Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

September 2006-January 2007

Header career highlights

Like I have mentioned on the talk pages of other articles regarding big name tennis players, everyone agrees that the header should not descend into a list of streaks, statistics, and random achievements. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting one or two major career attributes unique to a particular player. Why is okay for "repetitious trivia" about Sampras's long and impressive stay at number one and his Wimbledon record to be kept in his article's header, but similar information ought to be deleted from Federer's? Just because something is repeated deep within an article does not mean it is not valuable enough to include in the header. Federer has piled up a mound of eye-popping stats and statistics; not every one should be at the top of the page. But a couple of unique ones do deserve inclusion in the header, and I am putting them back in. BrandoPolo 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Records and trivia

I deleted "He became the first player to win Grand Slam events (Wimbledon & US Open) the year after having won three Grand Slam events in the same year." from trivia as Roy Emerson (64/65), Lew Hoad (56/57) and Fred Perry (34/35) acchieved that before. 84wb 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Add the qualifier "in the Open Era" and it becomes a true statement again. --Dantheox 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this initial record cited in this article is incorrect. As far as I can tell, Boris Becker was ranked 65th in the world year end in 1985 at 18 years, 1 month.

Jakewvulaw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)==Criticism?==

I think people too often praise Federer for what he's accomplished and never really do anything other than praise. Shouldn't there be a criticism part as well? One of the older players definitely had some stuff to say about Federer, about how Federer's competition isn't really up to par (and I think it was Ivanisevic, though I'm probably wrong); not to mention Mary Carillo has even stated in live broadcasts that all Federer does is play baseliners since no one comes to net much anymore. Even during the US Open final this year, Roddick didn't come up to net that much, and when he did, it often failed. Also, Haas has made statements negating Federer a bit.

Basically, is there anywhere or anyway we can add in something to add in a "criticism" part?

          Unless there is any official criticism that is cited, I don't think we should.

Rivalry

Should we add something about the current rivalry between Federer and Nadal? I scanned the article and couldn't find a section on it. Akshayaj 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that we are leading to that and most tennis experts are already talking about such a rivalry. However, I think to prevent any dirty works done on such an article/section (e.g. lots of cleanup, questions about neutrality, lack of sources), we should at least have an article about "tennis rivalry" in general. At least, that article will ground what a rivalry is. There are some good articles discussing this and some notable examples online, which we can use as references. The general premise of what a rivalry is (and Roger Federer I think agreed about some of these points--just search for the news articles) is that the two players have contrasting styles and personalities, always meet at the later stages of very important tournaments, and their head-to-head matches tend to even out in the long-run (i.e. if the head-to-head is one-sided, then it is not a rivalry). Hence, the current Federer-Nadal rivalry, if there is such a thing, qualifies for the first two, however, it may take lots of effort for Federer to catch up on their head-to-head records (and for Nadal to perfect his game on other surfaces). Ultimately, what this leads to is the potential of a rivalry, not really a rivalry that is already existing. Hence, that article might be subject to speculation, and we know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... (Although I am still for the composing of an article discussing about tennis rivalry in general and historic examples). Joey80 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think articles of such nature, instead of just articles discussing players (i.e. short biography, titles) will better reflect the sport of tennis, providing readers with a more in-depth perspective of the sport. And aside from the rivalry article, what about an article about the Russian Revolution. I know that everyone has been talking about the rise of Russian players for a year or two (although you might say that the achievements of Russians in 2004 are just due to the absence of notable players, just take a look at the Tier I finals this season, which each featured at least one Russian player), but I haven't found a comprehensive, or even a decent, article about it. Statistics such as the number of Russians ranked, the finals reached and won (including Fed Cup), and even the overall effect of the trend on Russian tennis can be discussed. Thanks! Joey80 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Federer's Racquet

Wilson's advertisement has reappeared in the players page. I have removed it. Inventingfacts

Contrary to popular belief, Federer plays with a racquet with a "paint job" to make it look as though he uses the n6.1 Tour. It is believed that he might use a custom mold of a racquet similiar to the n6.1, but he seems to have a wider string pattern. "Paint jobs" are rather common in tennis, and the sponsor, of course, markets the supposed racquet as the one the player uses. Lleyton Hewitt does not use the RDX500, and Safin does not use the Liquid Metal Prestige (infact, nearly all pros that "seem" to use the Liquid Metal Prestige, do not). A modification to present the facts to the reader would be appropriate, but if this is not possible, the page will not self destruct. :p There are several threads about this at [1]. Any person(s) interested in investing time to research the topic beyond my knowledge would be greatly appreciated for the article. I would gladly do so, but I think that my approach would be rather skeptical, and I do not have adequate Wikipedia experience. Thank you for reading!

Hi, some time ago i wrote an article explaining this, the section dealing withteh paint job was removed unwisely by an editor. i have put it back however. thank you for your concern. --Nanonugget

Yes, I'm a member of Talk Tennis I saw your thread. This is quite outrageous and should be handled as necessary. To the moderator removing, could you please refute your deletes?

Check out the #Equipment speculation section below as it contains the rationale for the deletes. I am not an administrator, I'm just a Wikipedia member. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Tennis is a Bulletin Board forum. It's not a valid source per se, and the contents of messages posted by the people who contribute there are not a reliable source that we can refer at Wikipedia. However, if, somewhere in some message, someone names a reliable, verifiable source for the claims being made, that'd be different. But in that case, the source would not be Talk Tennis, but rather this other source referenced. Any data added that is based solely on any particular thread from Talk Tennis, or any general opinion that happens to be circulating over there, will need to be removed from our article. For more on our policy for inclusion and sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Redux 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was this allowed to be included: "Roger Federer officially uses the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90 tennis racquet. This is the first tennis racquet to utilize nanotechnology, which according to Wilson's promotional literature is twice as strong and twice as stable as traditional racquets, yielding 22% more power, as well as added control and a greater life span." Has the proof of this appeared in a comparative industry survey or scientific journal? Why are no details provided about the claims? Isn't this just an advertisement by a manufacturer? Has an article substantiating these claims appeared in a trusted source like a newspaper or racquet industry publications? If so, where are the references? In the absence of any proof, this is just marketing material and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.48.120 (talk • contribs) .

Be bold! Even IP users can remove questionable sections. That little "edit this page" button works for everyone. :) --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We cannot state that Federer "officially" uses any given material unless we can verify this information. If it's still in the article, it will need to be removed. It is also possible to add a temporary template right after the text,the {{citation needed}} template, so as to allow users to find a source to support the affirmation. That's a very short measure though, maybe a couple of days. If no one names the source, then the data will be removed. Redux 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the citation templates to both paragraphs in the Equipment section. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Noelle and Redux. If no one names the source, please remove it as you have suggested. I am not familiar with the protocols.

Hey you guys, Nanonugget/chiru here. I hope you're talking about the stuff thats currently there. as far as the first paragraph is concerned, i don't think you need a citation for any of that information except for the wilson promo stuff, i hope thats all thats required. as far as teh second paragraph. thats from the nate ferguson interview, adn i'm not quite sure how to cite that. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/priority1.html thats the link if you'd like to do it yourself, or tell me how either way its find with me. the players racket stuff, well thats from a combination of http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Features/9908NateFerguson.html where ferguson talks about how using a heavy players racket is an indication of skill in regards to sampras. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/catthumbs.html?CREF=160 this classifies it as a player's racket according to common industrial classification. I'm not sure if any further citation is needed, most of this stuff, as I said, may not be in CNN or Time Magazine, but its perfectly true, verifiable, and unless you accept such sources, you're going to have to remove the entire equipment section, as well as basically any subjective look at federer, in terms of his playing style, famous matches, the possibility of him being the GOAT. etc.

Yes, I was talking only about the Wilson promo stuff. That one needs to be deleted if not substantiated.

Time to remove the promotional material?

I removed the promotional material from the first paragraph, but we still need citations or more info about the racquet changes (or supposed racquet changes) so I left the citation template in.
For the second paragraph we need citations for the power pads information. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article has News / Public Relation Slant

Hi. I'm sorry but this article is looking a lot like a news page, which is kind of not the point. For instance, when it states: "Federer is currently at the top of the ATP Tour rank", that's news because it reflect the state of affairs in late 2003/early 2004, but the article is supposed to be around for a long time, and sometime in the near future Federer will no longer be the world nº1. Perhaps that sort of observation should go as a note in the "career" section of the article, and even so it would have to be reworded to read something like: "as of 2004 Federer is the nº1 player" — and once he loses that condition, it would have to be altered to something like "he was the nº1 player between January 2004 and – let's say – March 2005". Furthermore, it would be nice to have more biographic information heading the article. Regards, Redux 21:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They put that in all current articles and then delete it. It makes it more intersting. --Dyna 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the hesitation in including "arguably the greatest tennis player ever" in his description, where many former tennis greats share the same opinion. --- Zaheen Zaheen 19:12, 24 November 2004 (UTC)

Well, he's still #1. Feeeshboy 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but they still shouldn't put it. It's biased. What about Sampras or Agassi? Dyna 12:30 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV / POV

I put the NPOV dispute template because someone has dedicated himself to decribe Federer as...well, short of a machine, as this person practically says ("Federer is not a machine"). So, we need to keep a close eye on this one. For Zaheen:Arguably the greatest player ever" is ok in my opinion. Arguably means that it can be argued, + I use that word a lot of times in the articles I write. Antonio Mental Case Martin 15:09 25 JAN 2005 (MST)...rainy day in Arizona ..hehe

Sorry Antonio, but I think most of the statements in the article is written from a neutral, non-disputed perspective. If you are referring to the style subsection, every one of those statements is true, unless you haven't been watching Federer's tennis. Moreover, those statements are very technical in nature and backed by observation. Federer is not described AS a machine at any point, in fact his human genius is EMPHASIZED in that last para.

You have made several edits (you basically seem to have rather arbitrarily deleted the "good"-sounding adjectives) in the section that MIGHT give the article an NPOV "look" to a reader, but every one of those deleted words/phrases are, in fact, true. Those adjectives are actually used very thoughtfully, meaning to capture the description shared by most of tennis community, fans, reporters and players alike. For example, you deleted the word "exceptional" when it was used to describe Federer's return of serve. If you want, there are statistics on how Federer's return renders inactive almost all the big servers in the game of Tennis today and how exceptional it is. For example, this Sports Illustrated article says: "Federer has a knack for reading Roddick's serve, getting enough of his racket on them to cut down on aces. Roddick had only a pair of aces in each of the first two sets and none in the third. He had 64 aces in his five matches on the way to the semis."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/04/roddick_problems_ap/

In other words, Roddick was serving 15 aces per game, but against Federer he could only manage 4, a reduction of 70%, which, surely, can be attributed to Federer's return. And this surely means Federer possesses exceptional returning skills. In fact, I don't need to cite news articles for this. Anybody who has been following tennis will attest to that.

The same can be said about other edits you have made. That Federer is truly exceptional is not a question. And to not include that information in his description is tantamount to not maintaining NPOV.

The level of tennis displayed by Federer is truly several classes above the rest, and this has been said by ALL his current peers and past tennis greats. His records are probably enough to speak for themselves. But then you have authoritative opinions by other tennis greats as well. When John McEnroe says, "If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like him," or when Mats Wilander says "I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels like to play that way," or when Rod Laver says "I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time", I think there is very little dispute about the caliber of Roger Federer. These are former tennis greats, people who have lived and breathed tennis and are regarded the very best of the game. --

PS. I think we need to do the revisions, if such revisions are required to maintain a NPOV, on a case by case basis.

Zaheen 01:35, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

I must say, this is article is the biggest praise piece I've seen on wiki........

User:203.177.51.219 10:53, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

I think Federer hasn't earned the title of "greatest ever" just yet. I'm sure you can find all of those people saying similar things about Sampras. I personally believe that Men's Tennis is currently weaker than I've ever seen it before. Federer is undoubtedly great, but his stiffest competition these days comes from a middle aged Agassi, who in the U.S. Open held his own, despite serving poorly and being noticeably slower than in his prime. I think some people are trying to pump up his image because of Tennis sagging appeal in the U.S.

Reply: For when are you talking? What about Nadal? I say that tennis is truly a bit weak nowadays, but we are treated by Federer who gives us maybe the nicest moves of all time.

Well, yeah, I agree Federer is an awesome player, but exceptional and other words seem like wikipedia is giving an opinion and NPOV is basically against us giving our opinion, only sticking to facts. You should add the quotes made by the different players and magazines to the article, Zaheen. But a lot of wikipedians would tell you to abstain from describing his game, because many readers might not agree with you. I do believe that he is one of the al;l time greats, I can imagine dream matchups (the same way boxing fans do , eg Ali-Marciano), between hoim and John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Arthur Ashe]]...who'd win and how?

I remember I was given a tough time by Zoe and others when I wrote that Wilfredo Gomez put Puerto Rico on its feet, or that Felix Trinidad destroyed Maurice Blocker. Of course, back then I was a rookie, but I heard from it so long it had no end, buddy.

Other than that, keep up the good work, buddy. Thanjks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Mansonite Martin" 11:03, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Like I said, let's do this on a case-by-case basis. :) Zaheen 18:26, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

There are lot of missing facts and mis-matches. The timeline given for coaches is totally wrong. Peter Carter didn't coach till 2002. Lundgren didn't started in 2002. Get your facts right. User:164.107.208.167 03:04, 8 February 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Facts about coaches straightened. --- 14 feb, 2005. User:128.151.71.19 03:15, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Let's give it a little time before Federer is officially anointed "the greatest ever." As I recall, he just lost in the French ssemi-finals. And, if you were as old as I am, you would know that Bill Tilden was called the greatest ever for two or three decades -- except for those who held out for Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, or Jack Kramer. Then Pancho Gonzales came along in the 1950s and for perhaps 15, maybe even 20 years, most people considered *him* to have been the greatest ever. Then Rod Laver in the late 60s became, guess what? "the greatest ever." Even though Gonzales still beat him occasionally when Gonzales was well into his 40s. And I certainly remember the mid-80s when John McEnroe was called, yet again, "the best ever." Then, of course, Pete Sampras came along. I'll leave you to guess what *he* was called. Now it's Federer's turn. Let's just wait a while until the dust settles.... Hayford Peirce 22:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public Relations Officer Wrote the Federer Article?! Geez, I've just read the article about his 2004-2005 year -- who the hell wrote this? Talk about POV!!!! It sounds like a press release and nothing more! Is there someone out there with enough strength of character to edit out about 1,000 words of this baloney? Hayford Peirce 04:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with Redux - too much like a news page. We dont need paragraph upon paragraph of every little stat abouts each year of Federer's career or how he 'crushes opponents' etc - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. Furthermore, Federer is still young and is only now coming into his prime. Ease off the 'greatest player of all time' until his career has reached its zenith please. Remember, patience is a virtue, especially for the Swiss :)

I edited the introductory blurb to be slightly less sycophantic and in general cleaned up the English grammar throughout the article as much as I could. I also edited the Career Timeline which makes up the bulk of the info in this article to also be slightly less sycophantic. Removed a lot of "first player to do so since" or "best performance since" type comments as they are again simply used to bulk up the article far too much. Looking at the other top Player's articles like Sampras and Hewitt, I see far less 'fanboyism' and more of a focus on hard facts. I also see the need for more listings of great matches where Federer has actually lost - these can still be good matches! I therefore added the Nadal-Federer French Open Semi of last year but feel free to add more. User:82.35.34.24 02:01, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

A great job on the Etanish edit. I've been wanting to do it but was too lazy. This was one of the most appalling articles I've ever seen. Grrrr. Keep up the good work. Unfortunately, so many people who write articles (in any categories) are simply fans of that person (or movie or whatever) and only want to put their enthusiasms on the page.... I have my enthusiasms too, but I try to keep them under control.Hayford Peirce 30 June 2005 16:36 (UTC)

The most recent edit appends "and at the age of just 24, is already considered one of the greatest players of all time." Is this still NPOV? It doesn't cite a source for this opinion. Noelle De Guzman 16:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

CHIRU I GOT UR BACK

What racquet Roger Federer acually uses is a custom racquet combining the traits of the Wilson Pro Staff Tour 90 and the Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 Original 85. The racquet that Wilson Sporting Goods claims Federer uses is the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90. Roger does not use this racquer, sorry to break it to you.

The racquet the Federer uses has a 88 inch head. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 90 inch head and the Pro Staff 6.0 Original (which Federer grew up using and is the racquet Pete Sampras used throughtout his career) is a 85 inch head. The width of Federer's racquet's beam is 16.5 mm (like the old China made 6.0 Orginal, but only the China version, which Federer used). The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 17 mm beam. The handle area of his racquet is the one on the 6.0 Original is not like the one on the nSix-One Tour 90.

Other specs about his racquet is that the shape of his handle is different from the one on the nSix-One Tour 90. His handles are custom molded by Nate Ferguson. The custom racquet weighs in at 357g while the nSix-One Tour 90 (the one Wilson claims he uses) weighs in at 352g. Also the paint pattern on the custom Federer racquet is slightly different from the one on nSix-One Tour 90. The balance on his racquet is dead even while the nSix-One Tour is 9pts head light. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 16x19 string pattern. The custom Federer racquet also has a 16x19 pattern but the spacing between the grommets (and therefore the strings) is different. The sweetsport area on his racquet is more open.

Now his accessories. The grip Federer uses is leather. It is either Wilson Leather Grip or (what I think is right...) the Fairway Leather Grip. The Fairway is a legendary grip that is discontinued. It is the highest quality leather grip and Federer grew up using it. Now the overgrip he uses is Wilson Pro Overgirp (thats the white one). He also uses Babolat Elastocross 2 string savers. The strings he uses are Wilson Natural Gut 16 and Luxilon Big Banger ALU-Power Rough 16L. He strings the Wilson Gut on the mains (the up and down strings) and the Luxilon on the crosses (side to side), dispite popular belief that he uses Luxilon mains and git crosses (he doesn't). The Wilson Natural Gut is the same thing as Babolat Natural Gut. Babolat is the top maker in gut and Wilson Gut is just the same thing repackaged. Wilson buys their gut from Babolat. Federer used to use Babolat Gut until Wilson paid him to use their gut (which is the same). And Federer uses "power pads" (these are not sold by Wilson and are generic). They are leather pads on the bottom grommets. You put them in while striging and they used to use power pads all the time in the wooden racquet days. It serves the same purpose as a vibration dampener. Also the grip on Federer's racquet is short because he uses a one-handed backhand (so the extra grip won't bother him).

As for the "nCode" nanotechnology. It's not real. Wilson's definition of nCode is "When a racquet is nCoded nano-sized silicone oxide crystals permeate the voids between the carbon fibers". What is silicone oxide? It doesn't exist. Wilson acually spelled it wrong. What they meant was silicon oxide (aka silica). What's that then? It's sand. Basically they grind sand into nano-sized bits and throw some into the resin matrix. And it doesn't do anything but kill the feedback of the frame (which is a very bad thing).

The composition of the nSix-One Tour is "10% nCoded Hyper Carbon / 70% nCoded High Modulus Graphite / 20% Kevlar". What I think it Federer uses is "80% Graphite 20% Kevlar" which is the composition of the 6.0 Original. Federer grew up with the 6.0 and would not want to change it. The reason I believe that Federer's racquet is not "nCoded" is because Federer's game (which is extremely string) requires maximum feel for the ball. nCode would just take that away from him. And the 6.0 Original composition is known to give great feel.

But don't go asking WIlson to admit that Federer doesn't use a nSIx-One Tour 90. They WILL NOT admit it. Frankly no one really cares because no one really knows. They've been using old racquets painted as new racquets for a long time (these are called "paintjobs", remember that). If you want to know more players using painjobs, go ask around. If you want to sue Wilson, go ahead (but it's a rather stupid thing to do). But if you win, make sure to give me some of the dough because I told you first (this only applies if I acually did tell you first).

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems

I moved the below here as no copyrighted source was found. Is the text familiar to anyone here? -- Infrogmation 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 22

• Roger Federer#Style. I could not locate the possible source, but the very structure of the text strongly suggests that it was plain copied from somewhere else, possibly a specialized publication. Redux 23:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A large amount of rather effusive text has been added over the last couple of weeks by an IP user. It doesn't particularly smell of a copyvio to me, just someone who likes Roger Federer. It needs major cleanup anyway, to make it more NPOV. Matthewmayer 19:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i belive federer is the greatest player ever to live he is simply magnificent

Useless Information

I'm told by people (and I agree :p) that I look a lot like this guy, but I don't suppose that's interesting information, since I'm no celebrity :-) Wouter Lievens 13:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was Federer ranked 301 on YE 1997?

One of my checks says 302. Can you confirm or quote source? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2003/30/Sport_2fFederer Ram (FedererMagic) 20:04, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Source: http://www.stevegtennis.com/rankings/1998/s1998.htm User:128.151.226.106 01:41, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

Swiss or Swiss-South African...???

Is Roger just Swiss, or since his mother is South African, and he spends a great deal of time there, should he be listed as: Swiss-South African? WikiDon 22:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Her mother has Swiss passport too... And in Switzerland, you have the nationality of your father and Federer play for the Swiss team ;) User:195.186.233.94 10:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So, your saying Lynette's mother has a Swiss passport? Do we care? We know he "is" Swiss, a) He was born there. b) He lives there. It's no "dah" that he plays for the Swiss team. BUT 1) Can Roger claim South African citizenship? 2) Does he recognize his South African heritage? 3) Could he play for the South Africa team if he wanted to? (I say that he can and does, and can.) WikiDon 16:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with South African immigration legislation, but in all likelihood, with him being a direct descendant of a South African citizen, he should be able to get citizenship if he wanted to (maybe he already has it even); Second question: I've seen interviews where he recognizes his "South African heritage", as you put it, time and again. And about playing for South Africa, I assume you mean in the Davis Cup. No, he couldn't. Davis Cup rules state that for a player to be eligible to play for a country, he must prove that he has resided in that country for a certain period of time prior to the year in which he hopes to represent the country in the Cup. Constant, long visits do not count. The Davis Cup requires proof of residence, and Federer certainly does not reside in South Africa. And finally, about his citizenship, the Geneva Convention on Citizenship states that, in cases of individuals with multiple citizenships (de facto or potential), the person shall be identified by the nationality (s)he chooses. I see no indication that Federer ever chose to be identified as a South African, on the contrary, he is always listed as a Swiss in tournaments, and I believe he only travels with a Swiss passport. Does that answer everything? Regards, Redux 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Size Matters...!!!!

The size of this article has passed the limit of normal Wikipedia managability. The Roger's "stats" will most likely need to be moved to a separate article. Thoughts? WikiDon 11:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To shorten the article, one thing that could go (and I mean deletion), is that "Head-to-Head" section. That's a trivia that really adds nothing to the encyclopedic information on Federer. Besides, what are the criteria for listing: are we going to list every single player Federer ever played? Or just those who are or have been in the Top 10? Sorry, but that section adds nothing to the article. Regards, Redux 18:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How about the yearly summaries? Is there any way they can be condensed or at least mention only the highlights of the year? I don't think they have to contain references to every single title Roger won during the year. The ATP website already has a full listing of tournaments Federer has played. Noelle De Guzman 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Roger Federer#Career and Roger Federer#Records and trivia can be merged? It's basically the same information anyway, and will help shorten the article by simply stating how many times Federer has defended a certain title. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

Jimbo Wales himself came over to this article and removed the image that used to be here, he then proceded to delete the image from the servers. He did that, as explained by him on the summary in the Deletion log, because the copyright holders of that image (or someone who represented them) contacted him directly to complain about the image being used here. People, please do not upload copyrighted images, they cannot be used on Wikipedia. I realize there's a lot of newcomers who contribute to this article, so I wanted to explain here why the image was removed and why it cannot be reinserted — as well as that other images with similar copyrights status also cannot be used. In the case of this particular image that was just removed by Jimbo, if it resurfaces on this article again, I'm sorry but I will delete it again on sight, so please don't do it (don't re-upload it, and certainly don't post it on this or any other article). Regards, Redux 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Style Article Deleted?

So the article on Roger Federer's style of play was deleted? To me, it's that depth of information in the articles that make wikipedia so valuable. As someone who started watching some tennis and wondered why everyone seemed to be speaking this guy's name in such hushed tones, the style piece was a lot more illuminating than a page of tournament stats. User:71.192.242.135 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

So, create a NEW article, "Federer's style" and then put a link from this article to the new aritcle. WikiDon 05:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That was article I was referring to actually. I wasn't sure if you're suppose to comment on deleted articles (the talk page was deleted as well). Roger_Federer's_playing_style

Did you vote for the article when it was up for deletion? You can read the discussion HERE, but its to late to vote. If enough KEEP votes would have been submitted, the page would still be around. I didn't know about the page, or that it was being voted on.

If I see a page that I want to keep, I try to come up with very compelling reasons why, and I try to find other contributors and lobby them to vote in my favor. Some times you have to work hard, 1) to find enough reasons, 2) effectively communicate those reasons, and 3) pro-actively find people to see your point, feel like you do, and get them to vote.

After reading the reasons why it was deleted, try taking the article, and write a better one, filling the holes presented by the people who voted to DELETE. Maybe a better article would be Tennis playing styles, the enter the styles of 20 different of the most famous players as a comparision, this would be much more valueable. Also, did you look at the top 30 players of all time to see if they had seperate articles on their playing style?

Also votes from IP addresses don't carry very much weight, and sometimes none, they might be deleted or ignored. But votes from users that contribute a lot, and quality, get more weight. WikiDon 06:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • PS: If you read through the delete page, most of the "keeps" were from anonymous contributors. FIRST they don't know how to vote. So, the get somewhat ignored. You have to know HOW to vote. Then be compelling. You need a article lawyer. WikiDon

I'm not quite enthusiasic enough to champion for it's undeletion, but thanks for the details on wiki delete procedures. I'll keep that in mind if I become a more active editor at some point. I can certainly see why some would vote for deletion -- it's difficult to be authoritative about a style of play. And I don't see that other other players have that level of depth in their articles, although it would be great if they did. Tennis playing styles seems like a good middle ground actually. So Tennis Experts, uh, get right on that! 19 October 2005 (same user as initial style talk post)

Passing thought: If you, or someone else decides to write Tennis playing styles, I would recommend strating with the oldest legends first and work your way to the present. It is much easier to analyise a player that is retired than it is a 20-year old. WikiDon 17:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone recently added the following text concerning Federer's playing style to the article. Since it isn't NPOV I commented it out and suggested a rewrite. I figured it would be relevant to place it here. I don't know exactly what to do with it either, since the style article was deleted.

"Federer's playing style is relaxed and smooth, with no apparent technical weakness in any particular area of his game. His most useful assest is a powerful forehand; however, it must not be forgotten that his backhand is exemplary also. He can make accurate down-the-line forehands and cross-court forehands on the run, and often patiently constructs points to get in a position from where he can make outright winners with those shots."

Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm an anonymous contributor, it would seem my opinion doesn't matter...in case I'm wrong though, and somebody considers what I say, here's my stance. I'm pretty sure the majority of Wikipedia readers aren't members who contribute quality content. They're readers. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and by its very nature geared toward the reader, it's their opinions that matter. I visited this article for the sole purpose of reading about Federer's style, and was sorely disappointed to see it was not addressed, when style IS addressed for other notable players. If the readers want to read about a player's style, who are you to deny them on the basis of nobody showing up to vote on it?

I would suggest you register as being a registered user offers benefits (tracking article changes, person-to-person communication between editors, some sort of credit :) ). If anyone would like to start a new article about Federer's style I don't see why it shouldn't be done. However, describing a playing style is more vulnerable to POV problems. Just a potential landmine. Noelle De Guzman 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the way to learn to learn about a player's playing style be to watch them play? I'm not against discussion of playing style as long as it's "Such-and-such uses a two-handed backhand" or "Such-and-such's career first serve percentage to date is thus." But when you start using words like smooth, exceptional, and genius, while it might be true, it's still a violation of NPOV.BrandoPolo 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that there has to be some discussion of playing style. This should be included for every player's article. There are unique aspects of each players games which are undisputed facts...ie Fabrice Santoro hits with two hands off both sides. This discussion must be included. The paragraph above is of course too generic...that does not mean that a more analytical and objective discussion cannot be created, Tor.

Here is a sample discussion I have created, please comment.

Federer has an all-court playing style and is known for being able to hit virtually all of the fundamental shots with exceptional proficiency. He has stated that the one shot he would like to improve his proficiency in is the dropshot. Like many modern players he uses a semi-western grip for his forehand. He has a one-handed backhand from which he tends to hit fairly equal amounts of topspin and slice. His serve is known for being difficult to read due to the fact that he is able to disguise its delivery by maintaining a consistent ball toss placement. His first serve delivery speed is typically in the 125 MPH range, with his second serve typically being a heavy kicking delivery. His footwork and court coverage are exceptional and he is considered to be one of the fastest movers in the game. Perhaps the most unique part of Federers game is his tactical ability to effectively implement different strategies for the differing opponents by synthesizing a style of play using his arsenal of shots which is precisely the style of play most difficult for his opponent to counter. This spectrum of game styles ranges from pure baseline to pure serve-and-volley with many styles in between, Tor.

Added a section for playing style, containing some of the info from here. I actually come to wikipedia for all players looking for info on thier playing style... perhaps this could eventually become its own overall subtitle. Anys, hope this doesn't cause an upset... just trying to get the playing style ball rolling. Knowsitallnot 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Roger's return serve is exceptional. But I agree words like "exceptional" have no place in an encyclopedic article. If indeed there are verifiable statistics to back up such words, then the proper way to handle that without violating NPOV rules is to simply put in the statistics, and not the analysis of those statistics. The entire "playing style" section is suspect. I'm going to edit it for POV and also submit this article for review by an administrator, if it has not been done already. Wikipedia is not a collection of opinions and analysist 99% of the people hold to be true. BrandoPolo 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

year end ranking

Federer was never the youngest ever in top 100 (and neither was Gasquet, for that matter). Youngest since official rankings started in 1973 was Aaron Krickstein, who finished 1983 at #94 at age 16y 4m. I edited the ATP page regarding this as well.

the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup

It was listed in his career match statistics that his 2005 record for carpet is 0-0. Note that the surface for the Tennis Masters Cup is Taraflex (Carpet) -- refer to the ATP website. That's why a player (was it Ljubicic?) compared the surface to the one used in the Paris Masters (carpet). Which means that he is actually 4-1 in carpet this season. This also means that his winning streak in hardcourt is still active, because it was not even at stake in the tournament in the first place.

Some places seem to list it as hardcourt... strange...

Greatest of All Time

In the past day or two, IP address 165.123.150.62 has added statements about Federer being one of the greatest players of all time. I reverted the first change because the statement was unsupported by sources. 165.123.150.62 then made two revisions about the "greatest of all time" tag, the latter adding a qualifier to the statement by stating John McEnroe and Rod Laver as the source of that assessment.[2] The last revision by the IP address reverted to the version I had earlier reverted the article to.[3]

I think statements about "greatest of all time" tend to make the article not NPOV, especially since it's only been five years since Federer began playing on the pro tour. Noelle De Guzman 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty much established that we cannot, under our WP:NPOV policy, be calling anyone "the greatest of all times", "genius" or anything along those lines, unless this is a WIDELY accepted concept — meaning: citing a fansite, or any other clearly biased website will not do. Regards, Redux 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In this matter, if it is wideley accepted that McEnroe and Laver have said this, it would be acceptable to state the fact that they have made these statements. We are not calling Federer the greatest, Laver and McEnroe are. I personally cannot provide written references as to McEnroe and Laver stating this however I do recall Laver commenting somewhere about either Federer being the greatest or having the potential to be the greatest. If Laver did say this and a specific reference can be cited (ie he said it on an ESPN broadcast during a particular match) then I believe it should be included because Laver is widely regarded as one of, if not, the greatest players of all time and his opinion in the matter is relevant, Tor.

McEnroe, Laver, Hewitt, and Roddick's POV is still a POV. If Laver edited this page himself, it would constitute a violation of the NPOV rule. Wikipedia is not the place for discussions about Roger's potential. That's ESPN's job.BrandoPolo 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

why not have a section on "notable quotes" for Federer? That way we can include those greatest of all time comments without vioalting NPOV.

Match Scores

Since this article is already quite long, I'm not sure adding match scores to the year's summary of activities is going to do anything except lengthen it.

I suggest the relevant sections just have a link to Federer's ATPTennis.com activity sheet. Noelle De Guzman 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

62.2.111.250

Is there any way we can report this IP? The user keeps vandalizing the article by adding the nonsense lines "His occurs are based on spy methods, a Swiss group. The knowledge him the No. 1 did, was compiled by a Mannn of name Leo Klein." Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress; WP:AN. I'll take a lot into it myself though. Vandalism will not stand. Redux 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This IP was blocked for 24 hours on January 21 for vandalizing this article repeatedly, and has not returned since. If he does it again, or if he returns to vandalizing under a different IP, let me know. He's been warned enough. Regards, Redux 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

62.2.111.250 did it again on 10 February 2006. I don't know what the policy for this kind of thing is (and don't have time to figure it out), so all I'm doing is leaving this note here. Hopefully someone who is more in the community than I am will know what to do. paulv 15:27, 10 February 2006

Thanks Paulv. I'll let Redux know. Noelle De Guzman 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note Noelle. I have blocked the IP for a month. If after that this individual returns yet again to this pattern of behavior — and it is clear that this IP is controlled by one person alone — I shall be forced to take definitive measures. Vandalism will not be tolerated. Redux 16:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

People, seriously: DO NOT add copyrighted images or images with uncertain coyright status to this or any other articles. Wikipedia cannot carry does images and they will be removed from the articles and deleted from the database. This is not the first time the subject has been brought up on this article. Copyright violations will be removed on sight; images with uncertain status will be tagged as such, and come seven days, they too will be removed without further warning. Please, cooperate in keeping Wikipedia in compliance with the applicable legislation. Thanks, Redux 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

here are some CC-licensed images of Federer that could be added to the article. No nice headshots though. Jacoplane 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jacoplane. I took the liberty of using one of the pictures for this entry. I hope you guys like the picture!! It's pretty good considering it's not copyrighted Stanley011 16:17, 28 February 2006 (EST)

Recently Added Creative Commons image

Is there any way someone with better wikipedia skills than I can get a caption under the image? Something like: "Federer serving at the 2005 U.S. Open Final, which he won in 4 sets." Thanks! ~~User:Stanley011.

Done. Cheers, Redux 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Redux. Hopefully, we'll be able to get a higher quality and closer image some time soon ~~user:Stanley011Good image user:Stanley011 --70.16.187.158 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC

Plantar Fasciitis

There have been some reports out there that suggest that Roger might have this painful foot condition, but he denies this claim on his own website: [4]. Now, this denial should set the record straight, but the catch is the following: this response has been on his website for quite a while, and the reports of his plantar fasciitis have been more recent--is it possible that he developed it very recently, and just forgot to update his page? It is possible that he was responding to a question about "plantar fascitis" and not about "plantar fasciitis?" I prefer to not to interpret it like that, given that Roger is generally regarded as a charitable fellow. Stanley011 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is subject matter for a tabloid, *not an encyclopedia*....you are walking a very fine line by including it. The primary emphasis of this article should be to *objectively* present Federers accomplishments and other facts about his career. Attempting to investigate or instigate controversy has no place in an encyclopedia.

You forgot to sign your name after your comments. Are you implying that I'm not being *objective* by mentioning the fact that Federer MIGHT have a weakness. Sounds like you're the one in need of lecturing about NPOV, not me. If Federer does indeed have plantar fasciitis, it is a major aspect of his life that pertains very much to his career, as did Pete Sampras's thalasemia minor, which is indeed mentioned in Sampras's article. I don't claim that the NY Sun is the most respectable of sources (though it should be noted that it has never had any Jason Blair like scandals), but given that it does at least have some credibility as a news source it is worthy of mentioning that it published a long article revolving around the fact that Federer has this condition. I rightly noted in the article that the claim should be taken with a big grain of salt, given that Federer denied having "plantar fascitis" (sic) on his personal web page, but it is entirely conceivable that the Sun has access to sources that are not easily accessible by the general public. Articles should be as complete as possible, and there's no possible way to have a complete article on Federer without mentioning this controversy. Stanley011 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not objective to point out a "controversy" that does not exist. The fact that *you* see this as a controversial issue does not mean that it qualifies as a "controversy" unless of course you can provide some support as to the evidence of the "controversy". Can you cite a few examples of Federer matches where ESPN commentators have commented on this "controversy"? Can you cite a Tennis magazine article where this issue is described as a "controversy"? If you are suggesting that a controversy exists between Federer and the Sun paper I suggest you provide supporting details as to how Federer and the Sun have disputed the contradictory statements that you have alluded to, otherwise this is just a "controversy" that exists in your mind, not a controversy as defined by Websters, that is, a dispute between two parties. I agree that the information is relevant, however I dont agree that this issue is a controversy based on the many Federer matches that I have seen where this issue was mentioned as nothing more then a nagging injury. Never have I heard of anyone refer to any controversy surrounding the matter. Tabloids are notorious for attempting to create controversies by making allegations with no supporting evidence. Again, if your suggesting a controversy exists please provide supporting references (ie statements by two *significant* parties that are *disputing* the matter), Tor.

Tabloids are not known for creating controversies that don't exist. CERTAIN tabloids are. There are many tabloids that have high journalitsic standards (The Philadelphia Daily News, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Daily News, Newsday, the New York Sun, the New York Post, etc.) I don't know how else to square the New York Sun's claim that Federer has plantar fasciitis with Federer's own denial of having "plantar fascitis" (sic) on his personal website without mentioning that it is indeed a controversy. The New York Sun is a paper that is widely-known as having high journalistic standards so I feel the claim cannot be ignored. What do you propose to do "Tor.?".

PS: Perhaps I was *incorrect* in labling this a controversy but please do not question my objectivity. I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks next time. Thanks. Stanley011 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if you feel that my statements were personal attacks, in my mind I was merely attacking what appeared to me to be a portion of text which seemed incongruous with the purpose of Wikipedia, not you as an individual. My last statement about tabloids was not to say that the New York Sun is a "tabloid" ala the Enquirer, but rather to say that the inclusion of speculation is something found in a tabloid which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The speculation as to the meaning of the descrepency that you have discovered is suitable for the realm of tabloids, magazines, talk shows, etc. There are several explanations as to why the descrepency could have occurred. Such as: the fasciitis could have occurred after he made the comment on the website, he has a heel/foot problem which is related to fasciitis and confusion exists as to the exact nature, he has fasciitis and doesn't have time to ensure that every answer given on his website is periodically proofread/reviewed/updated/edited (ie it was simply an error, yes he can make these just as he misses forehands sometimes). At any rate I would argue that all that is conclusively known at this point is that the exact nature of his heel/foot problem (if he still has a problem) is not precisely known. My opinion is that this portion of text either be deleted or reworded to consist of a discussion of injuries from the vantage point of providing historical facts about them which are consistent, widely accepted, and verifiable, Tor.

Should be revised, but not deleted Stanley011 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section of text so that no confusion arises until a replacement has been inserted, perhaps someone can provide a chronological list of his injuries which again, are widely accepted and verifiable, Tor.

Hey Tor. Thanks for your attempts to get to the heart of this matter rather than sweeping the issue under the rug. Do you have a user page by any chance? Stanley011 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I am not attempting anything, you are/were, an encyclopedia is not a place to "attempt" an investigation as to the meaning of a descrepency or mispelled word, it is a place for citing relevant facts. The only "matter" that exists is the one you are attempting to create. If you are so curious as to whether Federer has Plantar Fasciitis, why do you not investigate further, assemble the references, and present them so that you can refute my claim. Your investigation at this point consists of a Sun article reference for which you have not even included the relevant portion (the viewable portion that you have cited doesn't even mention an injury) and one question on Federer's website for which you cannot supply a date. I also would like to know exactly what this injury is/was, Tor. PS: Why is my user page relevant?

I just think it's relevant to note. That's all. I've been trying to get to the heart of this matter for quite some time, and was hoping my fellow wikipedia users, many of whom would have more savvy than I do, would be able to figure something out. That's all. PS-I asked about your user page because I'm curious to know if you're a registered wiki user like I am. That's all. Thanks. Stanley011 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Stanley011 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your fellow Wikipedia users (of which I am one) could help you in your effort to arrive at the exact nature of the injury if you would provide the full text of the article, or at least the relevant portions of it so that one does not have to rely entirely on savvy but rather savvy in conjuction with fact checking, Tor.

I formatted this section so it could be read better (with indentations). I also did some searching on Google for "Federer+plantar+fasciitis". Here is the NY Sun article Stanley mentioned [5] and the relevant section:

"If Federer's ankle woes and struggles with plantar fasciitis, a painful heel condition,continue,one would expect him to lose a step. All the beauty in Federer's game begins with his remarkable feet; if they deteriorate, he'll become more vulnerable in rallies, less fearsome on passing shots, and less explosive on return games."

Unfortunately, that's the only relevant result that came up. Federer attributed his withdrawal from Montreal last year only to pain in his feet (as mentioned in this cached version of his website [6]), never naming it as "plantar fasciitis." I believe that Federer having plantar fasciitis is just speculation; the only places I've seen his foot pain being called as such have been on tennis message boards. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Im not sure why that would be "unfortunate". Also, when I did a search on google using those search terms I did not hit the Sun article...furthermore if one did hit it...the result that would come up would not be the excerpt that you cited above...as this excerpt is only available in the portion of the article that subscribers have access to, Tor.

It's "unfortunately" for Stanley's controversy claims. As for access to the article, I am not a subscriber of the NY Sun and I was able to access it by clicking on the Google search result.

I made a mistake in the keywords I put up there. I actually typed in Federer+"plantar fasciitis". You'll find the NY Sun article in the results, and if you click on it you'll be able to access the subscribers-only portion. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tennis Channel website definitely mentioned that Federer withdrew from Masters Series Rome 2005 due to plantar fasciitis--I distinctly remember reading that at the time on the Tennis Channel website but I cannot find the site now. I'm going to go onto that site archive page and see what I can find. I am more than 100% sure it was there. So the NY Sun and the Tennis Channel have been the only respectable sources so far that I've seen associate Federer with that condition. I think it is perhaps at least worth mentioning in the article somehow, but I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask him directly, which given his approachibility can probably be done by an enterprising wikiphileStanley011 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't just ask him and put the information here. Remember, Wikipedia:No original research. You'll have to find a pre-existing source for it. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The website is [[7]] but like I said before, I can't find the page where they wrote he had plantar fasciitis. It was around April or May 2005 Stanley011 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we can't find a source for this "information" that Federer has plantar fasciitis, it's better to leave the information out of the article and maybe just focus on improving the current information already in the article. For instance, Roger Federer#Records and trivia and Roger Federer#Famous matches have much of the same information duplicated. This article needs shortening, not expansion. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of scrolling through TheTennisChannel.com's News section. Here's the article Stanley seems to be referencing [8] but it says only that Federer had inflammation in both feet, causing his withdrawal from the Italian Open. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Noelle for finding this article. There was another write-up of sorts on http://www.thetennischannel.com, not a full-length article like this, but more of a caption that SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE WITHDREW FROM ROMA BECAUSE OF PLANTAR FASCIITIS. I am not imagining things; it was there, on the Tennis Channel website. Perhaps they Stalinistically purged it because it turned out to be wrong but it was DEFINITELY there; I stake my credibility as a person on it. Stanley011 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If they have removed it because it was wrong, that's not Stalinistic of them. That's just responsible reporting (we can't have inaccuracies floating around out there).

I did another Google search (federer+"italian open"+"plantar") and found a Sports Network article about Federer withdrawing from the Italian Open due to plantar fasciitis in both feet. Still, that statement on Federer's website seems to have been made after the Tennis Masters Cup, which is AFTER Roma. We can take it as a denial that he has PF. (Whether you spell it "fascitis" or "fasciitis" it's the same condition, as far as my Google searches have been concerned.)

I would say, based on the info I have found, that we can close this discussion now. There's no controversy here. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Noelle but I would like to know how you know Federer's website denial of having plantar fascitis (sic) came after the Tennis Masters Cup in Nov 2005. What information are you using to make that assessment? I remember seeing that response there for quite a while, I think even longer than a year--I'm almost, though not positively sure, that I saw that response there in the Summer of 2004, but this can be mistaken. Therefore, I would like to know how you know it was after TMC 2005. Thanks for following up on this. Stanley011 21:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the fact that it was TMC Houston 2003 he was being asked about, since they refer to Shanghai being the previous host.

I stand corrected then. If you would like to write a section about Federer's plantar fasciitis problem after Roma 2005 you can, since we've found sources to that effect. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What Plantar Fasciitis problem?...the one you are speculating on? Here are the facts/references (most of which Noelle has supplied) so far:

1. Sun Paper = Federer has PF

2. Sports Network Article = Federer has PF

3. Referenced Tennis Channel Page = Federer has Foot Inflammation

4. Cached version of Federer's Website News Release = "Pain in Feet"

5. Cached version of "Ask Roger" from Federer's Website = "Not the same problem as PF"

Now, I ask you, of the 5 references which do you feel are the more important in terms of answering the question. I would argue that the Tennis Channel and Roger's website carry more weight then the Sun and the "Sports Network".

I would argue that all these references do is point to the fact that again, the exact nature of his foot problem is not precisely known. When confronted with a set of conflicting information one does not simply flip a coin. Furthermore im sure one could find many such descrepencies....are we going to invest time in investigating all of them or are we going to stick to facts that are consistent and widely accepted? In this case, so far, more investigation is required in order to tip the scale one way or the other, Tor.

Tor., kindly note that two of the sources you deemed having "greater weight," the Tennis Channel one and the cached version of Federer's website news release one did not in fact deny that Federer had plantar fasciitis. Thus we only have on partial denial--Federer's Q and A section of his website, but as Noelle and I pointed out, that was posted there at the end of 2003, so things could have changed since then. As far as I'm concerned, silence is consent in these matters; if the news releaes and the tennis channel site did not insert the important note that Fed does not have PF, then they are consenting to the fact that he does because of the wide-spread circulation of the fact that he does in various news sources. I agree with you that more investigation is required: let's do it. Stanley011 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I'll weigh in here. It seems that several sources have been found indicating that Federer may or may not have a condition, namely plantar fasciitis, as well as that he has withdrawn from tournaments in the last couple of years due to "foot pain" which may or may not have been PF. That's exaclty what should go in the article, and linking to all the sources found. It is not Wikipedia's (meaning, us) place to decide which version is the right one, or the one that would merit inclusion because the particular source would be more credible than the others. As long as all of the possibilities, or some of them, have been referenced in credible sources, meaning that it is not original research or baseless speculation from sensationalist media (although we may state that sensationalist sources have claimed this and that, but it needs to be absolutely clear in the text that that version was vented by less credible sources), they all should be included, again, linking the sources found. We need to explain that Federer has had problems with foot pain in the past, having withdrawn from tournaments because of it; that this has been on occasion attributed to a condition called plantar fasciitis, although Federer has denied this on his website. As long as we have credible external sources, no versions need be excluded, and they shouldn't lest we produce a POV text (either way).
If the source is not credible, if it's a clear case of sensationalism (noting that sometimes multiple sources run the same story, whose origin may be the same unreliable source — it's happened right here: we have had to remove original research from Wikipedia after verifying that all other sources found about the subject matter were actually linking back to Wikipedia as their source), then we may exclude any given version. And I must make this clear, in case this ever comes up here: fan discussions on bulletin boards are not a sufficient external source, unless those fans happen to link a source for their claims, in which case our [eventual] source would be whatever website was indicated by the fan (if it's credible), but not the bulletin board itself. The same goes for blogs. So, summarizing: if the story was run by a small, or less credible newspaper/publication, we may still mention it in the article, but making the origin of the version very clear; if the story is coming from blogs, bulletin boards or fan-owned websites, then it's not to be included, period. And, naturally, we do not judge which version is "more likely" to be true, or which source is "more trustworthy". That's for the reader to decide. Regards, Redux 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that everytime we come across conflicting information in the course of our research that we include a discussion of this conflict in the article? Based on this modus operandi we should include for example a discussion of the fact that in several established, respectable publications, it is stated that Roger's favorite vacation spot is Dubai, however, in several other such publications it states that his favorite vacation spot is the Swiss Alps. Are you suggesting that it is important to present this conflicting information to the reader so that he may decide for himself what Roger's favorite vacation spot is? I personally do not understand how this would benefit the reader of an Encyclopedia. A person does not read an encyclopedia to find discourses of, or compendiums on, conflicting information. There are other sources of information that specialise in this. In my opinion this is the difference between attempting to generate controversy and citing controversy that actually exists. If you are suggesting that an Encyclopedia is an appropriate place for attempting to generate controversy then please confirm this so that we can cut to the chase and discuss this. I will state flat out that I believe it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can provide references to substantiate its existence. Any speculation, conjecture, and presentation and analysis of conflicting information for the purpose of arriving at the truth so that it can be presented to the reader should be done right here on the discussion page where it belongs, not in the article, Tor.

Tor., let me lay out some premises that I think we can all agree on, and then let's work from there: 1) Federer has pulled out of numerous tournaments in his career because of foot pain. 2) Such withdrawals are a significant part of Federer's career, worthy of being mentioned in the article. 3) Several respectable sources have indicated that the cause of such pain was "plantar fasciitis" 4) Sevearal respectable sources have not specified the cause of such pain (note here how they do not actually conflict, as you say they do). 5) Federer denied having plantar fascitis (sic) on his personal website in late 2003, long before several of his more recent withdrawals due to "foot pain" You are framing the debate in such a way that any mention of the fact that respectable sources do not walk in lock stop on this matter is a "generation" of controversy. I agree with you that "it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can proivde references to substantiate its existence" but you fail to show how a simple mention that sources do not agree on this matter is generating or reporting on a non-notable controversy. I look forward to reading your reply. Regards, Stanley011 03:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear above that my response was directed specifically at Redux so I'm not sure why you decided to respond, but, in the meantime I will remind you to look at your next to last sentence above, and notice how you have contradicted yourself. Near the beginning of this discussion, after I asked you to cite references and you could not cite any references other than your own opinion, you stated that you were incorrect to call this a controversy. In this sentence you state that you agree that only historical controversies should be discussed but you use the word "non-notable" to convey the idea that it is acceptable to cite conflicting sources for a "notable" controversy and that I have failed to show that this is not a "notable" controversy (even though you had previously agreed that it was not "notable"). Once again, who has taken "note" of this "controversy" besides you? If it is "notable", please cite the "notes" of other significant sources who have taken "note" of this "controversy" so that we can have confluence of "notable" and historical and thus deem this an objective observation so that it can be included, Tor

In my opinion 'there's really no controversy here'. Stanley summarized the issue up thus:
Federer has pulled out of numerous tournaments in his career because of foot pain.

1. Such withdrawals are a significant part of Federer's career, worthy of being mentioned in the article.
2. Several respectable sources have indicated that the cause of such pain was "plantar fasciitis"
3. Sevearal respectable sources have not specified the cause of such pain (note here how they do not actually conflict)
4. Federer denied having plantar fascitis (sic) on his personal website in late 2003, long before several of his more recent withdrawals due to "foot pain"
   I think we can just write a section about his foot pain along these lines. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify:

1. Specifically which tournaments?
2. Specifically which sources indicate PF?
3. Specifically which sources have not specified?
4. Where is this date referenced (late 2003)?

Tor.

Hi Torvald. Thank you for your embrace of free and open debate, as you indicated in the first sentence of your second to last reply. To answer the questions you posed here, I will say: 1) He withdrew from Roma in 2005, Rotterdam in 2006, and pretty much every tournament after Wimbledon and until Cincinatti 2005 and came to Masters Cup Shanghai in 2005 bandaged up pretty well, which more than likely cost him the title. There have been many many others that I can't recall right now, but a simple google search will reveal the results 2) The following sources have specified PF: 1) The New York Sun and 2) The Tennis Channel website. 3) The following sources have not specified: Any source that mentioned Federer had foot pain but did not mention pf in the article, 4) His remarks were made in reference to the Shanghai 2003 Mastesr Cup tournament. I hope that helps. All the best, Stanley011 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a slight factual note here: Federer came to TMC bandaged because he had injured his right ankle (see [9]), a different injury from the foot inflammation that caused his withdrawal from Roma. --Noelle De Guzman (talk)

Allow me to address Tor's questions about my post, which doesn't necessarily relate directly to question of Federer's injury per se, but rather to how Wikipedia works. First of all, you seem to be overlooking the matter of relevance: comparing an approach about a condition that may have repercussions on the athlete's career (I'm assuming, I don't really know how serious PF can be) is by no measure the same as discussing Federer's (or anyone else's) favorite place to vacation, or food, or anything along those lines — material on such trivial subjects has been removed time and again due to lack of relevance. So your comparison is not really apt. Now, once we've established that a topic is relevant enough to merit inclusion, at all, then there's the how it is going to be written in the article. Assuming that there is a controversy about the topic, which can be verified by credible external sources (Wikipedia:No original research), it is not this Encyclopedia's place to decide which one is the accurate, "more likely" to be true or anything along those lines. Chosing a side, even if based on educated opinions, is what we call POV, and it is against Wikipedia official policy. It may be that not all the sides to this story can be verified with credible sources, but all those who are will need to be included. It seems to me that there are sufficient valid sources out there to establish a controversy as to whether or not Federer has PF, as well as the fact that he may or may not have pulled out of tournaments because of it. That's what our article needs to reflect, simple as that. What we cannot do, however, under Wikipedia policy, is state peremptorily anything like: "Federer has PF" or "Federer does not have PF". It doesn't matter that we, the contributors, discuss it to exhaustion here. If we come to some conclusion and then have the article read that, this would be a textbook case of POV. On the one hand, we can't say that he has the desease when Federer himself has not admited it. On the other hand, [I assume] credible sources indicate that, despite Federer's denial, he may well have PF, so we can't make like a court of law and say that "for lack of evidence deemed sufficient by this court (the contributors discussing), we the contributors decide that Federer does not have PF". As our official policy states, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so as long as more than one side of the story can be verified by minimally credible sources, our policy demands that the article approaches all of the verifiable sides. It is not admissible that Wikipedia presents only one side (whichever one) as if it were the undisputed truth based on an assessment made by Wikipedia contributors on a Wikipedia talk page. That's POV and original research. Regards, Redux 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux, thank you for clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. I also agree that this issue is generic in nature. However please note that my vacation spot analogy was not to suggest that the topic of Federer's ankle/foot/heel condition was not relevant (nowhere in this discussion have I disputed that), but rather was to address the important question of:

What viewpoints are relevant on this topic?

The NPOV rules state the following:

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts

2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia

The fact that a particular piece of information is verifiable does not mean that it is NPOV and relevant to include unless it is used to convey/support a viewpoint that is relevant/NPOV. The relevance and neutrality of this viewpoint must be tested using the conditions above.

As far as the possible viewpoints that I can identify in regards to this topic (please feel free to add others) along with my opinion as to the test results from above:

1. The topic is controversial

I think we can all agree that #3 above eliminates this viewpoint

2. Federer has PF

I believe this fails 1. and 2. and is thus eliminated by #3. The commonly accepted reference texts for the sport of Men's Professional tennis are publications such as Tennis Magazine, Tennis Week, Sports Illustrated, Sports Sections of Major Newspapers, ESPN Website, Fox Sports Website, Eurosport Website, Tennis channel Website, etc. By condition 1. above it should be easy to provide references from these publications. So far only a single reference has been provided from the above. Also note that this reference, which is from a New York Sun Newspaper Article (online edition), only mentions plantar fasciitis once, in passing, in the course of several long paragraphs. It is not discussed at any length nor is any reference given in the article for the origin of this statement. Furthermore, although the Sports page of the Sun is relevant, its status as a Major Newspaper such as the New York Times is dubious. By condition 2. above there should be prominent adherents to this viewpoint. No such adherents have been cited so far (ie, never have any ESPN commentators, BBC commentators, Eurosport commentators, Tennis Channel commentators, Tennis Columnists, Players, or other relevant figures in the community of Men's Professional tennis expressed this viewpoint)

3. Federer does not have PF

I believe this fails 1. and 2 and is thus eliminated by #3. Relative to condition 1. There is only one reference that specifically states that he does NOT have PF which is his personal website...this is not a reference publication as outlined in #2 above. Relative to condition 2. Although there may be one prominent adherent to this viewpoint...namely RF himself (assuming the statement on his website is correct). Condition 2 states adherents (plural) so technically this does not qualify.

4. Federer had a foot condition which caused him to withdraw from at least one tournament.

This is what I feel to be the only relevant viewpoint (at this time) as it relates to this topic as it can currently be substantiated by 1. and 2. above.

You will note from the NPOV guidlines that it states that even if it were true that he has (or does not have) PF and it were possible to somehow prove this (ie a fan asking him the question, a photographer snapping a photo of him at the podiatrist, or a single newspaper article stating that he does or does not)...this does not mean that the VIEWPOINT that he has (or does not have) PF can be included in a discussion of the topic of his heel/foot condition. The fact that there is no widely held viewpoint that he has (or does not have) PF which can be demonstrated by citing references that conform to the conditions outlined above bars it from inclusion. This in my opinion, is precisely the difference between publications such as tabloids and encyclopedia's. Tabloids are free to present viewpoints that may or may not be true even though the viewpoints cannot be demonstrated to be relevant/NPOV as defined by the conditions in the NPOV guidelines.

I will add the following note. I was under the impression that we were moving towards a consensus on what to do on this topic when Stanley011 suggested that we research it further ("Lets do it"). My vote is to do that and once all of the references have been assembled we can resume discussion of exactly how to present this information in the article, Tor (not the inventor of the Linux Operating System which uses the X-Windows GUI invented at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussets, USA).

Hi. All of this is summarized in the fundamental question we need to ask: is the source where the information is coming from reliable/reputable/trustworthy? Keeping out unsubstantiated speculation, or the opinions of extreme minorities, is precisely why I mentioned earlier that fan-owned pages, blogs and other "sources" alike are not valid. A reputable newspaper, however small, is not, at least theoretically, running some story that was overheard during lunch hour in the Cafeteria. One reputable source is enough to include a viewpoint on Wikipedia, since it is not our place either to second guess a respectable source because the story may or may not sound "fishy" to us. In this particular case — and notice that all I've said is that there seems to be a verifiable controversy that we need to reflect on the article, and that I've not taken either side — given, as I said, the existence of a verifiable controversy, we would violate the NPOV directive if we were to put in the article only one of the sides. Again on this particular case, I have not discarded the possibility that someone (anyone) can always say that any given source is not actually reliable, because it is run by Federer fans, or it is renowed for running unsubstantiated rumors, etc., which would lead to any given aspect of the general topic being excluded from the article. You have argued that the story run by the online edition of the New York Sun would not be a reliable source for us to include the aspects it mentions in our article, as well as that the viewpoint it conveys, in passing, is not relevant enough to merit inclusion. This, however, is an assessment of the source itself, as well as of the topic per se. It would be interesting to hear what the other users have to say about your assessment. All I can say is that, prior to this discussion, I had never heard of plantar fasciitis, let alone that Federer may or may not have it. However, I do usually consider an established newspaper as sufficient a source for inclusion in Wikipedia — granted, newspapers also talk about irrelevant issues, but, as I mentioned earlier, a medical condition that could affect a player's career is not irrelevant, and if we have one reputable source that claims that Federer may have it, I don't see why it shouldn't be included, noting that what we will say is that someone (not us, and name the source) has claimed, based on this and that, that Federer may or may not have this condition. This case combines several of our policies: Verifiability, NPOV, no original research and Cite your sources, as well as the aspects mentioned in the policy trifecta and the five pillars. Redux 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just contacted the New York Sun and have had a most interesting conversation with a representative in their Sports departement. I will post a synopsis of this conversation (as well as my response to Redux's comments) shortly, Tor. 4:45 PM EST 4/10/2006

Good work Tor. Stanley011 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the synopsis of what happened this afternoon when I contacted the New York Sun Newspaper.

My first few attempts to reach the operator listed as "0" on the menu system resulted in getting rerouted to a recording asking to leave a message. After a few more attempts the operator answered and routed my call to the Sports Dept. The individual who answered the call initially seemed helpful and ready and willing to answer questions. I immediately explained the fact that his department had published an article which stated that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis and I stated the title of the article. He asked me who I was and I explained that I was just an individual engaged in a debate on the Wikipedia website and that the information presented in his article seemed to be the only reliable reference which states that RF has PF. I stated that this fact has lead to considerable discussion on message boards and in particular on the Wikipedia website where I was engaged in the debate. I asked him if he knew what Wikipedia was and he acknowledged that he did. Once again he asked me who I was and I reiterated that I was not with any organization but rather I was just an individual engaged in a debate where the information presented in his newspaper was very much at issue.

I proceeded to explain to him the fact that because PF is not a trivial injury such as a blister, the fact that his publication had stated that RF has the condition was very much a non-trivial statement and again, has generated considerable interest. I also explained that the article which was about an entirely different topic, only mentioned the PF one time. I cited the article's title and asked the individual if he was aware of the article and in particular the fact that the article has a statement that RF has PF. The individual acknowledged that he was familiar with the article and was in fact familiar with the particular statement in it that RF has PF.

I proceeded to ask him specifically what the origin of this statement was.

He stated that Roger Federer had stated, at the Rome 2005 Press Conference, that he was withdrawing from the tournament due to plantar fasciitis.

I immediately stopped him and told him that this was precisely the information that "we" required in order to arrive at some resolution in our debate. He asked me who is "we" and I reminded him that "we" simply referred to those of us engaged in the debate on Wikipedia. I explained to him that this was all "we" really need to know for the purposes of our debate.

I then restated his statement that his newspaper's statement that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis was based on the fact that Roger Federer had stated that he had plantar fasciitis at the Rome Press Conference. He then seemed to become irritated and stated that Roger Federer did not actually say that he had plantar fasciitis but rather only stated in the press conference that the withdrawal was due to a foot condition. He then stated that Roger Federer has been "wishy-washy" on the topic of his foot condition and that he was busy and did not have any more time to discuss the issue.

I asked the individual what his name was and he refused to divulge this information and seemed to become more irritated. I then explained that I only sought to understand what the basis for the statement in the article was at which point he hung up on me.

This is what happened during the conversation to the best of my recollection. I cannot say that it is verbatim (I did not record or take notes during the conversation). I know for example that on at least 2 occasions (after he recanted) the individual stated that he was busy and didnt have time to discuss the issue. Also he asked me at least 3 times who I was. Also he specifically pointed out that the Rome tournament was a Masters tournament. I responded that yes, it was the clay court tournament in Rome.

I am 100% positive that this individual initially stated that his newspaper's statement of RF's PF was specifically based on Roger stating that he specifically had plantar fasciitis at the Rome 2005 Press Conference. I am also 100% positive that he recanted this statement and stated that Roger Federer had only stated that he had a foot condition at the conference.

Please note that I was never able to confirm that the individual that I was speaking to in the Sports Department was the original author of the article Tom Perrotta. However the individual that I spoke to (who was an adult male and probably in his 30s) was completely prepared to discuss the issue and never suggested that the issue be forwarded to anybody else within the organization. Furthermore, it was clear that the individual was someone who was very familiar with the Newspaper's Sport section content as he was able to recollect the PF statement from the January article.

Now, where to go from here.

1. Don't take my word for it

2. Here is the number that I called for the New York Sun, 212-406-2000, I would recommend that everyone engaged in this debate call the New York Sun and ask the Sports Department to please provide a reference for the statement made in the article. Noelle, Redux, I assume you are familiar with Skype. The corporate office business hours are standard North American office hours (9-5 EST or 13:00-21:00 UTC)

3. After they have provided the reference, we can resume this discussion.

4. Feel free to reference my conversation which occurred at around 4:30 PM EST (20:30 UTC) 4/10/2006 and ask the individual about anything that I have stated above (note that I did not give him a name but in case you haven't guessed I am an adult male)

Tor

As I stated before, I remember seeing that The Tennis Channel website had specifically written that Federer withdrew from Roma due to PF, but I can no longer find that section in their archives, which strongly suggests that they removed it for some reason or other, my guess is because they came across conflicting information from a reliable source. It seems that the Sun received the information that Federer had PF from the fact that Federer mentioned he had "foot problems" or pain or whatever, and then put that together with the information in that now-removed Tennis Channel website page to make the claim that Federer has pf. Perhaps the way to verify would be to contact the Tennis Channel website, asking them what led them to first include the fact that Federer had PF, and then remove that specific section. It's a shame that the Sun rep. couldn't give you a specific reason why they stated he had PF (or did give you a specific reason but then recanted) but maybe contacting TTC would yield some results. I'd be willing to do it if others think it would be a fruitful next step Stanley011 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

No, because that's original research. Wikipedia is not a newsroom. What we can and should put in the article is only what the verifiable sources state not to us directly, but rather what is published. For instance, we could say that some source stated something at first, but later recanted it, but we can't say that the source recanted it if this was told to a Wikipedia user who was inquiring directly. That's original research. For us to go around calling newsrooms in order to "get to the truth" is definitely original research, we can't do it, we can't use the results, since we'd be the primary publication for those results. It would be different if it was somehow a case of bad wording, and we were just trying to find out exactly what was meant with the words published (still, I suppose this would be a gray area that could stir some polemics as to whether or not we could use it in an article). Redux 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we, as journalists, cannot question and debate the reliability of a source?...or for that matter even question the reliability of a single piece of information (or sentence) produced by a source? We cannot do this even though you have clearly stated above that it is precisely the reliability of the source which is the issue at hand and that you would like to hear the opinions of other Wikipedia users as to the assessment of the reliability of the source? Are we not allowed to investigate for the purpose of formulating this opinion? Are we not allowed to present the results of this investigation for the purpose of discussing the reliability of the source? Is this what you are suggesting...per se?

By this rationale, everything that is published by every possible source is absolutely sacred and cannot be questioned and therefore should be included.

In my opinion this has absolutely nothing to do with original research. Originial research has to do with the submission of facts into the encylopedia which are not acquired from other sources but rather are acquired through original research.

Questioning the reliability of a source has nothing to do with submitting original information into the encyclopedia. It only has to do with making a judgment as to whether or not the information (which was not acquired through original research) should be included.

Tor

No, that's not quite it. But first of all, I believe you may have a wrong idea of what it is that Wikipedia is and the nature of the work we do here. Wikipedia contributors are not journalists, at least not in the common meaning of the word.
We can debate the reliability of a source in our talk pages, and we can come to a conclusion that the source is not reliable and decide that the information it is conveying will not get included in the article. That's not original research. The interdition to original research means that Wikipedia cannot be the primary source for any piece of information. If we have a newspaper, website or any other medium that states something, and for some reason during our debate regarding the reliability of that source we decide to contact the newspaper ourselves and find out something new — such as the newspaper's employee apparently recanting a statement made in a piece — we absolutely cannot use it in the article, because we would be the primary source of this new piece of information. By the same token, if we would like to discredit a source, it is necessary that we do it by researching existing material (example: a court decision where it was declared that the newspaper had invented the whole thing; or just simply impressive evidence that that point of view is completely out of touch with reality), but never by creating the material ourselves — that is not be confused with a decision made based on well-argued comments, which a user might make based on knowledge of the situation; Wikipedia works by consensus. That's the meaning of the "no original research" rule, not just that we can't write an all-new article about Federer's medical condition. You see, if a seemingly reputable source were to be excluded based on a phone conversation that a Wikipedia user had with the newsroom, this is not verifiable itself. Do we expect people to believe that the source is not reliable on our mere say-so? Think about it: Stanley and I may believe you, but who's to say that, a month from now, someone won't come along and claim that there is no evidence that the story run by the newspaper is not to be trusted? We can't counterargue by saying something like I talked to someone with the paper. Just take my word for it. So you see, even if the primary goal of "no original research" is to prevent inclusion of such material in articles, if we exclude something based on original research, we will not be able to sustain it.
This polemics is dragging way beyond necessity. The sources exist, all we need to do is write a NPOV paragraph about the situation, approaching all the existing, verifiable theories. Redux 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that a sizeable portion of the difference of opinion here could possibly be attributed to regional differences in reporting standards and ethics. Now, with that said, I cannot speak authoritatively on the standards and practices in use for other regions such as Brazil or Portugal. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia and that in the English speaking realm there are certain traditional journalistic standards which are widely accepted. For example, the principal that in order to express a viewpoint one has to cite multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources is very common (I believe the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines reflect this). I would argue that a single, marginally independent, marginally reliable, verifiable source is not viewed as sufficient by the aforementioned standards in use within the bulk of the English speaking world. Furthermore, this principal, that multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources are required is, in my opinion, more widely accepted now than ever before given the fact that with the advent of electronic communications it is much easier for misinformation to spread with the end result of some sources no longer being independent. The other tradition that is somewhat less specific is that one should always, whenever feasible, question the source of information and whenever possible attempt to verify it. Just because a publisher can afford to print a newspaper or set up a website does not mean that every shred of information generated is correct or does not contain errors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and in fact it is encouraged among responsible journalists (or anybody who is responsible for contributing information to a document that is used as a reference and will be read by others), Tor

The point is, Tor, we are not journalists. As Redux has said, Wikipedia is not a newsroom. Our role here is to compile already existent and textually verifiable material into this encyclopedia article.

If no one's going to do it, I'm going to go ahead and write one summarizing paragraph on Federer's foot problems. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you write an article that ignores the NPOV guidelines I will delete it, Tor.

Tor, with all due respect, that sort of comment serves no purpose. Noelle is not looking to violate any of our policies, and if it happened inadvertedly, the right move is always to fix, whenever possible, only delete if it is beyond repair. I would also recommend that you read (or reread) Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Our work here is not journalistic, but rather encyclopedic. Meaning: we don't break the news, we merely reflect what is already out there. Furthermore, if a topic is verifiable by a reputable external source (singular), it has met the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Naturally, if we can name multiple sources, all the better. Usually we require multiple sources for inclusion when we want the article to read something like it is widely discussed, or this is a recurring idea..., because one can't claim that something is recurrent, common or anything along those lines by naming a single source. Redux 01:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We can go round and round on this...and I assure you I could continue to dissect your arguments (much of what you have stated in your last several posts I have already dissected mentally but have not keyed in). Also, you can continue to insist that there is no element of journalism in the work that is done here...that is: integrity is irrelevant...which is fine by me...I can only voice my opinion (of course I can also delete what I feel is not NPOV). You have stated that a single sentence in a reputable publication is sufficient to establish that a commonly held viewpoint exists on a generalized subject (ie this sentence can be extrapolated to support the existence of a generalized, commonly held viewpoint) and that this is Wikipedia official policy. If that is the case I ask that you please provide some additional support for this statement as it will certainly factor in to my understanding of the NPOV guidelines.

Finally you will notice from your last statement above...you concluded with the following:

" all we need to do is write a NPOV paragraph about the situation, approaching all the existing, verifiable theories"

This in my opinion illustrates your lack of understanding of this matter. There are no "verifiable theories". None have ever been submitted in the course of this discussion. Have you read the entire discussion? Are you familiar with the references that have been submitted? The (2) verifiable, contradictory statements that have been submitted are not "theories". They are statements. Furthermore it is not the place of a Wikipedia researcher to construct theories as this is precisely what original research is. "Theories" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here. We are not citing references for a Stephen Hawking article on Black Holes.

Tor

Integrity is irrelevant?? That is what you understood from what I've been trying to explain? I suggest you read this discussion again. You will also notice that my role here has been regarding how this discussion can be solved in light of Wikipedia policy and how Wikipedia works. I have not taken any sides as to which sources are good and which are bad. All I've said is that there seems to be a verifiable controversy that, in light of our policies, would need to be reflected in the article if a passage about this condition gets included. That was in no way peremptory, as I believe I've made quite clear. And I said no such thing about a sentence being sufficient to establish something as a commonly held point; I said that, at first (pending any evidence to the contrary that is not original research), that source is sufficient to meet the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is verifiability by a minimally reputable external source, not widespread acceptance (of any view point or theory). And let me make something quite clear: you may not "delete anything you feel is not NPOV". There is an honest work here to get to the best solution possible. The consensus reached here will prevail, as it is also our policy. If you decide to trump it, you will be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that is a violation that will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Make no mistake about it. You are out of line as of your last comment. If you intend to make any valid points, I would suggest that you first take some time to understand how Wikipedia works (NPOV is not our only policy), since your remarks indicate to me that, contrary to what you believe, you have not yet fully understood this project and how it works. Redux 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux, <sigh>, Did you just edit out your "theories" statement from the public record? Its gone as of 3:54 UTC 4/12/06 and the edit history of this page shows no user edits removing it. Tor 3:56 UTC 4/12/06

Sarcasm will not help your position either. As I said, read the discussion again. I've not vented any "theories" of my own here. I've been trying to explain Wikipedia policy, which is not a matter of opinion, and how it would apply to the issue at hand. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here so far is that the sources named should be taken into account in writing about this medical condition. Unless that changes, that's how it's going to be. Redux 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not being sarcastic. This is a very serious issue. You have not answered my question. Please answer my question. Yes or No will suffice. Did you delete the portion of text from your 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) post above that contains the word "theories"? Tor, 14:43 UTC 4/12/06

As far as I am concerned, nothing on this discussion has been deleted, only added. If any such action was performed by anyone, it would show in the page history. It is not possible to obliterate from the history only a single action. There's no conspiracy going on here, no one is trying to dig a hole under anyone else. Frankly, I have no idea where this question of yours is coming from. My role here remains the same: I'm trying to remain neutral on the issue per se, and focusing on the questions pertaining to policy and its application.
This has dragged way passed any reasonable measure. I'm starting to sense that this has become more of a dispute of principles (of some sort) and less of a discussion on something with which to improve the article. I would like to see any kind of consensus as to how this passage would be added to the article, or if it will be dropped all together, which seems to have already happened for all practical purposes. This thread is already +50kb long and the discussion has started going around in circles. Notice, Tor, that you may go ahead and write a passage on this in the article excluding the information about which you have reservations; I'm sure you will be careful about the necessary NPOV. However, if another user includes it, citing that source, there's no grounds for removal, since it will have met the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia (for why this is, see my previous posts). Redux 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux, my sincere apologies. It appears that I made the error in removing the statement when I cut and pasted the portion of text in the heat of battle. Note that for much of this discussion this has been a 1 vs 3 debate and has required considerable effort on my part to maintain. And I must confess, that when you call a newspaper, and you talk to a representative who makes a statement and then immediately recants it...it does start to make you wonder if there isnt a conspiracy. But I can tell you sincerely that I have no desire to think of conspiracies existing on Wikipedia. Again, I apologize if my previous statements came across as accussations.

Also, please understand....when I called the Newspaper, it was in an effort to bring some closure to this matter. I can honestly tell you...I was relieved when the individual told me that the source of the information was from the Rome press conference, because I knew that this was a piece of information that we could probably verify. The transcript of the press conference for example might exist somewhere (perhaps on an Italian Web sight). So this phone call, which did not involve my computer at all, could have pointed to a source which existed on a Web site which could then be easily cited as a reference in the article...thereby bringing closure to this entire debate. The viewpoint that Roger Federer had Plantar Fasciitis would have been clearly established by not 1, but 2 reliable sources (with the second source being far more impressive in my opinion). So digging for facts doesnt always have to involve sitting at the computer..even for facts that could ultimately be referenced electronically.

I have not written a paragraph on this subject and inserted it into the article because I dont feel that there are enough references to substantiate any other commonly held viewpoint then the fact that he had some type of foot condition. In the realm of Men's Professional tennis, players have numerous minor nagging types of injuries in the course of their career. Also, due to the length of the ATP tour and the considerable number of tournaments, players withdraw from tournaments frequently for various reasons, many times as a result of minor injuries. Im not sure if they are really all that relevant in an encyclopedia article unless they are something chronic like PF which could be very relevant as it pertains to the players career. Please note that I used the word nagging before to describe my perception of what this injury was. I feel there is a very big difference between nagging and chronic with the latter being something that the player will definitely have for his entire career and the former being something that could pop up from time to time, but may go away permanently.

The issues of whether or not the condition is chronic and how debilitating it is are in my opinion the most important things that should be addressed in a paragraph discussing his foot condition. But I dont feel, that at the present time, there are enough references to establish any widely held viewpoint on these important issues.

My fundamental problem with including the viewpoint that Roger specifically has or had PF in an article on his foot condition is the following:

At the present time, in order to do so, one has to take a single sentence, and cite it as a reference to substantiate that there is a common, widely held viewpoint. This just seems contrary to NPOV to me. The same thing would have to be done to present the opposing viewpoint. I just dont think this merits the inclusion of these viewpoints. I feel that more references are required.

It doesnt help of course that while we have been engaged in this debate he has won two hard court (tough on the feet) Masters tournaments (96 draw) back-to-back with apparently no foot problems whatsoever (that I am aware of). I checked the following site which further complicates the issue:

http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/fact/thr_report.cfm?Thread_ID=144&topcategory=Foot

Which is by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and it suggests that the condition can be cured if treated early.

All this makes me wonder if any speculation at the present time should be on whether or not he HAD it rather then whether or not he HAS it. It also makes me wonder if, treated PF is really a chronic condition and if it is all that relevant to a players career. I have never heard of this condition before in the realm of Mens Pro Tennis (or anywhere else for that matter).

I would once again cast my vote, that we research this matter further in an attempt to acquire more references so that we can write a paragraph that can include the more general viewpoints on whether or not the condition (whatever it is) is chronic in nature and if possible the more specific viewpoints on exactly what the condition might be (eg plantar fasciitis). The discussion should have some references to Medical texts. The purpose of the paragraph would be to provide insight into what impact the condition could have on his career. Also, it would be very relevant to compile a precise list (with references) of the tournaments that he has had to withdraw from citing this condition as the cause.

I also give you my word that I will respect whatever consensus is arrived at here and that I will not alter any content that conforms to this consensus.

Tor.

Don't worry about it. Those kinds of minor accidents are common around here; lucky us that 99.9% of everything done in Wikipedia are reversible. I was just thinking that, despite this thread being really, really long, the general interest in the topic lately has been rather scarce. Sometimes users start discussing a topic passionately, but then they realize that it holds a lot less importance that it appeared at first, and then they loose interest. This appears to have happened here: maybe it's because this was only mentioned scarcely in the media, and the actual possibility of Federer having this condition and of it having any real influence in his career are indeed very small. Or maybe people just got discouraged by a very lengthy discussion.
About the phone call, indeed, if with it you could locate new, verifiable sources, that's a different story. That would make the call a means to an end, and the source(s) supporting our article would be not the phone call, but rather whatever source(s) that might have been located thanks to it.
The points you have made are valid. I will remain neutral on the issue itself, so that I can remain objective in resolving any issues that might still arise during this discussion. But again on policy: correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be looking for widely held viewpoints only. Normally, we actually look for a balance. I mean, any viewpoint that is widely held is definitely worth of inclusion on Wikipedia, that's clear. But we can also include viewpoints that are not widely held, as long as we can support them with at least one reliable source, which serves the purpose of keeping out the only type of viewpoint that is indeed forbidden on Wikipedia: the opinion of insignificant (numerically speaking, or in terms of relevance and/or representativeness) minorities, which would naturally carry biases. But a point of view that is not widely held, but is not held only by one such minority either, can be included in Wikipedia, as long as it comes with a source. This is not always clear cut. NPOV can be a slippery ground. Redux 04:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Qualifying matches

Does the stats included in the table includes his ATP qualifying matches? If so, where can one find them? If not, probably a note should be made to that effect. Thanks.

Qualifying scores are usually not presented as relevant results for a player who is established on the main tour (its been a while since Roger has had to play qualies). There are other matches such as exhibition, team tennis, Challenger, etc that probably also fit in this category. However, the entire topic of entry (and qualifying) on the ATP tour is an interesting one which might be worthy of a unique article, Tor.

Famous Matches

Famous matches does not necessarily translate to a 5-set match, a tournament finals match, or even a personal milestone. These matches are what fans remember long after. I couldn't comprehend why such matches as the one with Tommy Haas in the 2006 Australian Open became famous... If one would just reason out that because it is his 400th career win, then we might as well include his 300th, 200th, 100th and even 50th career win. If one would say that it is because he is seldom stretched to a 5th set in a match, then this particular match pales in comparison to the 5th set win over Nadal in the Miami final, or the 5th set loss to Safin in the previous year's Australian Open, and to Naldandian in the ATP Masters Cup. It didn't necessarily show anything special, like Federer's mental mettle (like him coming back from a tiebreak in the 3rd set in the Miami final against Nadal). The achievement because of winning the match (i.e. a milestone in career win, a "double" with respect to winning a previous tournament, or winning that tournament multiple times) does not necessarily translate to that match being famous. For example, his victory over Philippoussis for his first Wimbledon title is not that memorable. We remember Federer winning the title, but his opponent across the net, even the quality of the match is hardly remembered. I would have a better memory recalling his semifinal match against Roddick. The comment for the match is not even appropriate, "This was Federer's first Grand Slam final win, and the beginning of his dominance in men's tennis." It is true that it was his first Grand Slam, but it didn't marked his dominance, for Roddick dominated the rest of the year and ended as #1. It would be more proper to place the comment in association with his Masters Cup victory later on the same year, when he beat the reigning Australian, French and US Open champions.

Hi Joey. This article has long been in need of a clean-up; some sections are redundant and simply restate the results (which are in tabular form at the end of the article). I hope someone can be bold enough to help make it a more concise but more informative article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added Other Milestone Matches as a new section, incorporating matches from the famous Matches section and also adding the missing major tournaments. I also added Roger Federer's first ATP match and first ATP win, which I worked out from the ATP website- I thought that they were important milestones. I wasn't sure about whether the 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 Ljubicic match should be in the Famous Matches (I wouldn't have thought it compared to other matches such as the AO 2005 Safin match), or in the Milestones (It was not much of a milestone, compared to a Grand Slam win). I put it in milestones since it was the completion of the IW- Miami double double, a unique feat- however, by that note surely his 3rd straight Indian Wells victory, again a unique feat, should be in there as well? Anyway, I tried to divide them up fairly and adding sources for the more extended matches which I added. The Haas Match I included only by virtue of it being the 400th career win, as I agree that the 100th, 200th match win etc should be added, but without the other century milestones it seems out of place (which was why I added the ATP first match played and won). Hopefully someone can clarify whether they think that having a separate section for less thrilling, but notable, matches is a good idea.OSmeone 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be a good idea to dispense with the Famous Matches section and simply retain the Milestone Matches. After all, whose opinion is it that these matches are famous? --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a posibility, but it would return to having one large list of matches as opposed to two! At some point I will try to work out the 50th, 200th match win etc, to be placed in milestone matches, while the famous matches could be defined as those which have attracted comments of their greatness by notable tennis personalities? This would prevent simple 5 set matches from being lumped into that category. OSmeone 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Doubles record

The infobox was broken so I filled it in with Federer's career singles win-loss record (from his ATP page). The doubles w-l record isn't available per se on the ATP site but I manually counted his doubles results from here. Please feel free to check my arithmetic: I counted 101-66 but I might have gotten cross-eyed on something. :) --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is always a summary of the doubles record per player on their player profiles in ATP, under the Career Review section. Roger's record currently stands at 101-64.Joey80 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Equipment speculation

The following section seems to be original research and speculation. It also has no sources.

There is a great deal of speculation amongst tennis enthusiasts, however, that his racquet is not the standard nSix-One Tour 90 but rather a custom built racquet that is painted to look like the nSix-One Tour for promotional purposes. Proponents of this theory cite slight differences in the racquet he uses on court compared to the stock nSix-One Tour. One such visible difference is seen in the handle (or pallet) of Federer's racquet, as it is significantly shorter than the handle of the stock model. This could be due to his one-handed backhand (thus not requiring the extra length) and as such the handle had to be elongated on the model available to the public to accommodate players with two-handed backhands. The second visible difference is a slight variation in string pattern: The Perimeter Weighting System (bumps at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the frame) on Federer's frame has 4 grommet holes in it, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has 5 grommet holes. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner fo the nSix-One Tour) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racket are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme. This topic is a subject of much debate, and is primarily speculation, with confirmation neither from Roger Federer nor from Wilson. However, tennis enthusiasts who support the theory claim that he isn't the only player to use a racquet that differs from what the markets say, as many players such as Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt have racquets that have been exposed by enthusiasts to be different racquets.

How should it be improved? Should it even be kept? Discuss. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tennis enthusiasts"?? And the text even states explicitly that those "enthusiasts" "speculate". If we can pinpoint the author of this passage, we can ask him/her to provide [expeditiously] a source (which would need to be impressive, and that would name those "enthusiasts"). In the absence of an impressive source, there is no doubt whatsoever that this needs to be axed, asap. Redux 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from the main text of the article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi i'm the original author of the text, and as you can see i've put it back. i can provide photographic evidence if necessary to support every claim i have made about the racket federer uses as opposed to the stock ncode tour 90. what i was referring to as speculatoin is whether the tour 90 pj and the ncode pj he used and currently uses respectfully are indeed the same racket. that i cannot unequivacobly prove. my purpose in writing this article is to prevent potential consumers into misinformedly buying a product without knowing that the real roger federe racket is unavailable to the public. --Nanonugget

Wikipedia requires that verifiable sources be provided (possibly the 2004 ESPN article on paintjobs). See Wikipedia:No original research. While it is possibly true that Federer is not using a stock nCode 90, there are no other sources for this information. It first has to be published by a credible source (newspaper, industry magazine). As an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia simply reflects what information is out there; it is not meant to disseminate new information. I've quoted below what you re-inserted to show that it is, without sources, simply assertions. They may have a factual basis, but they are not verifiable.
"While Roger's racquet seems to be based on the standard nSix-One Tour 90, it clearly is customized by Wilson to Roger's specifications. There are slight differences in the racquet he uses, such as the shorter handle (or pallet) of his racquet, a slight variation in the spacing of the cross strings (most apparent in the Perimeter Weighting System at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the hoop: Roger's racquets have four grommet holes in this area, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has five), and a slightly different grommet strip and bumperguard to match the altered spacing of the cross strings. Length, weight, balance, swingweight, beam width, and head size are the same on Federer's racquet as on the standard version. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner of the nSix-One Tour 90) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racquet are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme."
--Noelle De Guzman (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

203.126.40.254

This user has only added useless, and slightly offensive, comments to this article,such as: 'Roger is a very cocky tennis player, he thinks he is the king, eventually he always got beaten by Rafael Nadal on clay court.' How can they be blocked or preventing from adding to this article? I don't know much about that process, so could someone please help out? Thanks. OSmeone 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They have continued to add more comments as can be seen in the history.OSmeone 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply revert them and give the IP a warning. Skinnyweed 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Navigation Templates images

I saw that someone took down the australian open logo from the list of men's champions citiing unfair excessive use in a template. I know that this should be added to a template discussion, but I don't think that anyone actually checks them and the editors here have been very helpful. So should the logo be replaced, or should all the logos be removed from the template boxes> Thanks OSmeone 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that one should be consistent with the use of the logo. If one Grand Slam template contains the logo, then the others should also do to make it more visually appealing and consistent. Then again, one should also consider fair use; some editors are quite weary of this and hence, prefer not putting the logo.Joey80 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well does the same fair use apply to all 4 logos? If so, I could take down the other 3. But they look better with the logos, and if someone can clarify to me whther they are fair use on a templater, then I can put the AO one back.OSmeone 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Masters Cup 2003 Final update and elaboration

I think that Federer's overall performance here deserves elaboration (though I'm not sure if this elaboration should be placed under the Milestone category or the general article). This marked the beginning of his dominance (though this might need some articles to fully be established). It included victory over Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi--the other reigning Grand Slam champions for the year. It saw him climb the rankings from #3 to #2 (his year-end ranking). And he defeated Nalbandian and Agassi for the first time in his professional career.Joey80 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just mention the final, then add something like, 'on the way to this title Federer defeated ... for the first time, marking a milestone in his professional career' or something. Feel free to do it, I was going to do so when I made the milestone section (which is where it should go, as it isn't that famous) because I believ all his majors should be noted. OSmeone 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done it already. But maybe someone can further streamline the match details. I got confused on whether to use just the surname or the full name of a player when mentioning them multiple times (e.g. on newspapers, they mention only the surname when making a repeated reference). I also got confused with linking the name. Do you link all names of "Andrea Agassi" and "Agassi" to his page, or just the first appearance of the name?Joey80 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. Well done and thanks for contributing. OSmeone 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Performance timeline updating

It seems that some editors (registered or unregistered) are too excited to find out what new record Federer has set. The performance timeline (specifically, win-loss record on some surface) is updated whenever he wins a match. Unfortunately, such an update may be incomplete (e.g. the editor might miss updated the career win-loss, current year's win-loss, or in the case of Grand Slams, the Grand Slam win-loss). In other words, such petty editing by adding "1" to the number wins or losses result to confusion and double counting. How about including a note that the timeline is current as of this time, or that it is updated only when his participation in the tournament or the tournament has concluded? Joey80 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but I really doubt that many of the excited editrs would notice it- After a major match you can't move for extra edits. Give it a try, it might work but I think we'll jus have to live with it really. OSmeone 09:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a note before the performance timeline section, which meant that I have to revert all the numbers affected by his participation in 2006 French Open, and mind you... the numbers included there are not even consistent. The French Open box already highlights his current placement in the semis, but the clay win-loss is updated only until after his third round (three wins), which points to my previous concern that any editing made in this section is relatively inconsistent and incomplete. Also, it is not that I'm superstitious or anything, but I just realized that when Federer reaches the finals and this is placed under the "Finals" section, it tends to stay in that section (that is, he loses the finals). That happened in 2006 Dubai, 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, as well as one other tournament which I can't remember. Joey80 05:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, just curious, does the numbers in the performance timeline include Davis Cup participation? Because if it does, is it included in the "Tournaments played" row... Moreover, Davis Cup is managed by ITF, not by ATP (though it is associated with ATP and the Davis Cup performance is included in the player's win-loss profile in the ATP website)... so in such a case, a footnote can be added. Joey80 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, as his 82-4 last year didn't include his davis cup victory and that is the one shown. I'll add a footnote, maybe his davis cup statistics could be added somewhere later OSmeone 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

his 81-4 last year did include the davis cup victory against Alan Mackin. The same is true for his 35 match winning streak last year. You can go to the atp site -> Roger Federer -> player activity -> year 2005 and count all matches. you will get the 81 wins only with this victory which is by the way also listed there.

LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER 2006

This section has been repeatedly added by User:Classfriends and 58.186.33.101 and then deleted. the section is as follows:

LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER 2006

Ivo Minar, Fabrice Santoro, Marko Baghdatis, Tommy Haas, Gael Monfils, Denis Istomin, Florian Mayer, Max Mirnyi, Nikolay Davydenko, Nicolas Kiefer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Mohammed Al Ghareeb, Robin Vik, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Massu, Olivier Rochus, Richard Gasquet, Ivan Ljubicic, Paradorn Srichaphan, James Blake, Arnaud Clement, Dmitry Tursunov, David Ferrer, Alberto Martin, Benjamin Balleret, David Ferrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Juan Chela, Potito Starace, Radek Stepanek, Nicolas Almagro, David Nalbandian, Diego Hartfield, Alejandro Falla, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic, Rohan Bopanna.

I don't think that this section is necessary; anyone who wants to know who has been beaten by Federer can look on the ATP Website. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is why I sugest that this section should not be a part of the main article. OSmeone 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the point of listing down the players he has beaten. Comparing this unusual section to the one that was placed in Martina Hingis' article before, it seems that editors then were so much obsessed with her comeback that they listed down every player she has beaten or has lost to. But such is impractical. It's like putting a section in every player's article of their annual performance--down to every match played. If such is the case, then just provide a link to the ATP/WTA website (and even the official websites of some players). Not only will you save your energy and time entering those data in wikipedia, but the official website provides a more complete information. No need for wikipedia to serve as a mirror site of that.--Joey80 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Davis Cup 2003: Hewitt def. Federer in five sets

I just remembered this match while watching a replay of these players' match-up in last year's Wimbledon, although I am not well-informed about this Davis Cup match (i.e. didn't watch it, didn't follow it, etc.). What I remember though was Federer was leading 2 sets, then 5-3 in the third, before Hewitt came back and win it in 5. I am not sure though if this can be included in his significant matches (i.e. it is a significant one for Hewitt and for Australia, being a Davis Cup match--not to mention being his last win over Federer). In any case, I need your feedback if this should be included. Since this is a loss, then it will likely be placed as a memorable/milestone match in the page of the victor, not the loser. Then again, if the circumstances and quality of the match was superb, even for the side of the loser (e.g. Federer's loss to Safin in 2005 Australian Open, his loss to Nalbandian in 2005 Tennis Masters Cup--despite coming back in the fifth set, his loss to Nadal in 2006 French Open--although Federer was not quite himself there, the place of that match in history is unquestionable so that it should be placed even in the article of the loser), then that Davis Cup match can be included in this page.--Joey80 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a famous match- one of his most notable defeats, if he had not lost Switzerland could have been davis cup champions. the fight with which Hewitt came back was remarkable, so it shoudl definitely be mentioned. OSmeone 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

2005 award

I've changed 'New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year' to 'New Zealand People's Choice International Sportsperson of the Year' per discussion with User talk:Wallie (source [10]). I don't, however, know if this award is important enough to include. Ziggurat 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing After Every Game

Who has time to do this? I suggest the site be edited after every game point. Juveboy 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Great One

Roger Federer is the greatest player alive. Fittingly, he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, and will win the most Grand Slam titles of all time. In 2007, he will become only the 3rd player in history to win the Grand Slam in a calender year. Roger Federer rules!

Amit 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't designed to discuss the topic generally. Skinnyweed 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment by Amit fits more in chat rooms and blogs rather than in a site like wikipedia. Although personally, I also display the same sentiment as Amit does, wikipedia deals with facts--things that have happened. Or if they'll be taking place, then supporting facts, analyses and other details from credible sources and individuals must be supplied. --Joey80 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please work on improving your spelling skills.. by the way, it's analysis, not analyses. lol (130.113.226.6 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Standard Format

I've just glanced around various tennis player pages, and there doesn't seem to be a standard format for displaying career results. The infobar helps with the peaks of a player's career, but there's a lot of huge lists, even for minor players like Andy Murray. I would start writing one, if I had the slightest idea how to. Could someone tackle this, or point me at the relevant help pages?

--Shinydan 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the table formats used on this page (the table with the majors and TMS results and the table with a list of all career titles highlighted by stature) are the most visually appealing. OSmeone 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy Murray is a major player. Skinnyweed 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But not a top tenner or grand slam winner. OSmeone 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the table format being in reverse chronological order, with 2006 being in the far left column. It is counter-intuitive and I would suggest changing it similar to the table for golf players such as Tiger Woods where the years read left to right. I suggest the tables for ALL tennis players be changed. Ash73 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this reverse order with summaries after the tournament name over the one like in the Sampras article. That was disturbing to see tournames on the left but the number of wins on the right. Also this reverse order looks just nicer to me.

100th Grand Slam win

In the case an editor decides to include Roger's first round win in Wimbledon 2006 against Richard Gasquet, note that it was not just a milestone match in terms of earning the longest grass court winning streak, but also his 100th Grand Slam win. I'm not really sure how important his 100th Grand Slam win is--maybe it can be put into perspective (i.e. some players have their 100th win because of longevity, others because of their dominance). Also, note that he himself commented that his recent match against Mario Ancic was "incredible", though I still have to read some comments among tennis fans and experts how well that match stands out in terms of the quality (I wasn't able to watch the entire match due to the rain).--Joey80 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wimbledon 2006

Roger Federer defeats Rafael Nadal for his 8th Grand Slam title, and his 4th consecutive Wimbledon title. Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in 4 sets. Roger Federer eyes his 9th Grand Slam title in August in New York City at the US Open. --Amit

This victory (and score) is mentioned three times in the subsection "2006 and beyond" and one is a detailed, very POV-like description. Not good for an encyclopedic article.--HJ 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's actually very common around here. Every time Federer wins a tournament, and especially a Grand Slam, his entry on Wikipedia (this one) gets hit with POV'd contributions, usually praising Federer in one way or another. Be bold and fix those on sight. Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I zapped the match report. It's still in the history of course so the user can take it somewhere else. It's not NPOV/encyclopedic/for us. Metamagician3000 13:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous Matches and the like

In the past, I have contributed to sections like this in biographic articles of tennis players (I don't believe I did here, but I've done it in other articles). Since then, however, and in light of discussions held on unrelated topics, but which involved the nature of POV, I've come to understand that this listing of "famous matches", or "memorable matches", or however it is being called, is actually a POV-ridden section. Quite simply, in order to list a match as "famous", "memorable" or anything of the sort, we need at least one reputable source attributing this "status" to the match, or else this is a Wikipedia user's own interpretation of a match, which constitutes POV and original research, thus being inadmissible in our articles. It's simple: if anyone is to attribute a match the status of "famous", or "memorable", Wikipedia cannot be the primary source attributing this characteristic to the match, regardless of aspects such as the match's duration or score. We need external sources to be linked from the article, or I'm afraid the entries will need to be removed. Thank you, Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So we need to find citations for the matches. In any case, your point is likely to be only applicable to the famous matches section, not the milestone since that is more objective in terms of streaks and numbers achieved or established.--Joey80 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this applies to the "famous matches" section. Redux 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a section called 'Grand Slam and Masters Cup Finals' is made, as this would work for the GS finals at least. OSmeone 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Would that be detailing the matches, as the current "famous.." already does? I mean, the titles board already gives the essential information, such as the date of the match, the opponent and the score. I could see only an extra description such as "Federer saved three match points", or "was able to come back from 0-5", or something of the sort, which may not be really necessary for us to have in the article. We would still need to steer clear of claims such as "in a memorable performance", or "Federer did the impossible", for obvious reasons. Redux 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is there would be a section for Major Tournament Finals, which would take twelve of the twenty five matches into one jusifiable section, with more brief descriptions. His 7-6 7-6 7-6 victory, his 6-0 6-0 victory and the first match milestones could remain in athe milestone matches, along with his 100th win etc if I can find them. That leaves a few left over, which I can delete/ find a reason to keep with sources if I can. Of course, only a brief description of each match is needed. I'll do this once the holidays start, unless someone else will... OSmeone 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget his Wimbledon semi-final win--the most lopsided in the Open Era (I'm not exactly sure if that qualification is within that tournament, or among the Grand Slams), in any case, there are lots of sources for this one since it is a recent match. --Joey80 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

streak

"As of July the 10th, 2006, Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 128 consecutive weeks. This is the third longest streak in history, surpassing the total of Pete Sampras (fourth), who held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98. Only Jimmy Connors (160 weeks) and Ivan Lendl (157 weeks) have had longer uninterrupted runs at the top." "he holds the fourth-longest consecutive stay in the World No. 1. Only Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl have had longer unbroken streaks at number one." Contradiction =) Doidimais Brasil 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Humm, if the information is sourced, check against the source and fix it. If not, we can try to Google it and find out which one is the accurate one. If we can't find a reputable source to establish the truth, then we'd have to remove the section altogether. Redux 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is becasue some users keep on ignoring the consecutive part of the wording- Pete sampras DID NOT have a longer streak at number one. OSmeone 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"He is the third player in the history of ATP Rankings to rank No. 1 every week during two calendar years (others: Connors and Lendl)." I think Federer doesn't reached this yet, during 2004 Roddick was no. 1 but at the year end Federer was nº. 1, so it leads us that until Federer reachs the year of 2006 in #1 that feature will not be completed.Bproof 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or didn't you mean 2 consecutive calendar years? If so, maybe you're right

I just changed the years to 2005 and 2006. This is with the assumption that Roger is locked to finish all of 06 as the #1, which may or may not be the case. The record is pointless if it is merely that Roger is the 3rd person to have 104 straight weeks at #1 - jai

Birthplace

"Federer was born in Basel, Switzerland in the small city of Binningen, to Robert Federer and Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel properly, in suburban Münchenstein." On his official page and other biographies it is said he was born in Basel, and a list of Basel hospitals does not list Binningen as having an appropriate hospital. So where does the Binningen information come from? --Railk 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Masters Cup and ATP Masters Series singles finals sections

Are these sections really necessary? It doesn't contribute to the overall article except in terms of lengthening it. These sections contain the venue, the opponent (with the accompanying flag) and the score in the final, which is exactly similar to the Titles section. Then again, I prefer the Titles section, with its color coded scheme and well as a summary table before detailing his title by tournament classification and surface. I understand that a Grand Slam singles finals section might be necessary, even though those matches are also contained in the titles section because of the importance of such titles (i.e. how many Grand Slam one has won is always included in the introductory paragraph of a tennis player's article, not to mention that in this case, there is an assertion that Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis player, hence, such a section complements and emphasizes that). Joey80 12:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem necessary, as you said. I would like also to bring back my statements in the thread titled "Famous Matches and the like", above. The "Famous matches" and "Other milestone matches" sections will be removed unless reputable sources naming them as "milestones" or "famous" are provided, per my reasoning above. As far as simply listing Grand Slams and/or Masters Series finals, I would agree with Joey that it only repeats the Titles board, which already lists them, with the finals' scores and opponents -- and the descriptions, such as calling the match "grueling", "epic", "amazing" and so on, again, falls within the category of unsourced claims that Wikipedia cannot make primarily.
And also concerning a section of Joey's comment, assertions of Federer (or anyone else) as being "the greatest" or "one of the greatest" also must be sourced, with a specific remark that this claim is according to something (and please, zeitgeist does not suffice for this, the point remains that Wikipedia cannot make those claims as a primary source). Without that, those assertions will always need to be removed from the article. Redux 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I also second this. I think the "performance timeline" and titles section is more than enough; this page could definitely lose some length in favor of succinctness. Macbrother 01:08, 16 August (UTC)

Verified the icecream fact

I have a magazine which states that his favorite flavor is strawberry. I stated the interview in the references part. If anyone can reference it better than I did just ask and ill give any info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearingbreaker92 (talk • contribs) .

Please, let's not include Federer's favorite icecream flavor in the article. This is irrelevant, and doesn't even qualifies as admissible trivia for an encyclopedic entry. Long discussions were held regarding this on account of the article on the Olsen twins. No favorite food, no favorite color, and so on. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not a fansite. Regards, Redux 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Direction of timeline and earnings

80.200.221.128 reversed the timeline here and on other pages, placeing more recent years on the right. Someone says it is more intuitive this way, but I disagree. Most timelines I have seen had recent years on the right, and I think this should not have been changed, especially if we consider the Agassi timeline. However I have not reverted yet, but want to see some opinion from others. There is also a new earnings table with the number of different titles, but it is redundant, the titles are in the timeline. The yearly earnings could also be placed in the timeline, but I think it is unnecessary and unimportant. I will remove the table if there is no good objection. Scineram 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I too think that its rather strange to have the timeline "go backwards." The Sampras page goes forward, and I think that should be the standard. The timeline should be like a real timeline, following forward chronological order from left to right. It really is more intuitive--how many timelines have you seen where the more recent dates are to the left of the older dates? I think its just keeping to classic timeline form to have it moving ---> this way, rather than <---- this way. --Flute138 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is fine now. It always did strike me as weird to have it facing backwatds. It's now more informative and logical. It think the direction is now correct. OSmeone 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cursing at the Pilot Pen Open

I deleted this:

"Recently during a match at the Pilot Pen Open in New Haven, Connecticut, Federer yelled, "S**T!" so loud that everyone at the stadium and anyone watching the match on television could hear. This rare outburst drew several chuckles, and Federer quickly apologized and was not penalized for the rare outburst."

from the trivia section. Federer doesn't play the Pilot Pen, there was no citation, and I couldn't verify it online with a quick google check, so I assume this was about another player or made up. - Jai

So much for your flawed and dumb research .... (130.113.226.6 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

The event in question actually occured at Toronto (Rogers Master)...but anyway, I really don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia anyway...--Flute138 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia could have it, and a link to youtube video. XD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BIe35skSUScineram 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think such an info is too mundane to be added to the Trivia section. It's like saying that since he said this or that word for the first time, then it ought to be a trivia. Besides, such didn't cause so much a controversy as to disrupt the game (e.g. like Jankovic's complaint in US Open 2006 semis which could have contributed to her loss; when Safin pulled down his pants during a French Open match to celebrate a point, only to be penalized by the umpire for such misbehavior). In other words, even among trivias, it is too mundane that the word "encyclopedic" is inapplicable to it. (This goes as well to that entry of favorite ice cream flavor, I agree with an editor commenting that this is not a fan page to merit such an entry. Because if such is, then we might as well include his favorite perfume, favorite food, favorite song, favorite singer, favorite actors, favorite things, favorite day, etc.) In other words, the danger with trivia is that by its definition and nature, it is something that is mundane, hence, we might go overboard if we didn't have any criteria for it to merit an encyclopedic entry. Joey80 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011

Your apology for flying off the handle and unthinkingly accusing me of vandalism is accepted - this time. Don't let it ever happen again. Tennis expert 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my appology. I should also note that the version you reverted to, with footnotes, is far superior to the previous version. What happened was I looked at some numbers after your subsequent edits (such as the year he turned pro being 2001 when in fact it was 1998), and, as you said reacted completely inappropriately and I realized almost instantly after my tirade that this was nothing more than an innocent mistake. I will never let it happen again. Stanley011 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone should just do the math on his ranking

He clearly will be number 1 for many, many months to come, even if he never plays again and/or dies in that timeframe. Might as well just extrapolate and say he will be first until at least X date, Y amount of weeks. etc.Ernham 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did this math. See the "Federer breaks 160..." section below. Added it to the article but someone seems to have deleted it without giving any reason.

Vandalism?

Someone has changed the entries in the performance timeline. Was this intentional vandalism or just a failure? Could someone change it back?

International Series/ International Series Gold

On the French version of this article, they have highlight International Series tournaments differently to the International Series Gold tournaments, which are slightly more prestigious. Do you think that it would be a good idea to do so here? OSmeone 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Federer breaks 160 consecutive weeks at #1

Source: atptennis.com, rankings pages, calendar pages and tournament profile pages.

As of Nov 13, 2006 Federer is 8120, Nadal is 4270. He has already won one match in the Master's Cup and so his minimum for that event is 100. Nadal's maximum is 650 (he lost one match).

Even if Federer wins nothing and doesn't even play any further matches, and Nadal plays and wins everything on the ATP calendar (Doha, Sydney, Australian Open, Marseille, Memphis), Nadal can't catch Federer through Feb 26, 2007.

Federer: 8120 + 100 (Master's Cup) - 250 (Doha) - 1000 (Australian Open) = 6470.

Nadal: 4270 + 650 (Master's Cup)+ 250-20 (Doha replaces Stockholm in best 5 other) + 175-55 (Sydney replaces Queen's Club in best 5 other) + 1000 (Australian Open) + 200-90 (Marseille replaces Marseille 06) + 250-175 (Memphis replaces Sydney in best 5 other) = 6455.

So as of Monday Feb 26 when Dubai starts, Federer will still be ahead of Nadal. His streak will be 161 weeks by then, beating Connors' world record of 160 weeks.

• I (someone other than the person who posted the above) put in a note on this on the page today, and it was removed, citing it as 'original research'. It's not really original research if anyone can count up the ranking points ... in any case, it should have been marked as 'reference needed' or, at the very least, reverted to the previous version, so I feel this was a very poor edit by whoever reverted it. In any case, this was referred to in the post-match interview after his win against Roddick; see e.g. [11]. 88.105.71.230 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this can be safely mentioned in this page, and just include a reference. After all, this fact has been stated in many tennis articles, and sports news. Joey80 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Federer

I am surprised. Roger Federer does not deserve this utmost respect! He is a downful sin to man kind. He his rood, arrogant, and dumb once he loses. When he wins, however, he loves to brag and find faults to blame on the other opponent.67.86.24.40 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Duh! I think it is quite common among sportmen to be like that. But I think the comment above is quite short-sighted. When people ask what made a person win, they couldn't help but "brag" (a politican brags in winning an election because his platform was better than his opponent, a student brags in getting a high mark because he has discipline and studied unlike his peers, and a player brags on what made him win and what might have contributed to the loss of his opponent). If that's what you meant by "brag", then it is not really to the point of being boastful and arrogant, it's just giving he's highlighting the key factors and abilities that made him win (and in the same way, the probable reason the opponent lost). This behavior is actually quite common in sports. In tennis in particular, you can see that also, like the way Henin-Hardenne and Williams sisters reason out their wins/losses. The lines for the winners during interviews and awarding ceremony is like this: "I played well. I didn't give him/her opportunities. I handled the pressure well, better than him/her. I can see that he/she is nervous. And my shots are working quite well" or "I didn't play that well today, but what is important is I handled the pressure well and won the important points. He/She couldn't close it out so I took advantage of it." But I'm not really sure about Federer turning "dumb" when he loses. What does that mean? If that pertains to a player almost being quiet and having nothing to say, then it is quite natural after a disappointment. Again, that is similar to the common line of: "He played better than me. He didn't give me any opportunities. And credit goes to him."--well, it's just the opposite of what they say when they win, LOL. Or in the case of Williams sisters, they don't really give credit to the opponent, when they lose, it's not because the opponent was playing better, but it's just because they didn't concentrate well or something is troubling their wrist or some other excuses. However, in the case of Federer, I also agree with you in some way. Being the dominant player is not a guarantee that what he says is always true (e.g. think of how politicians, mothers (LOL), writers think they are always right because they have the experience and visibility). And I do have reservations on what he said in his post-match interview after the French Open final. As well as at times when Federer criticizes some players (especially Nadal). Then again, those are his opinions, much like an editor's opinion that he is arrogant, rude and dumb. Joey80 14:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bagel Club

I added a section titled above as an expansion of trivia section to include the list of players that have got a bagel set from Roger Federer. It is now removed ironically with the comment that it is a trivial section! Can you explain why? It has the potential to expand as Roger is giving bagel sets to just about every player he now meets.

• Actually, I must admit that such a trivia is quite "trivial". But I don't blame you. No standard was set on how "trivial" should a trivia be in order to be included (or excluded) in the article. For example, there was a trivia entry once about his favorite ice cream flavor. So what? In any case, I have come to dislike this article, wherein infos (and trivias) keep on piling up, without being checked to be up to standards. Joey80 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• This can also help: Wikipedia:Trivia
  • I have to respectfully disagree. Roger is doing this very regularly to almost all top players. There is also a short paragraph about 'Golden Bagel Award' & the Gaston Gaudio double bagel match in the article. This can expand that section profitably. So it is maybe not a trivial trivia.

Score format

I'm going to try to resolve this here, there's no reason to engage in an edit war. The dispute is whether it should say "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 2-6, 6-3, 3-6", or "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 6-2, 3-6, 6-3." I'll explain why the first option is the correct one. The primary subject in the sentence is Federer, therefore it would be incorrect to say that the first set was 6-2 because that would mean Federer won the first set, which of course did not happen. Here you can find a source which agrees with my argument: [12] Dionyseus 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of tennis articles in the media use the "6-2, 3-6, 6-3" form. And this is what we use in hundreds of Wikipedia tennis articles. If you will read the Federer article closely, there are many scores in this form. Do not revert the score again as you will be going against consensus. Tennis expert 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Concensus has not yet been established. So far I have laid out my reasonings, and you have laid out your reasoning. Now we wait to see which reasoning other editors agree with. Dionyseus 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The scores of the winner used to come first in a neutral enviroment, but if there is an emphasis on a player, his scores are the first. The ATP also uses this format in the player activity sections, not surpisingly. Scineram 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Error?

There are currently 2 separate "Trivia" section on this page, one before the match lists and one at the end. Also, what is meant under the first trivia section by "In 1999, Federer became the youngest player (18 years, 4 months) in the ATP ranking's year end top 100." Youngest how? 18 years shouldn't be the youngest to reach top 100 in ATP rankings.

Its probably a error or some vandalism, just change it back. Aaron Krickstein was the youngest player to enter the top 100 at 16 years old. --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that in 1998 he was the youngest player in the top 100. So that either needs clarification, or to be deleted. OSmeone 09:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2006

Concerning this line: Along with Justine Henin-Hardenne who lost the women's final of the U.S. Open, it was the first time in the history of tennis that both a man and a woman had reached all four Grand Slam singles finals within a calendar year.

Shouldn't it be explicitly pointed out that it was the same man and the same woman who made it to the finals of all four majors? Not just a man and a woman?

Saying the "same man" and "same woman" will probably make it clearer, but even as it stands, what else could the sentence mean?AmritTuladhar 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)