's a good idea to add first names, though? I was thinking about removing them from the women's article. I like it the way it is without short names, it looks tighter, easier to read. But it's ok with me either way, I don't feel too strongly about it as to start another revert war over it :P ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Two things of note. I still feel it should be the other way around with reverse as the lead page... To me it makes more sense. But since the content is correct either way I'm not going to continue arguing about it either. But... and this is a big but.... wiki mediators have a way of looking at this sort of thing as wasted space. If they ever decide that one has to go I would want it understood the chronological way is not the consensus around here and that the reverse would be expected to go back the way it has always been. Otherwise, good compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Use first names too?

The golf chart for major championships looks a lot better in my opinion with first names. Has this been discussed before that first names aren't to be used here? If not, I'd like to propose they be added, and if no one objects to this post, I'll start adding them within a couple days per WP:BOLD. --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it used to be but I feel it looks pretty good with just last names. The charts have to be much bigger to accommodate long names for one thing. Also, if you slide the mouse over the "linked name" the entire name comes up anyways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The list of Grand Slam Women's champions uses first names, and personally I think it looks better. That may be more out of necessity though, because having multiple entries that just say "Williams" would get confusing. Also, the chart may be bigger, but it should scale small enough to be viewable on lower resolutions. I say go for it. Charles 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the golf one works fine too. Just looks more professional using first names. Almanacs, encyclopedias, etc. almost always use first names in an official table. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Fyunck(click) ::gasp:: here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1977 Australian Opens

If the whole table goes from newest to oldest titles, then the december entry should be before the january entry. as it is reading down they are out of sync. Athosfolk (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason there's two users pushing for the list to be sorted backwards is because they think chronologically it looks ugly because of the empy cells. I'm sorry it's not eye pleasing, but it's common sense to list the first winners first as it gives a sense of order. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No one ever said that. We want to keep it the way it has been for years because it puts the latest and most important information at the top of page. You need to leave and stop unilaterally changing this article. You are acting like a child. Charles 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The latest information is not the most important information. If you look at encyclopedia articles, they all narrate facts in chronological order. it's the same for lists. You are going against the norm. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a written article. It's a list. If you can't understand the difference between a paragraph and a list, well then I don't know what to say. Besides, you are the one going against the norm in trying to change an article that has been newest -> oldest for as long as it's been here. We've said this multiple times and you've just ignored it. Please stop editing the page, all you are doing is making it a giant pain for those of us trying to actually make a usable encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy should never override logic. Charles 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Flag

Shouldn't we change the U.S. flag for some players? It didn't always have fifty stars on it. And the Germany flag should be changed also! It's a swastika! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosystems (talk • contribs) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Australian "Open"

According to ESPN2's coverage tonight, the Australasian Championships were opened to international competition in 1928.

The US "Open", as well, was not open in 1881 and the first few years. Yet, do we see "doesn't count for slam-counting purposes"? Why? Because one single editor, Fynclick, WP:OWN's this article, based on original research.

Ryoung122 10:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia tennis. ESPN2 was simply in error tonight. It happens sometimes with tv announcers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Green

Why are the names of some of the French Open winners shown in green? Ordinary Person (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For years they were in grey to show that while they won the French Championship, since it was not open to anyone other than French club players, it was not considered an international Major/Slam. It was open to all players in 1925. This article is about slams as per the title but the original brick layers here thought it would be nice to show the non-slam winners of the event but make sure they were very separate from the rest. Someone complained about the color grey so it was changed to green... hence its status today. Hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Who did not consider it to be an "international Major/Slam"? Tennis expert (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This entire issue is completely biased and contrived. Interestingly, the major media consider the "Open" era to have begun in 1968. Prior to that, no tournaments were open to "professionals" so players like Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales did not participate when they were professionals.
In addition to that, even the term "slam" didn't come along until the 1930s. The U.S. "Open"'s roots may have begun in 1881, but the tournament in 1881 was limited to Americans only (but I don't see any green-out). Meanwhile, the very first winner of the French championships in 1891 was, in fact, a Briton.
Fyunclick has simply forced his original-research opinion onto this page. Nonsense such as "doesn't count for slam-counting purposes" is unsourced speculation. As I pointed out, the World Almanac credited Suzanne Lenglen with 11 titles.Ryoung122 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I had to go back and read some of the posts to remember what the deal was with you and why you are taking a less than friendly tone. Welcome back. None of my information is original research. All of it is backed by a multitude of sources which were named several times. And of course Lenglen is credited with multiple French titles. They count as French titles as on the wiki French Open site, and they should. The early ones are just not Majors as per all the sources and this site is about Majors/Slams. To be honest I would remove them completely as per almost all sources so as to make the article more reflective on reality, but the way it stands now seems a reasonable compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please put back the reverse chronological order page

I just noticed today that the reverse chronological order page link is broken because someone removed the page. It wasn't talked about too long as I see it now. If you would have looked back under the discussion for this page that reverse page was a "major" compromise for the sake of keeping heads cool. It was always inferior to keep the oldest on top when almost everyone who looks at these charts wants to see the the most recent 10 years above all else and they do not want to scroll all the way down to see who the current champion is. Check back and you'll see I had reservations about the two charts when we agreed on them' that I was worried that someone would erase the original main page chart when no one was looking. It has happened and it really needs to be put back or we should put the current chart back the way it originally was. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reverse chronological order page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (reverse chronological order). —Lowellian (reply) 16:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That didn't make it right. Some of us didn't notice the deletion process or we would have said something instantly. It was there for a reason as a compromise in an edit war. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Two and Three in a year

Should people who win all four in a year really appear under 'Winners of Three Slams'? And should people who win three appear under 'Winners of Two Slams'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.241.39 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer

To the preceding question: I don't think so. Now that Federer has won Wimbledon again, can we fix it under the "Winners of five or more singles titles at one Grand Slam tournament" section? I would, but I'd probably mess up the formatting.Simplebutpowerful 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisionism at its best

If not allowing foreign players led to deleting winners for pre-1925 French, wouldn't the same hold true for Wimbledon in not allowing Black players till 1952 or Jewish players till a little later. Lets go ahead and delete all Wimby winners pre-1951 as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.120.43 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

I have fully protected the article for an indefinite period of time. Please discuss your content dispute here and let an administrator know at WP:RFPP that the dispute is settled. Malinaccier (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I have listed 10 sources in the opening paragraph supporting the fact that the French Championships were not open to international players until 1925 and therefore not slam worthy before that time. I'm not really sure what else you want me to add to the argument? I sent emails to wiki mediation explaining this that apparently went unanswered. At one time the list contained grayed out, unnumbered names of the "non-slam" winners of the French title but new editors kept seeing those non-slam winners and proceeded to change all the totals in the article. I seemed to be the only one who would fix them, and some got pretty deeply buried by the time I noticed. The names really shouldn't be there because of all the problems that occur plus leaving them is really pov anyways. There were actually two charts for quite awhile, one chronological and one reversed for better visuals. The reversed charts I believe had none of the names from the non-international, French club players only era. A recent vote decided only one chart was needed so I merged the two into a fully sourced document.
Ryoung122 is really the only one complaining since chidel/Tennis_expert has been indefinitely banned. Now to be fair no one ever really puts in their two cents in most of these "general" tennis articles. We've had polls and votes before with very very few, if anyone, other than the two people involved in the dispute, willing to post anything. That makes it tough for a real consensus of say.... 17 for and 10 against type of result. That's why I properly sourced everything and sent mediator-bound emails before this protracted out too long. I guess that didn't work too well. I could add more sources if needed but 10 seemed more than enough at the time this started. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put the list earliest first. The guideline for this is quite explicit. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2009, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003. So I'm going to reverse the table to comply with MOS but make it sortable to keep anyone who liked the old version happy. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You not only put the list earliest first you also included names and numbers that shouldn't be there. You now also have 10 sources in the first paragraph that have no bearing (i.e. false) on the list in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I was (stupidly) oblivious that my change was also making changes other than the default ordering of the list. I believe the content is now the same as it was on the protected version and the only change from it is the default sortability ordering. This is not an endorsement of the protected version, it is an adherence to the protection policy. I now understand (maybe only partially) what the edit war was about, I just missed it in the inverting of the table. Discussion should follow as to whether the pre-international event winners are eligible for inclusion. Before 1925 it wasn't an international event[1], however winners from 1891–1924 could be marked differently (as in List of French Open Men's Singles champions) and footnotes could be used to explain total win figures as a compromise. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be around to mediate this further, but here is some information I found in my short experience with this list that might be useful in future discussions. There does seem to be a difference in the 1925 French Open, for example the Fédération Française de Tennis only lists post-1925 winners here (bottom left). The reason I think there is controversy is because the argument is basically about when it became a "slam". And the problem there is that the idea of a "Grand Slam" didn't come about until 1933,[2] and it wasn't until 1989 that there was a Grand Slam Committee.[3] Also Wimbledon wouldn't have started off as an international event[4] it just seemed to happen and because it happened earlier I can't find a specific year. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As Rambo's Revenge has said, he'll be outa here for a while. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion further, please give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That first year of Wimbledon I agree was a pretty lame slam. But then again so were all the years till 1920ish for all the slams because of the challenge round... where last years winner automatically was in the finals. But if we start doing our own pov research of what's the best years to start each slam it goes totally against wiki rules. That's why I sourced things 10x so as to keep things here on the straight and narrow as far as wiki rules are concerned. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I can push a pov that isn't backed by multitudes of sources. And those sources are pretty darned clear when it comes to slam totals. Heck the International World Hard Court Championships (held in France or Belgium) in pre-1925 was a better indicator of a Major but no sources at all consider it in slam totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

US Open didn't allow international players in its early years

If French Open is treated to a "standard", why wouldn't one do the same for US Open. "1881 - The United States National Lawn Tennis Association (today the USTA) is founded, and in the same year it holds its first National Championship, the forerunner of the US Open but then restricted to American residents. It is held at Newport, Rhode Island, and is won by Dick Sears." Source: ITF. http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp

As 173.49.120.43/ryoung122 points out that first year of formation the US Championship was for US players only, same for Wimbledon that first year. Neither should be counted but now the problem is sourcing. Since the 10 sources listed show they count all the US and Wimbledon years (even the first year of their existence) and none of the pre-1925 French years we will need to use a bit of pov to make this list correct. Sears is recorded everywhere with 7 US titles and 7 slam titles. Obviously he will keep his 7 US titles but shall we change his 7 slam titles to 6 slam titles? We can do it here but editors are going to come out of the woodwork and change it so I hope others here would help change it back when that happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The correct solution is to go with 7, but use an asterisk and a footnote that notes that notes he won the first title against U.S. competitors only.Ryoung122 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
But that would be going with precedent and sourcing not with actuality. If we do the same with the French, going with sourcing and actuality that is, we would keep the pre-1925 French years blank. Which is where we are. That's why the overwhelming sourcing is so important on wiki. We don't want to set a pov precedent here, we want sourcing so that we don't conflict with other books, authors, periodicals and magazines. Many sources if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

Here is my proposed compromise:

1. List all winners back to the original years

2. I am OK with using separate background shading to indicate early years where the tournaments were non-international.

3. The main point of the mini-numbers on the table is to help the reader find similar titles from similar persons. Therefore, all titles should include mini-numbers.

4. For the "stats" at the bottom of the page, add a separate "French winners before 1925" count.

5. As I noted, sources such as the World Almanac count Suzanne Lenglen with '12' slam titles. Other sources such as ESPN and the Encylopedia Britannica include all winners back to the original date. She should be included, with an asterisk.

According to wiki policy, the rule is that articles should reflect multiple major viewpoints (pluralism). In other words, the article should provide the reader with enough information to understand both points of view, including reasons for and against counting the pre-1925 winners in the "slam" counts. This also includes the other majors: challenge round, pre-Open era, etc.

Excuses such as "it's too much work" and others were incorrectly counting simply are not viable. Wikipedia is never about making things easy; it's about consensus-building and "getting it right." The previous agreement in 2007 kept the winners listed but made it clear that SOME sources do not count them. But it should also be clear that SOME source DO count them.

To be honest, counting GS totals before the word was even invented is historical revisionism. But I can be OK with that as long as the same rules apply to every tournament.

With the US "Open," all we know is that in its initial format, the tournament was open to Americans only...and that has been sourced. I am NOT advocating for removing names of ANY winners. I can accept a separate count for "pre-international" tournaments. But remember, with the French, if you were a member of a French club you could participate, even if you were not French. Therefore it is not correct to say that it was open to French players only, especially when the very first winner was a British man.Ryoung122 05:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is no compromise at all. It is pretty much what you alone have wanted from the beginning. The sourcing is pretty clear that the pre-1925 French was not a slam and I have listed 10 of those sources. The triple crown in horse racing also goes back before the term was invented, so too the superbowl, so your "before it was called a slam" whimsy is unfounded.
This is a "slam" article and the French Championship pre-1925 was not a slam. However we could put in the names of the pre-1925 French winners "greyed out" as a courtesy to those readers who want to see those names on the list. No numbering of any sort though as they are not slam worthy per preponderance of sourcing. Those players should be in no other charts on this page for the same reasons. There is a French Championship page to take care of those pre-slam winners of the title where for 33 years only members of a certain french club could play (a couple of which were British residents living in France at the time).
As I have said before, if the China open one day becomes a 5th slam, it will be a slam only starting on that day. Historians won't go back to 1989 and call that China Open winner a slam champion.
This is not my choice, to put up false info on the page, but for the sake of compromise, so that others might edit, I could agree to this. I worry how future wiki administrators will look on this info in the future though. Will it be more work because of some newbies wanting to add numbers and titles to those non-slam winners just because they see those names on the list, greyed or not? Yes, certainly. But I would hope that Mr Young would also help correct those people's errors just as I have done many times in the past. He never did before but I'm willing to chance it on his word that he will be diligent this go around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No answer on this compromise? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


As you said, the "Triple Crown" goes back before any race was considered part of it, yet we list the early winners, don't we? By that standard, we should list ALL French winners back to 1891. Based on your own analogy, I am correct. This is NOT a compromise on your part. Other sources, such as the World Almanac, credit Suzanne Lenglen with 12 slams. I don't care how many sources you find. Wiki's policy on pluralism requires that all major points of view be respected, even if not the majority. However, in this case I believe that my position is in the majority. Sources from the Encyclopedia Britannica to the World Almanac to ESPN to the official Roland Garros website all list champions back to 1891.
When Richard Sears was winning the American championships in the 1880s, he was not "counting slams". But let's respect that he won 7, under the terms which were then in use. Likewise, the French winners should be listed, and counted, even if counted separately.
Finally, the little micro-number counts on the main page are really there to help people find when someone won multiple titles. Therefore, those should be included for everyone.Ryoung122 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I can not go along with this non-compromise at all. The triple crown goes back because all 3 year old horses were allowed to enter... they just had no name for it. Not so the non-international French Championships, and your position is far in the minority. The micro numbers are there for people to count multiple "slam" winners as per the article's title... not multiple pre-international French winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, this is nothing more than a case of Fynckclick WP:OWNing this page. As usual, he can't go along with compromise because all he knows is his way. Personally, "slam" sounds like a slang term. "Multiple major championship winners" sounds more dignified.
As for the "minority" accusation: no one, other than you, reverted my version, while more than one person reverted yours. Then you go a crusade to block/harass editors like Chidel who don't agree with you. That's no compromise. I meant what I said on your talk page. That's not a threat: that just means that I think that actually, you are holding back the educational opportunities of persons that come on this website. I don't see how that is a positive contribution to society.Ryoung122 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Ryoung122 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be banned user:Chidel aka banned user:tennis_expert aka avoid the ban by using open proxies. And you are saying that you meant what was written on my talk page "The World Would Be A Better Place Without You" for which you were blocked for a day. I would not have written that threat on your talk page. We simply have a disagreement on the facts and are having trouble getting around it. It happens all the time on wiki. I feel I am contributing to all individuals who read this article by not giving them false or misleading information. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

<CR> I have now also added a chart for another compromise solution.

User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/List_Of_Grand_Slam_Men's_Singles_Champions.

This is a pre-slam chart for the french title. Not really what should be in a slam article imho but I offer it as a compromise option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is a little closer. What I want is the names in the chart. I suggest instead of greying the font, grey-out the background. That would be enough difference, in my opinion, so that both sides could see what they want to see. I could also agree to have an asterisk next to records such as Max Decugis, winner of 8 French championships.

Also, I disagree with the "non-international" because:

A. there were players from other countries

B. No one did that with Wimbledon or the U.S., for whom it's been stated that, at least, the Wimbledon 1877 winner and the U.S. 1881 winner, and probably more years, played in tournaments NOT open to international competition.Ryoung122 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I already offered the names in the chart with the conditions up above. Max Decugis is already mentioned in the French championship article with 8 titles so there is no reason to add his non-slam titles here at all. You're right on the non-international wording though. I will change that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Compromise #2

I'm going to try one more time.

1. Whatever conditions are decided for the 1891-1924 French champions should also be applied to the other three championships. That means US Open 1881, Wimbledon 1877. I'm not sure about Australia.

2. I think greyed-out font is too harsh. If you want to add background colors, fine, and/or an asterisk.

3. We already have "Open era" records and "pre-Open" era records. I note that NBC listed Billie Jean King with 3 US Open victories...technically, the 3 she won before 1968 weren't won at the "open." So, the only real consensus is from 1968 onward.

4. Include the French and other titles in the totals for Suzanne Lenglen, Richard Sears, etc. but add an asterisk/footnote. For example:

Richard Sears 7(inc. 1 restricted)

I really see no other reason to compromise anything. For one, the most important thing is the NAME. All this emphasis on "most titles won" is really just LISTCRUFT. Even for Margaret Court, some point out that she won 11 Aussies but at a time when international competition was rare. That was the 1960s. Let's be honest, the pre-Open era records don't stack up well at all. Some consider that Rod Laver's "Grand Slam" total should include his "professional" victories. What all this means is that, especially for pre-1968, the emphasis should be on the history. I note that before the 1920s, few players even played 2, let alone all four tournaments. Helen Wills may have been the first person to really pursue "grand slam totals."

Ryoung122 06:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I could agree with not including the first years of Wimbledon and the US Championships but the problem is sourcing it. All sources include those winners so we'd be violating wiki policy with original research. We could re-title the article and remove all references to the term Slam or Major? I can try this to see how it would look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It would look like this with the first years of Wimbledon and US removed and included in another set of charts. I fixed all charts. Again this is OR as I have no sources at all to back it up. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/List Of Grand Slam Men's Singles Champions 2 Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When were US Nationals and Wimbledon began to allow foreign players who are not registered with the clubs to compete?

Just a genuine question - since I cannot find any authoritative sources mentioning that.. - RC (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The US Open site says year two, 1882. Wimbledon was not open to foreigners the first year (1877) but "seems" to indicate it was thereafter. However just because they could play didn't mean foreigners did play very much. The travel time and expense was just too great for a few dollars and a trophy back then. By the turn of the century things started slowly changing as more foreign players wanted the prestige of winning. The Roland Garros site however is quite specific... no non-resident club players allowed till 1925. Maybe they felt they could keep their strict nationals only tourney as long as they also had the World Hard Court Championships (almost always held in France) available for international competitors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We Will Need

Just an fyi... We will need an administrator to adjust winners on this site once the US Open finishes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

==

I'm getting fed up seeing the early years of the French grand slam being the only ones singled out as not open to foreigners. This is a direct quotation from the official US Open website, about the first tournament: "Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter the initial tournament." Let's have some consistency please. Wozb (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)wozb 7 August 2009

Hmmm. You are a new member as of today and your first post is that you are fed up with this? Very strange indeed. I'll play along though. It is this way because the overwhelming majority of encyclopedias, periodicals, magazines, books and organizations also have it this way. It has been sourced 10x, discussed in abundance and the section above this, which you apparently missed somehow, mentions the very same thing as you did. If you want to discuss new things rationally please do, otherwise it's just time wasting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a complete, 100% lie. I've already demonstrated that many sources, from the official Roland Garros website, to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Almanac, ESPN, etc. list French winners beginning in 1891. The real problem is that a certain solitary individual, Fyunck(click), has for 2+ years ignored Wikipedia rules on plurality and consensus-building, instead attempting to dictate an artificial and arbitrary bias. It's incredulous that he actually deleted the names. That is just preposterous, stepping on the graves of people who died over a century ago. And NO, the above commenter is NOT a sockpuppet of me. Rather, a lot of people see the difference between bias and fairness. The FACT is, there was "no such thing" as "grand-slam counting purposes" until the 1930s. That is the truth. By tradition, MOST sources count titles back to the creation of all four tournaments. Even those that don't, still list the winners. We also know that some sources, such as the news media, sometimes reports only winners in the "Open era". So, there is more than two ways to "count" titles. Some begin with the elimination of the challenge round. According to Wikipedia rules, when multiple major viewpoints don't agree, the article is to incorporate/express all the major points of view, NOT just the one of a person who thinks he "WP: OWN"s the page, which he doesn't.Ryoung122 05:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I have thoroughly sourced all the data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Juan Martin del Potro U.S. Open 2009 winner

Will a moderator please add him to the article?--Nitsansh (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Del Potro added and relevant other sections updated. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks RM Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

UNLOCK THE PAGE - Juan Martin del Potro U.S. Open 2009 winner

Please unlock the page, Del Potro should be added as 2009 US Open champion. Who cares about 1937 dispute, when current tournament winner is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.12.110 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks now like it shouldn't have been unlocked yet :-(. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it should be unlocked, and you should be blocked, and tennis will live happily ever after. The End.Ryoung122 07:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung122, no need for that. Besides, can you explain why you've removed categories from this page with a seemingly blind undo? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually the categories just got moved up, however the removal of the table's sortability is surely the action of a blind undo... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahah. Thanks RR. Please, Ryoung122, no more "blind" undos. If you disagree with some of the edits, then by all means change them, but simply removing useful edits with a blanket undo is unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with the "sortability" feature. However, I don't think the article should be linked to a "poison pill." The version that I support, the original version by the way, has a lot of material that should not be removed. If you want to add a "sortability" feature to the inclusive version (the one that includes the names of all the winners, which is much more important than add-ons such as "sortability"), be my guest. I will not revert that. However, since adding sortability is not my area of expertise, someone else will have to do it. I do understand the need for explanation for undos, however I think this issue has already been explained here.Ryoung122 08:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That is not the original long standing version. The original version had greyed out names just so people could see who won the pre-slam French title. They knew it was incorrect to list them but out of courtesy the names were put in. I properly sourced the reason behind this yet Ryoung122 doesn't seem to get it. I'm not sure what else to try here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Even your version, until June, had the names on the table, as they should have been there. It was YOU who added the 'grey out' and it was YOU who deleted the names. As I pointed out, it doesn't matter if you "properly" sourced your POV. There are actually multiple, major points of view here. Some count only "open era" champions (but still list everyone) and others count starting with 1922 (elimination of the challenge round). Most sources, regardless of whether they "count" slams or not, list the names. In fact, you are putting the cart before the horse: the most important thing here in a list of winners is, well, the winner! iF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE WINNER, THEN THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANYTHING ELSE. PERIOD. Making lists of slam counts etc. is secondary.Ryoung122 09:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I could make a separate chart of French Champions of the pre-slam era and put it on the page? Or we could simply put a link in the main chart that links to the French Championship page for those who want to click over to the pre-international winners? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have now fixed the men's page with a new chart. I'll work on the gals next. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I now also did one for the ladies. I don't really think they belong on this slam page as they are available on the French Championship pages, but if this will get us out of the mud I can live with it. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That's like saying "we could have separate water fountains for the colored." Separate is never equal. Your anti-French bias is obvious. It's been shown, even from the US Open website, that the original 1881 US Open was closed to international competition. The Wimbledon tournament certainly wasn't "international" at its inception, either. And let's not even get started on Australia.Ryoung122 09:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Fyunck(click) and Ryoung

This is a slow edit war, both of you know the rules (hence the deliberated avoidence of 3RR), however you are being disruptive on the page and this could lead to a block for either/both of you. I urge you to concentrate your efforts to discussion on compromising here. There is an issue here, and I will try and remain neutral throughout. Clearly the French open is not the only affected tournament here as the first U.S. tournament was indeed closed to foreigners. The difference for the numbering is the real bone of contention here, and actually whatever system is used for the French should also be reflected in Sear's first win at the U.S. You two had previously agreed to compromised and include the pre-1925 French winners denoting them in a different way. I suggest we go back to that, and use a method à la List of US Open Men's Singles champions. Colouring in the ones where it is not an international tournament for French and US Opens. Then the only contention would be the numbering, to which my answer is scrap it. There doesn't need to be the numbers in the main table, especially if it is sortable because you can sort and it will be easy to spot when a name occurs more than once and it will keep the denotation (i.e. shading) that it was of a non international event. How does that sound as a compromise because in this case we are not counting slams, we are just presenting facts so there cannot be any possible OR. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rambo. There are several problems with this that I can see. Wiki requires sourcing and there are no sources anywhere against Sears first slam. We would be making precedent. No periodicals, encyclopedia's, almanacs, etc.. that I can find. When I have worked on other articles, and this type of "non-verifiable" entry was made, administrators have shot it down rather quickly at the first query from someone new to the fray. There seems to be no question though that the first US and first Wimbledon were also closed to foreigners. I can pull those off the main chart and add them to the French chart but it will have to remain unsourced pov for those items. Also the numbering isn't only in the main chart. We have slam titles by the decade, all-time singles titles, titles by country, winners of 2 slam in a year, winners of 5 or more slams, etc... Those charts on the page would all be affected in some way or another and I have also had to revert those many many times from Ryoung. These same numbers are also all over other tennis statistics pages too so there will be large inconsistencies from article to article. I can pull the french charts I added last night if you feel it's better but I have no idea what to do about the numbers totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Fyunck(click) and Ryoung, I am going to take over the position of moderator on this matter! I will alert both sides Rambo's Revenge.TennisAuthority 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,

I am happy that:

1. The names were restored, and we have multiple sources from ESPN to the Encyclopedia Brittanica that list all the names;

2. The color used is not grossly de-legitimating. Let's not forget that French champs like Max Decugis won the GOLD MEDAL at the Olympics, beating INTERNATIONAL competition.

What remains is the issue of counting and the early U.S. and Wimbledons. Obviously, it is POV bias to assign Richard Sears to "seven" championships but not give Suzanne Lenglen her full list. The World Almanac lists Lenglen with her full list, but uses an asterisk. This seems to be a reasonable solution. An asterisk and italicization for Richard Sears definitely is NOT original research; the U.S. Open's own web site tells us such. We could still keep the count at seven, however. Personally I think the French should have their counts, too. The main purpose of the (2/7) system is that so a reader can quickly find whether a title is part of a multiple career and if so, how many. It also makes it easier to find that "person X won their Y championship in year Z." So, it makes sense to use the mini-counts for everyone, even the hyphenated/asterisked cases.

Finally, that leaves the "counts" at the bottom of the page. As I mentioned, authorities differ on counts. Several different methods have been employed, including:

1. Counts for all titles, since inception 2. Counts for all titles, since the challenge round 3. Counts for all titles since inception, minus the French pre-1925 4. Counts for titles in the Open era only

Not really seen from major sources, but from bloggers, are mixed counts incorporating both pro and am-totals.

We already have counts listed for ways 3 and 4. I'm not going to argue for version 2. However, I think we should have version 1 included.

Please note that Wikipedia's core policies reflect a desire of pluralism. We should present multiple major points of view, and let the reader decide which way they like it. I note, for example, on the List of Olympic Host Cities the reader can choose to include Summer and Winter Olympics together, Summer Only, or Winter Only. That's three different ways. We could do the same here.

Sincerely Ryoung122 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Before this chart was made I tried separate charts for early French winners and another chart for the first years of both Wimbledon and the US championship, but our mediator frowned a bit. The lack of any source anywhere for not including wimbledon and US must have been a sticking point. Hence the chart as you see it now. Probably the same lack of source as to whether to add an asterisk for those first two winners. I looked everywhere to see a list from authorities without Gore and Sears names and couldn't find one... maybe you can dig something up? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions/Archive_1&oldid=1140248940"