Talk:Amélie Mauresmo

Martina Hingis quote

I did not edit the main article, but I would just like to say that Martina Hingis did not actually call Amelie Mauresmo "half a man" as alleged in the main article. What she actually said was that playing against Mauresmo was like playing against a man. After the initial media uproar over this comment, Hingis clarified in a channel 7 press conference that what she meant is it's not that Mauresmo "is a man", it's more that she plays "like a man" alluding to her unusual (and obvious) powerful game and physique.

She did call her half a man later. Bababu 11:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it was Davenport who said that she was playing like a man in the first place. Bababu 11:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Steroid allegations?

While I don't think this page should spend too much text on the issue, I think that the allegations that Mauresmo may have used steroids are relevant. The previous attempt at doing this got reverted away. Does anyone have thoughts about how to do this well? --Rkstafford 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant? They're completely unsubstantiated, comming mostly from homophobia. You could write down "Some people are jerks towards Mauresmo because they're insecure.", that's much more relevant. BKmetic 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no credible allegations against Mauresmo and there never have been. End of story. Metamagician3000 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they stem from homophobia. More likely is that they come from her unusually masculine physique (and to some extent facial features). I accept that they are unsubstantiated, but I would not at all be surprised if an allegation was proved in the future. You'll just have to wait a while, Rkstafford :) 79.97.88.32 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Illuvater01

Trivia

There is far too much trivia relating to 2006 accruing here. I intend to keep weeding it out to try to keep the article in some sort of proportion. In particular, it is not helpful to someone who wants to know about Mauresmo to be told that she could have returned to number one a week earlier if she'd won a particular match back in March 2006 or whatever. That was of topical interest at the time, but such interest does not last forever. As of tomorrow she'll have held down the number one racking for the 28th consecutive week. Try to keep a sense of proportion rather than being focused on events in the relatively recent past that were topical for only a very brief time. It would be better for more people to go back and put in useful information about the last few years, rather than keeping every tiny factoid about 2006. (I am responsible for the current structure of headings, etc., and I can see plenty of scope to expand and improve the material under the earlier headings.) Metamagician3000 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest that other users work on creating a balanced article rather than revert warring over trivia. Whatever happens in today's final in Beijing will be much more notable than this stuff - indeed her wins over Serena Williams in the US Open and Lindsay Davenport in Beijing are now more topical, since these are the players who have done most to block her success in the past. There is endless trivia to be added but not everything topical at a particular time is encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 04:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not "suggesting." You're dictating. You changed factual aspects of the article, that in your opinion are "trivia," without discussing it first. And now you're all upset about the reversion of your changes. You want to discuss the "trivia"; yet, your initial changes and subsequent reversions indicate that you are insisting on the changes. I'm reverting your changes pending a meaningful discussion of them. That's only fair to the many users who have worked on the article since the last time you contributed to it on July 26, 2006. Tennis expert 05:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith. I made a series of edits mainly to try to get a better sense of proportion into this article and to avoid vagueness, repetition etc. Some of the material I removed in that process was possibly written or worked on by me in the first place, at a time when it was topical. I saw no reason to write anything on the talk page as there had been no activity on this talk page to speak of, but I did give good edit summaries to show why I was making the changes I did. My edits were obviously made in good faith.

If you want to make edits that include putting back some specific material, by all means do so. I don't object to that. But you have made no attempt to edit. You simply keep reverting. This means that any grammatical improvements etc that I have made are lost. I warn you that your next revert will be in breach of 3RR and you may be blocked from editing the encyclopedia for it. I have the power to block you myself but will not do so, as it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone with whom he is in a content dispute. However, I do suggest you use the current version as a basis on which to edit the article, rather than continuing to revert out my work.

You should also be aware that it is not acceptable here to attack the other person rather than to discuss the importance, etc., of material. Your comments about my motives and attitude are directed at me personally and verge on uncivil. I suggest you simply edit the article, and I won't even mind if you restore the extra sentence about the Sharapova match and the one-week delay in regaining the number ranking. If you restore those sentences in the process of actually editing, I'll accept for now. My edits were not made with the intention of upsetting anyone or of standing no matter what. If you'd edited the article rather than reverting out my changes, I would have been okay with it. However, I do take the view that the 2006 section will need to be abbreviated sooner or later. I am, of course, prepared to negotiate about how when the time comes. Metamagician3000 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In my initial reversion of your edits, I saved the one and only grammatical correction you've made during the last two days. I never blindly revert anything. You need to shore up your facts before you publicly accuse someone of mindless reverts. As for the more-than-three-reverts-in-a-day rule, here it is: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I was never close to violating the rule, which I assume you already knew given that you're an experienced administrator; so, I'm wondering why you warned my about it (or the fact that you're an administrator given that you're not allowed to use your powers during a content dispute, which means that those powers are irrelevant here). Are you trying to intimidate me? Tennis expert 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal behaviour

I have removed the following from the article as it is unsourced, badly written, and very POV. If anyone wants to source it and rewrite it NPOV please feel welcome.

Although she is very kind in the outside tennis court, but sometime she has a disingenuous surface in the inside tennis court.

• In Athens Olympic Games 2004, she withdraw the second round of woman doubles with her compatriot Mary Pierce in tennis section because she has a rush when she defeated American Chanda Rubin in first round of single after; but her sickness is not serious actually, also Pierce has a treat chance since Atlanta Olympic Games 1996. So, she should play this match with Pierce.
• She didn't understand the feeling for Pierce in single final of WTA Championships 2005 when Pierce defeated another American Lindsay Davenporttwice set 7-6 after, also she is 30 years old; but Mauresmo is 26 years old. So, she should give her chance to Pierce to capture the first championships to get good ending in the tennis season of 2005; however she defeated Pierce 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 yet. As a result, she incurred Pierce has an injury in next year (2006) of tennis season indirectly.
• In final of Fed Cup 2005 (France VS Russia) , she didn't treasure the last chance in last one deciding doubles match with Pierce to against Elena Dementieva & Dinara Safina when Pierce defeated Anastasia Myskina 4-6, 6-4, 6-2 difficultly. As a result, they lost to Dementieva & Safina 4-6, 6-1, 3-6. So, France cannot recapture the championships. However, she didn't leave the team to response this fault (Pierce has performed her clam period for injury), also she played against the eventual champion Italy with Nathalie Dechy, Virginie Razzano & Emilie Loit (she finished her calm period for she lost to Myskina & Vera Zvonareva with Marion Bartoli in final of this tournament two years ago, as a result France didn't defend their championships and former team leader Guy Forget was resigned) in yext year (2006); as a result France lost to Italy 1-4. Although she didn't play against Czech Republic (this team have Nicole Vaidisova, Lucie Safarova, Iveta Benesova & Kveta Peschke) in World Group Play-offs to response her previous fault; even if France defeated Czech Republic 3-2 to stay in World Group I, but this behaviour is unacceptable.

--Pierce (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for you deleted this information, but I want to tell you: this person sometime make a bad behaviour in her tennis match!! So, I wish you think about her behaviour first and then discuss with me!!--Pierce (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish you wrote a better piece of text so it could be included in the article. As of now, the part above is written in incorrect English and barely understandable, and as JiMternet mentioned not neutral. Please do not restore it again until it has been improved. Personally I doubt such a section belongs in the article at all, anyway. -mrbartjens 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, can you tell me how to write her article correctly please?--Pierce (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article

A discussion that may affect the name or title of this article is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, this article may be moved to a different title, in accordance with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete tag

She became world no. 1 in September 2004. From here until Australian Open in 2006, there are two paras/three sentences describing the entire 2005 season. I do not suggest the level of intricate detail should be added that plagues the rest of the article, but two short paras is insufficient to explain what occurred in 2005. Did she play in the other three Grand Slam tournaments? Did she retain World No 1 status? Etc, etc, etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

Can we write anything about her personal life? Any dyke friends, and what not. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia not Queeripedia

Information about a subject's sexual relationships, current and past, can be added to the article provided they are reliably sourced. Schwulenbar (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not queeripedia. Yesitsnot (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Getty Images has pictures, e.g. here of "Sylvie Bourdon, Amélie Mauresmo's girlfriend". etc. Is that a sufficiently robust source, or does it just count as gossip? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Former" professional tennis play

Would we say this is still accurate given that shes playing in the mixed doubles at 2011 French Open? Admittedly I dont know if this is a one off or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildasha (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Same thing in 2013. She's playing in the Australian Open. So is Lindsay Davenport. It seems that we shouldn't use "former" until they are 70 years old. But hey, even Ilie Nastase plays for fun now and then. (Călușaru' (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

Playing style

The "playing style" section reads like it's copied ad verbatim from some other source, and why does it use mph as first choice? She's a European player (probably because of the ad verbatim copy/paste). Jalwikip (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)