Talk:Federer–Nadal rivalry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Widely vs many vs some

"Some"

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

"Widely"

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

"Many"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford Dictionary definition of several:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There are factors that skew..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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