Jump to content

Talk:Rafael Nadal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 120.154.164.83 (talk) at 16:26, 12 September 2017 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeRafael Nadal was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article


Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Under the 2009: Australian Open title and loss at French Open section, the end of the second paragraph states:

"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the fourth male tennis player—after Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Andre Agassi—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces. This win also made Nadal the first male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time. [85]"

This is incorrect, and the cited article ([85], "Record-breaking Rafa Notches Up Another First". Tennishead. 4 February 2009. Archived from the original on 9 April 2009. Retrieved 4 February 2009.) is also incorrect, as Jimmy Connors never won the French Open, and thus only won a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces. Mats Wilander never won Wimbledon, and therefore also only has a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces.

Please change it to the following, and delete source [85] described just above:

"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the third male tennis player—after Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open)—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces in the Open Era. This win also made Nadal the second male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time, the other being Rod Laver in 1969."

Supporting information: As of the 2009 Australian Open, the only other players to have won a Grand Slam on 3 surfaces in the Open Era are: Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open). Additionally, Nadal is therefore actually the 2nd male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time in the Open Era. As Rod Laver accomplished the same feat during his 1969 Grand Slam. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

While this is outside the scope of this article (as it does not pertain to Nadal), since the 2009 Australian Open, 2 additional players have accomplished this feat: Roger Federer has won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2003 Wimbledon, 2004 Australian Open, 2009 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2008 US Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon). Novak Djokovic has also won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2008 Australian Open, 2011 Wimbledon, 2016 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 French Open).

 Not done Connors won the 1976 US Open on a clay surface and Wilander won the 1983 and 1984 Australian Open on a grass court. --Wolbo (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Rod Laver never won a slam on hardcourt... Gap9551 (talk)
In fact, Jimmy Connors also won the US Open on a grass court in 1974 and on hard court in 1978, 1982 and 1983. This means he has the unique achievement of having won the same grand slam tournament on three different surfaces.Tvx1 20:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or not references.

Hi everyone.

The user Tvx1 did some changes to the page. Of course, I assume good faith and the fact that he is trying to improve the article. He wants to delete the section that initially said "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time". He deleted that initial sentence and according to his new changes now it only says that Nadal is "one of the greates players in tennis history" like Nadal is on the same league as Lendl or Agassi instead of Laver, Federer or Rosewall who are usually in the GOAT discussion. He deleted the sentence "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time" because it only included 2 references of Agassi and McEnroe. McEnroe's reference was incorrect since he said "Nadal and Federer are the greatest tennis players of all time". So in that sense his change was correct.

But then I found other references (author's opinions) and I added them to the page. Somehow, he still managed to deleted those new sources. His main objections are 2.

1) Those authors are "nobodies" or "random people" therefore Wikipedia cannnot include them as reliable evidence.

2) Wikipedia cannot include blogs as reliable sources.

Here is my answer to those objections:

1) That is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument. Specifically, an Argumen ad Hominem is made when a person critizes only the person who makes the argument, instead of his argument itself. In other words, just by critizicing the person who makes the argument, you are not refuting the argument itself. The user Tvx1 just says that they are "not experts" or "ordinary people" in a typical example of Argument ad Hominem.

2) Wikipedia policy allows to cite blogs as reliable sources. Check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. Here you can read that blogs as statements of opinion "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". The Wikipedia Nadal's article only says that ACCORDING TO SOME Nadal is the best, it's their opinion, so of course those are a reliable sources.

In the Federer Wikipeida page it is said that MANY (not only some like Nadal) consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time. But it is their opinion of course. Ken Rosewall can also be considered the GOAT since he has 23 Majors (8 Grand Slams and 15 Pro Slams) while Federer has 19 Majors. The same goes in this Wikipedia article. We are citing the opinion of some authors on Nadal. James343e (talk) 21:04, 50 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can you think Wikipedia:Blogs as sources is a policy? It literally states at the top of it that it's a failed proposal. So, the permission of using these kind of sources has actually been rejected by the community. The actual policy in effect is WP:RELIABLE. It contains the following passage in the WP:RSSELF section: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable." That clearly indicates that blogs should not be used. Secondly the WP:UGC section says: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. and Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs). Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. Lastly the WP:RSOPINION section contains the following partially bolded statement: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.
For all these reasons, your sources are utterly unacceptable. They are NOT reliable. Since you are already at WP:5RR, I suggest you revert your edits which are in breach of policy as a proof of good intentions if you want to avoid getting blocked.Tvx1 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section, "2012," re: Olympics favorite

I propose that the statement "Prior to his withdrawal, Nadal had been touted as the favourite to successfully defend the Gold Medal he won in Beijing four years earlier, despite his early loss at Wimbledon" be omitted. The source is a Bleacher Report blog. MysteryTed80 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for your request. Source does indeed not meet our standards for reliable ones. An obvious opinion piece from a fanboy, crucially written before his defeat at Wimbledon.Tvx1 13:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

change link for world number 1

In the header the link for the world number 1 is wrong, use the official atp one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players

It was the one used for the previous world ones such as andy murray, novak and roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.206 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The one listed IS the official ranking site for the ATP. What you proposed is the wikipedia site which is not official at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph was changed without a solid reason after Federer's 8th Wimbledon.

I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis.

I don't see any valid reason why this was changed. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dcitionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.

Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some


James343e (talk) 21:04, 10th September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Paragraph 1 should read " His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players ever, with some considering him the greatest player of all time." Abhisetia (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/five-reasons-rafa-nadal-is-the-greatest-of-all-time/article/2008433 http://www.powersharesseries.com/agassi-says-nadal-could-be-the-goat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/01/28/tennis-podcast-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-greatest-time-says/

Paragraph one should actually have no mention of his subjective placement in history. That should be further down in the narrative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oe rule for Rafa the other for Roger, the debate is still wide open. With Federer's injuries he may never compete competitively in another major again as far as we know. Rafael Nadal at this point has regained the number 1 and only needs 3 out of the 4 major next year or 2 out of the 4 over the next year to pass Roger. It is highly pertinent Rafael Nadal is still openly in the debate about who is the greatest player of all time, not just the greatest player of his era. Even the media is discussing this again since his return back to the number one. --120.154.164.83 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafael_Nadal&oldid=800291412"