Jump to content

Talk:Serena Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.82.223.215 (talk) at 13:42, 7 September 2015 (→Karsten Braasch exhibition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-Protected

I believe it should be semi-protected as IP users keep making it as detailed as possible, whereas the summary should only brief and the detailed one should be placed at each season. Dencod16 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Stfg (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

equipment section in serious need of improvement

Firstly, it's not appropriately located in the article. It's under Off-Court Activities or something like that even though a player uses their racquet on the tennis court the vast majority of the time. Secondly, it only has one racquet model listed even though Williams has used a variety of racquets over the years. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia in terms of its encyclopedic depth. A world number 1 and someone with her accomplishments should have, at minimum, a list of the racquets she used to win major titles. The same goes for other great players like Navratilova, Evert, Djokovic, etc. At the very least, the biographical article about a tennis player should include the racquet models they used while they were ranked #1 in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial and not really needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the millions of tennis players who cares a lot about equipment, the millions spent on ads about tennis equipment and sponsorships, all the articles written about equipment in magazines like Tennis, and so on. If you think tennis equipment is trivial I'd like to see you play a tournament with a wood racquet from 1889 strung with metal string. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go read Tennis Magazine if you want to nerd out on which racquet Serena used for each of her major wins and which she used during each stint at #1. Wikipedia is for a general audience. (Though I do agree "Off-Court Activities" is an odd place to give a basic overview of what gear she uses. Might fit better under "Playing Style"?) 2602:306:B8B7:64D0:148D:F803:B83:AB04 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking French

The brief section Language fluency said, in full,

Williams is fluent in French and at the French Open, does the post match speech in both French and English.

That's an exaggeration. From the source (USA Today):

The world No. 1 has been talking the native tongue during her on-court interviews after her five French Open wins. Though she says she’s nervous, Serena has been receiving high marks from the notoriously-fickle fans at the Grand Slam event. The crowd has applauded the effort with each of the top seed’s successive wins. ... She’s been speaking French for years but said she lacked the confidence to speak it at the tournament. ... While answering softball questions after early-round wins is impressive, it’s not the goal. Serena wants to speak French at her trophy presentation ceremony.

In the video clip, the crowd applauds enthusiastically after she answers a question in pretty good (though not perfect) French.

I've changed the text appropriately and added another source (New York Times). --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Open 2009 controversy

I deleted this from the article: "Audio later confirmed she hadn't said (she would kill the lineswoman) even though the lineswoman tried to convince the umpire she had".

According to the cited source following this line in the article, Serena told the lineswoman: 'I swear to God I'm [expletive] going to take this [expletive] ball and shove it down your [expletive] throat, you hear that? I swear to God.'

Is that equal to saying she would kill the lineswoman? I think so. What would your odds of survival be if Serena Williams shoved a tennis ball down your throat?

But ignoring that, the line in the article makes it sound as though the lineswoman's claim was a fabrication and moreover that she attempted to lie to the umpire, which is utter nonsense unsupported by any accounts of the incident, cited or not. Serena didn't literally say the words "I will kill you" but clearly threatened an act of extreme and probably fatal violence.

Yes, she was just ranting over a call that was controversial in and of itself and was not actually going to kill anybody, but that's beside the point--which is that whomever wrote that line is trying to whitewash a display of very poor sportsmanship by Serena Williams. Like anyone else with functioning eyeballs, I respect Serena's tennis abilities tremendously. But the line I deleted is far from objective and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Jh122 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your analysis here is heavily biased. You state that the audio confirmation is an attempt to "trying to whitewash a display of very poor sportsmanship by Serena Williams". This is an opinion where as an audio recording is not. Thad caldwell (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to ignore/reject my opinion about the motivation of whomever wrote the untrue line I deleted. It's separate from the fact of the matter, which is that the audio recording (as well as every other objective account of the incident) does not back up the claims that: 1. Serena's denial of issuing a death threat to the lineswoman was undoubtedly true and 2. The lineswoman attempted to "convince" (i.e. deceive) the chair umpire Serena had threatened her life.
If you can produce a credible source that nothing a reasonable person could see as a death threat to the lineswoman left Serena's mouth, and that the lineswoman definitely tried to deceive the umpire into believing she had received such a threat, go ahead and restore the line. Jh122 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Win-Loss totals on Majors

Isn't this somewhat silly over featuring? There is always one loss for each major attended but not won. There are always seven wins for an event won. The entry in the chart shows the exit round for each event not won and which were not attended and thus the number of wins. The totals row conveys precious little information.Jszigeti (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I find it helpful. I like to see the relative performance of great players at each Slam and I suck at math so I don't want to add their win-loss up in each instance. Perhaps more importantly, every Wikipedia page for top professional tennis players has this same information in the same format, so if it were deleted here then in theory it would need to be deleted on a lot of other pages. Jh122 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually used on most of these charts, and in fact are correct per our guidelines. A couple things though. In the past, the number of rounds was not always seven, especially in doubles and mixed doubles. And there are also plenty of times that a player wins an event but does not have seven victories. That's because "walkovers" do not count as wins or losses. For me the silly column is "SR." It is not readily apparent what it stands for and is easily counted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction paragraph

I believe that it should be noted that Serena Williams has be hailed by several news outlets, current and former athletes, and sports writers as the greatest athlete of this era. I have tried to add it to her page, however, someone keeps removing it despite the fact that I noted several sources. Thad caldwell (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. you tried to validate blogposts by mixing them in with the opinions of some tennis legends and reputable sport writers (none of which said serena is the GREATEST ATHLETE of all time), which would given their hype(that's the only way i can describe it) undue weight. also, this could've been resolved on the talk page a lot sooner, instead both of us got flagged for edit warring. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and that would be misleading. i looked into the sources, none of the former athletes/sports writers, McEnroe, Agassi, etc, said she is the greatest athlete of all time, they said she is or probably is the greatest female tennis player. other sources, like matt schievezan's(who isn't even a sports writer) opinions shouldn't be held to the same standards to those of the ATGs. in this case, matt isn't even a reliable source SyriaWarLato (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this happens every 10 years. Suzanne Lenglen is the greatest of all time, Helen Wills is the greatest of all time, Maureen Conolly is the greatest of all time, Margaret Court is the greatest of all time, Chris Evert is the greatest of all time, Martina Navratilova is the greatest of all time, Steffi Graf is the greatest of all time, Serena Williams is the greatest of all time... it will go on and on forever. Every one of them has coaches and press and books stating as such... none are right and none are wrong because of the subjective nature of the beast. All these articles should simply say a more generic (no matter the sources)... they are among the all-time greats. There are just too many parameters to really say more. Serena has had to take longer to get her titles (like Jimmy Connors) and Henin and Clijsters retired early, making it easier for her. Wills went 6 years without losing a set and skipped the Australian and other majors on a regular basis, but her competition came from a much smaller pool than Serena's. Evert and Navratilova were contemporaries who won 18 Majors a piece, who if they didn't have each other, one of them might have won 30 Majors. If Lenglen knew the importance majors would play in today's world, and if there was air-travel, she might have won the Grand Slam 8 straight years. She was that good. The point being these ladies are the greatest of the great as far as tennis history goes and I'm pretty darned glad I've been able to watch them play for 45 years. For the record, if you want to talk overall greatness as far as ability in singles, doubles, mixed doubles, and total influence on building the actual game of tennis as we know it today.... Billy Jean King. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thad caldwell asked me for some help on my user page, so I'm going to go ahead and try to help out here. It looks to me like Thad wants the article to note that some writers have described Williams as "the greatest athlete" of all time, while the current page only notes that some commentators have called her "the greatest female tennis player of all time." From Thad's edit 671321866, the sources cited don't look like unreputable blog posts. They're reputable news outlets. However, only this one directly supports the sentence Thad would like to add, and, especially given the comments above, I don't know that the opinion of a single sports writer is enough to make the point. Is there a way that we can rewrite the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lede to include the understanding that Williams's status seems to go beyond tennis, while stopping short of "greatest athlete of all time"? Or do we think that's still going too far? Agtx (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we don't have to change anything her greatness is acknowledged. also, having status outside tennis has nothing to do with being the greatest athlete. sharapova has status outside tennis, maybe even larger than serena, but we don't judge her athletic career based on it. SyriaWarLato (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it's good as it is. As for reputable source, i take McEnroe's or Agassi's word over Chris Stiggal's any day. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many times McEnroe or Agassi played Steffi, Serena, Martina and Chrissy to make their determination? Or do they simply use their eyes like the rest of us? Fyunck(click) (talk) 6:20 pm, Today (UTC−7)

What I'm trying to note is the status of praise given to her by her contemporaries, sports legends, and sports writers. I never tried to imply that she is the greatest athlete as a fact, I was just trying to convey that that is indeed the opinion of noteworthy individuals in the sports world. As to Agtx's point, I can find other sources that directly state the opinion that Serena Williams is the greatest athlete of this era. Again, I understand that you two feel that is an opinion but if the opinion is coming from reputable sources I believe it should be noted as to give a complete picture of Serena's influence on athletics as a whole as opposed to just tennis. As to SyriaWarLato's point, the opinions and comments made in the referenced sources are based on her athletic career. Here are some other sources: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/the-astonishing-greatness-of-serena-williams/398339/http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2499138-is-serena-williams-the-most-dominant-american-athlete-todayhttp://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13239462/with-drake-help-john-mcenroe-joins-chorus-praise-serena-williams (John McEnroe's quote) I'm not sure if a video of ESPN commentators having the discussion can be cited but just in case.Thad caldwell (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJqDYGafg5M
I already pointed out matt schievezan isn't a sports writer. i can't take these sources seriously. very click bait and tabloyish. i prefer the professional opinions of writers involved with the sport. SyriaWarLato (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as to Fyunck's point. If other athletes have been noted as the greatest of all time or in their era, then perhaps their pages can reflect that. After all, if each of these athletes have performed in such a way as to deserve such praise then it should be placed on their page and the sources cited. The GOAT conversation is just that, a conversation.Thad caldwell (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do all say that. I run into articles every day with it. And if this were a blog, that would be great. But it's an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, as an encyclopedia, it is okay to address certain attitudes and common thoughts about a subject. I wonder if either of you have read Steffi Graf's (is regarded by many to be the greatest female tennis player of all time. Navratilova included Graf on her list of great players.) or Michael Jordan's page (was considered instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world in the 1980s and 1990s.[4]) which both contain similar material. What would be the harm of noting the opinions of reputable sources? I'm sorry, but it seems to me that your personal bias is playing a role here. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Here are other athletes with similar accolades Wayne Gretzky("The Great One", he has been called "the greatest hockey player ever"[1] by many sportswriters, players, and the NHL itself.) Babe Ruth (Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time.) Bo Jackson (He was named the greatest athlete of all time by ESPN.[2])Thad caldwell (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're wrong and you're coming of as too fanboyish. serena's greatness is mentioned in a similar manner as steffi graff's and no one denies the greatness of any of those players you mentioned, but none of them are given the moniker greatest athlete. + the Bo jackson one is a vote, which also need to be highlighted on the page(so thanks for pointing it out). Ameteurdemographer (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may think that I'm coming "off as too fanboyish" but I simply shared the comments and opinion of other experts. Here again is a list of notable sports writers and reporters that share the same opinion: John McEnroe (Former professional tennis player, current commentator), Chris Evert (Former professional tennis player, current commentator) Pam Shriver (Former professional tennis player, current commentator) Michael Smith (ESPN), Jemele Hill (ESPN), Freddie Coleman (ESPN), Will Cain (The Blaze), Darren Cahill (Former professional coach and tennis player), Kate Fagan (ESPN), Jane McManus (ESPN). {References can be provided for each} Now, isn't it noteworthy that such prominent figures each have the same opinion of Williams? Let's work together here. Thad caldwell (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And their views are highlighted in the lede. note that not many if any have a problem with Williams is regarded by some commentators, sports writers and former players as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the sources I cited (both in the article and above) refer to her being the greatest athlete of her era or generation. You've yet to discuss your reason as to why noting the opinions of these prominent sports professionals is incongruent with the practices of Wikipedia. Again, no one is stating that Serena is indeed the greatest of all time but instead just the fact that at least a dozen reputable individuals and sources hold this as their opinion. That seems to be noteworthy.Thad caldwell (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but that's just incorrect. also, just saw a clip with jamele speaking on serena in it and she flip flops all the time. and pretty much every other source you've given read her as greatest female/tennis player, not greatest athlete. and mixing is some radio hosts and political commentators hyperbole with these sources won't make it any more valid. sorry but you wont get anywhere forcing your views like this. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you clearly haven't read any of the articles I've referenced as they each specifically state "greatest athlete" or state a popular notion that she is thought of as such. Here's a quote from John McEnroe (which can be found in an article I've cited):"Three years ago, I thought she was the best to ever play, but it sort of cements it in historical terms," McEnroe said. "... To me, she could arguably be the greatest athlete of the last 100 years." You're suggesting that I'm "forcing views" but, unlike your opinions, I have references and sources. And as for your comment about Jemele, she does not flip flop; she stated that some place her firmly in the conversation for "the most dominant athlete of the last 20 years". I referenced her as she noted a popular notion amongst sports enthusiasts. You have still failed to put forth a valid point as to why this information should be omitted. Each source I've referenced is reputable and knowledgable. So, I'll ask again, why should their thoughts on this topic be omitted? Why is okay to use similar sources to say "Williams is regarded by some commentators, sports writers and former players as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Or for that matter, to suggest any of the accolades I listed above? And lastly, please stop with the personal accusations. I have an opinion on this matter, as you do, and my standing by it does not connote that I'm forcing my views. A lesser person would accuse you of the same. So please, let's keep this conversation on an educational level and try to reach a consensus of some sort. Thad caldwell (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can just put in John McEnroe's quote in a similar fashion to that of other pages for sports figures. The pages of Steffi Graf, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Martina Navratilova (to name just a few) each have direct quotes which states that person's views on their greatness. I believe that would be a fair and completely within the spirit of Wikipedia.Thad caldwell (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no it wouldn't. also, arguably the greatest in the last 100 years =/= greatest athlete. same with most dominating =/= greatest. this source (or you) don't seem to know the definition of the words they're using. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I would tend to keep all this stuff out of the leads. They could have a section much lower down that talks about their place in history. That goes for all of them. But that's my opinion. As for greatest athlete, for me that means you do several athletic things well. That is usually reserved for Olympic decathlons or duel sport players like Bo Jackson. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I believe Ameteurdemographer and I have reached an impasse. Your immaturity and unwillingness to compromise are blatant and uncalled for. You've yet to address very clear points. For instance, why would it be inappropriate to simply quote John McEnroe? You say that arguably the greatest isn't the same as "the greatest", so fine. "It's still a quote conveying a reputable expert's opinion on the subject matter, why not use it just to convey McEnroe's thoughts? I provided video of Freddie Coleman, Will Cain, and Kate Fanahan (each sports authorities) clearly stating that Williams is the most dominant athlete of this era. I have articles quoting the other figures listed above. My question in regards to how to other articles which use similar references has also gone unanswered. Therefore, I will continue this conversation with other users and/or reach out to an administrator to see how to proceed if necessary. But I no longer consider Ameteurdemographer a viable part of what should be a conversation and discourse leading to a compromise, due to his/her belittling.Thad caldwell (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

watch your language. insulting other editors can get you blocked and it won't make your point of view any more valid. SyriaWarLato (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding all of us to remain civil. It was needed.97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fyunk for that suggestion. I think that is a great idea! If it's done the way you suggest it will allow readers to take it for what it is, and that's the suggested impact she's had on the world around her. You brought up Billie Jean King earlier and her page has a "Tributes from other players" section. I think something like that would work perfectly here. I understand your point about "greatest athlete" and I'm actually inclined to agree with you as it's a title usually reserved for decathlon athletes. My only hesitation is, as I've stated, it is the term used in several of the articles and in the quotes. But again, if it's in a "Legacy" section the reader can simply agree or disagree as it won't be reported as fact but simply a popular notion. This is a great compromise, thank you.Thad caldwell (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I mention it is because of the Rod Laver article. We could easily find quote after quote of how great he was as a player and that he IS the greatest tennis player in history. No problem at all. Instead in the lead we simply have "tennis player widely regarded as one of the greatest in tennis history." Note it says one of the greatest, not the greatest. Williams, Graf, Wills, Lenglen, Tilden, etc... should probably all have that line and nothing more in the lead sections. But Laver also has a section called "Place among the all-time great tennis players" where more detailed info can be given (both good and bad). If the same was done to Serena Williams, both the good points and bad would be entered (if sourced). You'd have those quotes you want, but there would also be quotes about the exceedingly weak competition, and the fact that her best rivals retired early to allow her to win as many Majors as she has. Just pointing out that when a section is created it opens the door for multiple points of view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simple section titled "Recognition", as you find on Navratilova's page, would suffice. I will try to start with sources that already take a balanced/and fair view on her legacy. Thanks for working with me on this, Fyunck. I hope to have something put together by the end of the week and I hope you will check it and give me your thoughts/advice.97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Braasch exhibition

While I fully believe history should never forget about Karsten Braasch's cigarettes-and-beer-fueled trouncing of the Williams sisters back-to-back, does it really merit its own section high up in Serena's biography, with a prominent eye-catching entry in the table of contents? I'd like to delete this section and then just add a mention of the exhibition in section 3.1 (and perhaps note alongside it Serena's admission to David Letterman that: "Men's tennis and women's tennis are almost two separate sports. If I was to play Andy Murray I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes.")Letterman blog Figured this was worth putting out on the talk page before actually changing anything. Jh122 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jh122 here. While this is an entertaining story, it doesn't seem to deserve a complete section. Perhaps it is better suited on the Battle of the Sexes page?97.82.223.215 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i vote keep it. the battle of the sexes are an important part of tennis history and the fight for equality. the more people know of it the better. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely keep it. But does it deserve a separate section in Serena Williams' biography? I think not - it was one informal exhibition set she played in 1998. Let's move it to section 3.1. Jh122 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no. the leterman interview has no significance. it's an unnecessary addition, maybe perhaps outside a serena quotes about other athletes section. on the other hand the battle of the sexes have historical significants. adding that link to the serena page informs more people. SyriaWarLato (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, forget the Letterman interview. But do you think the Braasch exhibition (1 informal set) should remain its own section? Jh122 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i think so yes. the link is as important as the section. it leads to the battle of the exes. also it has no impact on her professional career. SyriaWarLato (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one really. Exhibitions are pretty lame. One thing that's strange is that it links to the "Battle of the sexes" article as if there is more info. There is not. I would say we need to keep it and it's not a big deal that it's left as is. It's only 5 short sentences and it really doesn't fit well anywhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to get this page promoted to a featured article, I think the question is does it help meet the criteria of length which requires that "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Im not sure this story of an exhibition match from when she was a teenager qualifies. Just my opinion.97.82.223.215 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a normal exhibition though. It's even part of an article of it's own. As for featured article, it's got a long way regardless. The photos are mostly bad. There shouldn't be more than 10 (so I trimmed it) but the pictures need to tell us something new about Serena. We need a detail of the Williams backhand, forehand, smash, serve, return of serve, a victory trophy raising (only one of those is needed), maybe an interview or one in regular non-tennis attire... What we have now doesn't impress me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of work to be done for sure.97.82.223.215 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck, "by detail of the Williams backhand, forehand, smash, serve, return of serve, a victory trophy raising (only one of those is needed)" do you mean analytic breakdown or just a picture?TJC-tennis-geek 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Having read other similar articles it is clear to me that this section is glaringly inappropriate as a topic section or subsection. It is also not written in a style fitting an encyclopedic article. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the few "battle of the sexes" and is part of its own article. It absolutely cannot be buried in her normal tennis tournaments. Players sometimes have their own exhibition section if there was something special about one or two of them. well, that's what this is. This has been here a long time but as a stand alone with no real problems. I moved it to a subsection since a few thought it was too small for it's own section. It was even put in her 1998 section (which is not the best place for it). But it should not get lumped in with her regular tennis events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is a part of another article does not mean it deserves it's own subsection here, especially when a short description and link to said article will suffice. As you can see above, others have agreed with this sentiment. Also, this mention is already too long of an explanation and is not written in a style fitting an encyclopedic article.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as you can see above some did did not agree with this sentiment. You have no consensus to change it. Plus a battle of the sexes exhibition absolutely cannot stay merged in with official WTA matches. Certainly there could be a new section of Exhibition matches but this was a special event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one is debating whether the match was special; that's evident as it was a man playing a woman. The only issue we're having is the fact that it doesn't need it's own section or subsection and that it needs to be rewritten to sound encyclopedic. It's my own personal opinion that it doesn't belong at all, but I've already conceded that point.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there's more there than "Equipment and endorsements", "Language fluency", "Miami Dolphins venture", "Writing", and "Personal life"... all of which have their own subsections. This one should too, and you removed it against consensus. I will move it back to what it was before I moved it to a subsection... which was a full section all it's own, but I think the subsection works better than a full section. It cannot remain where it is, buried in official tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a consensus either. So I will continue to take it down until one is reached. If you don't like the fact that it's buried with official tournaments then maybe you should consider whether it belongs in the article at all. No other top tennis player article has exhibitions listed as a separate section on their article, not even Billie Jean King who played the most monumental B.O.T.S match. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have a problem because it will be moved by me or others. It will be posted at the Tennis Project to make sure it moves. It is important and it can't remain where it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the way you want to approach this, be my guest. Meanwhile, you've yet to address either of my points about how the article is written and the fact that no other top tennis player has a section dedicated to exhibitions.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there haven't been many "Battle of the Sexes" in the history of the sport. And also because of your improper movement... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can accuse the other of the same so there's no point in going down that rabbit hole. Also, you still haven't addressed my points. Why not simply have a mention of it and a link to the BOTS page instead of giving it close to a paragraph and it's own subsection? The fact that there haven't been many BOTS matches doesn't strike me as a good enough reason. And it is biasly written and not at all encyclopedic. I've put this on the dispute resolution page so we can just wait to hear back from them to see how to proceed.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days you and I are going to agree on something, just wait!!!--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have we discussed things before? I don't keep track. That's a pretty quick dispute resolution but Tennis Project knows about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have, and I'm not as new at this as you seem to believe. Wikipedia editing may not be my life as it seems to be for certain people but I've found my way around. The way I've understood things dispute resolution is an early step in the resolution process and would get us a third party’s opinion. You seemed to have taken it personally, it was not meant to be taken as such. Furthermore, throughout the resolution process I would appreciate it if you kept the commentary focused on the content. We are both very passionate about our positions but we could still reach a compromise. Anyway we should probably just wait until we hear back.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went by edit history. And not personally... I simply follow rules and you haven't. I assumed because you were new you may have not been up on the protocol of editing. You change something and get reverted you do not change back, you bring it to talk to get people to agree with you. You did it backwards. You changed something and demanded it stay in place until there is a resolution. Now you're telling me you do understand the way it works, yet chose to do otherwise. Hmmm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you want to have a productive conversation without condescension. I can tell by your bio and your edit history that you've not only been around the sun a few times but you've also had your share of squabbles. I expected better from you.--97.82.223.215 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Comeback Queen"

Why is someone deleting this section, what is wrong with it?Please comment here before deleting it. Thad caldwell (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted it, but perhaps the title should be less promotional even if it is a quote of someone else's words. I do agree Serena's mental toughness evidenced in her many comebacks in important matches is a worthwhile thing to note about her. Maybe the section you've written could be condensed somewhat and placed under "playing style"?
This also underscores for me that the entire "On-Court Activities" section is a very awkward umbrella for information that should probably be dispersed elsewhere in the article. Jh122 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I agree with both of you.The "On-Court Activities" section is odd overall and when compared with featured articles, seems to not fit. Please give me some time to work on the Comeback section between today and tomorrow. I will try to condense it and move it to the "Playing Style" section. Thank you for the advice.Thad caldwell (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to remember that this is a encyclopedia, not a fan blog. If you don't think Encyclopedia Britannica would want to include it, then think twice about it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that this isn't a fan blog nor am I trying to overhype anything; just still getting my bearings. It seems that someone has already shortened this section. Should it still be moved or is it now fine as is?97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After the section was deleted, I moved some of the quotes and stats to the "Playing Style" section as discussed. Is that ok?TJC-tennis-geek 21:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

Hello, does anyone have an issue with this quote regarding Williams' ability to rely on her serve to get out of trouble being in the Playing Style section?

In regards to her serve, two-time Grand Slam Champion, Svetlana Kuznetsova recalled "I played her, and I had match point, and she aced me on that match point, and I barely saw the ball. ... She is one of the biggest servers, but it's not about serving well -- it's all about serving well on the key points, and you cannot compare that. That's her biggest advantage." TJC-tennis-geek 23:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

I think I will go with a shorter quote. This is one from an interview with Maria Sharapova. "Her biggest strength is her serve. Maybe it's something that has saved her in many matches, situations where you cannot get the racket on the ball."TJC-tennis-geek 03:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

Promotion to "Good Article"

Hi there. I've been doing some research/reading to see what can be done to make this article better and eventually see it promoted to a good article by Wiki. There are only a few tennis player articles that are considered good by Wiki so far: Roger Federer, Juan Martin del Potro , Svetlana Kuznetsova, Leander Paes, Laura Robson, and Andy Murray. I'd like to use Roger Federer's as a template as he has a comparable resume. With your help, I'd like us to start by looking at the overall contents. Here are the contents from Federer's page. Personal Life (Childhood and early life/Family/Philanthropy and outreach)// Tennis Career// Rivalries// Legacy // Playing style// Equipment and apparel// Endorsements// Career Stats. And then, we can go from there with checking references, tone, style, etc. Thoughts?TJC-tennis-geek 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place for her religion?

Is there an info box that would have a religion entry? Being a Jehovah's witness seems to drive a lot of her life. --Bertrc (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bertrc, maybe you can add it to the "Early Life" section for now? This page is a work in progress and should have a Personal Life section soon. TJC-tennis-geek 22:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rivalries

I would like to start adding a list of rivalries to the page to make it more complete. She has had several but I of course don't want to add them all. Her rivalry with Venus is already noted, which others are noteworthy? I think Henin, Capriati, Clijsters, Sharapova, and Azarenka would all be good additions? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TO quote the BBC coms from Wimby when these two played. Serena and Sharapova is and IS NOT a rivalry. Is because Sharapova has been a long time contemporary and they have clashed several times. IS NOT due to the fact that it's one sided. Think carefully. 88.105.164.165 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for the response! I certainly see your point when it comes to the head-to-head and I'm inclined to agree. My only hold up would be the opposition they provide for each other in the sport. Sharapova, while she hasn't won in years, still presents a mental challenge to Serena, whose game seems elevates win she plays her. Serena has a similar record against Azarenka but she's also considered a rival by some. What are your thoughts about listing her?--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the write up for her rivalry with Hingis, please let me know your thoughts. If acceptable, I'd like to follow a similar format with her rivalries with Clijsters, Capriati, and Henin. The jury is still out on whether Sharapova and Azarenka should be included, please let me know what you think.

Williams vs. Hingis

Williams leads series 7-6. (1) One of William’s first rivalries was with Martina Hingis, who turned pro less than one year before her (Hingis in October 1994, Williams in 1995) They first played each other at the 1998 Miami Open where Hingis won in three sets {6-3, 1-6, 7-6(4)}. All but one of their matches was played on a hard court with the exception being a contest on clay in Rome 1999, which Hingis won in straight sets. Their last match took place at the 2002 Miami Open with Williams winning (6-4, 6-0). (2) Hingis was forced to briefly leave the sport citing ankle injuries. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/3491/player2/9044 2. http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/3491/title/martina-hingis 3. http://www.biography.com/people/martina-hingis-9339702 --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Williams vs. Capriati

Williams leads series 10-7. (1) Once considered one of the best rivalries in women’s tennis (2), the competition between Williams and Capriati was stiff with 12 out of their 17 meetings going to three sets. The rivalry, starting in 1999, started off one sided with Capriati winning four of their first five matches. Serena would then go on to win the next eight. (1) Williams and Capriati played with similar styles, both known for using their power and athleticism to gain quick advantages in points. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/1325/player2/9044 2. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/jen-serena-hot-stuff-respect-power-match-article-1.554433 3. http://tennis-buzz.com/jennifer-capriati-too-little-too-late/ 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14758-2004Jun29.html --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Records

I want to address the "Records" section, someone keeps adding Margaret Court to sections like "double career slam in singles and doubles" when she completed a considerable part of that record in the pre-Open Era, however names like "Maureen Connolly" aren't included in the "Career Grand Slam in singles" section. If an article is going to contain pre-Open Era records, a) said article needs to state clearly that "These are all-time records", and a) ALL pre-Open Era records need to be included, otherwise people need to stop including Margaret Court as being a joint record holder for records she completed partly before the Open Era. Thetradge (talk) 18 August 2015, 13:34 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.60.50 (talk)

Agreed but I find that a bit backwards. If it's a record, we assume it's an all-time record. If it's only an Open Era record then we need to say it's only an Open Era record. But yes, Connolly should also be included. I fixed it along with a whole mess of other records that were wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Serena Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Of late, there has been recognition that criticisms surrounding Serena Williams has been biased and unfair.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andy-roddick-serena-williams_55e74095e4b0c818f61a3bbf http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-meaning-of-serena-williams.html?_r=0 http://observer.com/2015/09/exclusive-andy-roddick-talks-serena-williams-and-his-upcoming-baby-news/

Other tennis players in similar situations are not noted for being controversial, their behavior is reported without characterizations of "controversy" or "drama." However, there is a section titled "Controversies" in Ms. William's wiki page. The section header "Controversies" should be deleted and the sub-headings under the section "Controversies" listed under "On-Court activities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.148.204 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the controversy section is there because so much controversy has followed her from day one. It has always been a huge part of her persona. It has mellowed in the later years since she has matured. But if you mean to say that Evert, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, etc.. are on the same par in controversies as Serena, then I would say that's ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with the initial commentor here. Serena's on court drama pales in comparison to John McEnroe's but there's no "controversies" section on his article. Others such as Safin, Roddick, and even Agassi all had notable meltdowns but none of them are noted on their respective pages. David Nalbandian even hurt a line judge during one such meltdown but it also goes unmentioned. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serena_Williams&oldid=679898564"