Talk:Federer–Nadal rivalry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Significant Aspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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