Talk:Emma Raducanu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Open Era?

Please correct the page. She's the first qualifier ever in history men's or women's to win a Grand Slam title. See this. No other player did this in tennis history. 2a02:2f08:43ff:ffff::50f:5798 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No the reliable source - BBC - says Open era. Your 'See this' is a stream of an interview. It's original research WP:OR.

Robynthehode (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Guardian source that's already in the article says simply, she is the first qualifier, man or woman, to win a grand slam title.[1] I'm changing it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that multiple reliable sources do use the "in the open era" qualifier, I'd recommend being a little bit cautious about this, and making sure there's several saying so without that. On the one hand the sources saying "open era" may just not have checked back to 1895 (or 1923?) before saying this, but on the other hand the ones not saying this may consider the qualification to be implied. (How long have the majors even had qualifiers? Go back far enough and you have weirdness like the challenger system!) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wimbledon started using qualifications in 1925 so we don't have to go back further than that for Wimbledon. My thoughts are that it truly is a historical record but with the data a little tougher to come by, announcers and the press can more safely say "Open Era." They don't have to go back and correct themselves if a researcher digs up an Australasian champion from the turn of the century. There has been a lower ranked (No. 212) wildcard that has won a major, they just didn't have to come through qualifying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, they're just playing safe if you're being charitable, or not bothering to do the research if you're not being charitable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Fun fact. Wildcards for the win! And thanks for the datapoint about the start of qualification. To be clear, multiple (or at least two thus far) sources for the unqualified statement are available. Just can't add any myself due to the anonproof nature of the article, so chiming in here instead. Turn of the century is probably safe, as the Australian didn't exist until 1905, the LTA wasn't formed until 1913, and the Majors weren't designated as such until 1923, so the clock could be argued to start at any of those. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources say 'Open era'. That's it. No further research is required unless that research is for more sources that relate to Emma Raducanu's win and don't say 'Open era'. Then as editors we can have a discussion about whether to include 'Open era' based on the available sources. All other research is original research and against WP:OR. It also may be against WP:SYNTH. Robynthehode (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I just covered that multiple sources say both things, and multiple people have just pointed out they're not inconsistent. Or rather, are consistent only with the interpretation without the qualifier. So I don't see how that gets you to "that's it", that we need to have a vote of sources (were such a thing even meaningful or possible), or policy-pearl-clutching. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Raducanu stunned the sporting world when she beat fellow teenager Leylah Fernandez in the final of the US Open to become the first qualifier to win a grand slam singles title." Sky Sports. "She is the first female qualifier to reach a Grand Slam final, let alone win one." WaPo. (Not an identical proposition! But shared here for information.) "Raducanu became the first qualifier to win a Grand Slam, also doing so in just the second Grand Slam tournament of her career." CBSsports. "In a US Open victory that was among the most stunning in tennis history, Raducanu became the first qualifier to win a major title, the first player to win on their second main-draw appearance, the first British women’s champion for 44 years, and the youngest for more than 60." Telegraph. "Raducanu's performance at the U.S. Open had already made history even before her win: she competed as a qualifier, and was the first qualifier in either men's or women's tennis to even make it the finals of a Grand Slam tournament, according to CNN." NPR. "The 18-year-old had become the first qualifier in either men's or women's tennis to reach a grand slam final -- and now, she has become the first qualifier to win one." CNN (coincidentally enough). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "That's it" is not true. There are sources that don't use the qualifier. We can be confident it's an Open Era record and I'm sure the WTA is digging into if it ever happened, just like we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined (after that googlefest) to go with the unqualified statement, with (let's say) three of those (or other!) sources to back it up. OTOH, there's no fire, so if people want to wait a while to see if reliable sources need to find a ladder to climb down (just as we're evidently waiting in case Ian Răducanu suddenly wakes up screaming that he's not actually Ian Răducanu at all), it's not a terrible thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

My comment of 'that's it' was to say that the sources should be followed regarding the inclusiong of 'Open era'. It is original research and speculation to wonder why journalists have included or not included 'the Open era'. Instead it is the sources that should be it - that's it. Hope I have made my point a bit clearer (as I realise it wasn't crystal). If the sources say both, as it appears they do, then it is up to editors to reach consensus about the inclusion of 'the Open era' or not. Robynthehode (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has done -- or suggested doing -- anything other than following the sources, so your "it is original research" comments could stand to be clarified further -- it's not. Where sources differ, whether in substance or wording, it's necessary to be able to discuss how to best some them up (or which to use and which not to), and it's unhelpful to punctuate such discussions with wild accusations that other editors are violating Wikipedia policy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

109.255.211.6. Okay engaging in or suggesting ways of resolving the discussion that involve (in my eyes anyway) original research (your comment re the origins of the majors) is going against Wikipedia protocols. Please do not accuse me of 'wild accusations' I have merely read yours and Fyunck(click) comments above and concluded that part of the comments are suggesting original research. I may have, of course, misinterpreted the intentions or meaning of those comments but 'wild accusations'?. May I suggest you take the Wikipedia protocol 'in good faith' a bit more seriously Robynthehode (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I take that guideline entirely seriously, as I do the previously mentioned policy. But if you're repeatedly accusing people of having broken a Wikipedia policy, without any actual evidence whatsoever that's the case, then that seems to me to be done pretty wildly, albeit -- no doubt -- in good faith. If you've a specific objection to any proposed edit, or any proposed rationale for an edit, it'd be helpful to be a little more specific than simply telling us you've 'concluded' it's OR.

Any chance you could address the substance of the matter as regards how best to summarise the large number of partly conflicting sources on qualifiers winning Majors? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Ian (native loan)"

If "native loan" in reference to ER's father's name means something at all, it needs to be explained. I could not see anything in the reference given (at least not in Google translation). Davidships (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No idea either so I dumped it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It likely wasn't "loan" (as in lending) but the Romanian male name Ioan (starting with a capital i), which could very likely be anglicised to Ian. But if it wasn't in the source then it shouldn't be here, and this article is about Emma, not her parents. From the look of the talk page, this is going to be example 999,999,999 on Wikipedia of a celebrity from the West being claimed by a smaller country from her ancestry. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Other sources have his given name(s) as Catalin *Ion* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002797/Raducanus-grandmother-Niculina-88-reveals-heartfelt-advice-gave-tennis-star.html --Richj1209 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I've just seen the (rather extensive) discussion on Ian/Ion... --Richj1209 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that one, thanks. (And condolences for having to read the, as you say, 'extensive' discussion on this.) That tends to more-or-less (give or take the exact spelling of the first-first name) confirm a BLPPRIVACY-dubious source that was offered up regarding his full (original) name. But the Mail isn't considered a Reliable Source on Wikipedia, so I'm afraid it's not directly usable either. While it's tempting to say something like "Ian Raducanu (originally Ion Răducanu)", that's slightly more than we can verify without straying into unreliable sources, OR, or SYNTH, I fear. (Depending on how useful or usable Romanian sources are, potentially.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

winning major tournament on second appearance

The statement in the provided source(s) is that Raducanu is the first woman to win a Major title at her second attempt. In fact it seems she's the first player, man or woman. Kuerten and Wilander (and possibly one other) managed it in three Slam tournaments played, which is the best among men. Are there any sources that have also noticed this? Per WP:NOR I haven't added this to the article, until a source exists that supports this.Jimthree60 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there might be: is Sporting Life a RS? "Two months on from her impressive Wimbledon debut ending in emotional circumstances due to breathing difficulties in the second set of a fourth-round match with Ajla Tomljanovic - before taking farcical stick from the likes of Piers Morgan and John McEnroe - the history-making 18-year-old is now the first player to win a Grand Slam at just the second attempt." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Make sure you say "Open Era" because there have been female players that have won a major title on their first attempts and/or second attempts. This is only since 1968 so it is not some historical record. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Which worsens the verification problem, as that source doesn't offer that qualification on their claim, and so are either being rather sloppy in their fact-checking, or a little loose in their terminology. As discussed in an earlier section, it's not always entirely obvious how way-back-when sources are being when they say "a slam" or "a major". Post-1968 (or post-1923, or post-who-knows) might be understood. I'd be very much inclined to wait for a better source on this before making any stronger claim -- and what we currently have maybe needs additional ones. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We may have missed our window for finding a source, since clearly the story was most relevant last week and maybe will slip under the radar. It's perhaps a niche record that people didn't think to track so closely before, hence the ambiguity. I agree that it's better not to insert it into the article for the time being, but recording it on this talk page for posterity in case anybody wants to follow-up on it in future still works. Would that some site other than wikipedia had a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all the tennis records Emma has broken! I did edit the claim a little to try and clarify that it's "second major tournament" rather than "a given major tournament on the second attempt", which seemed to be an ambiguity. Jimthree60 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Was Becker's 1985 Wimbledon win his third Major entered also? You may have missed your window for now, but probably not forever. The statisticians will be grinding away over the winter to have talking points for presenters for next year's tournaments! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Record against top 10 players

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that the Record against top 10 players is a bit ambiguous. I respect the fact that without the WTA COVID rankings Bencic and Sakkari likely would have been within the top 10, but Raducanu has not yet met, let alone beat, a player who was ranked within the top 10 when she played them - the four players listed in the section are Sloane Stephens, Belinda Bencic, Paula Badosa and Maria Sakkari, who were ranked 67, 12, 130, and 18 respectively. The only other article that I can see this section on is Leylah Fernandez, and both include players that weren't in the top 10 when they played. I'm not sure if it's a particularly useful section from a statistics comparison and Raducanu's achievements stand on their own without it. Any thoughts? Bonoahx (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonoahx: If it doesn't appear as standard in tennis bios, maybe ask whoever added it why they did it. Is it something the women's tennis project is starting to add, or is it based on a different kind of sportsperson bio? I can't imagine someone just deciding to add these tables on two articles, but maybe they did. Kingsif (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can do some digging. Thanks for the input! Bonoahx (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This section is very common/ standard in the career statistics pages of tennis players, Emma and Leylah are yet to have that section split off into a separate article like more established players, you can see the section in Maria Sakkari, Paula Badosa, Belinda Bencic, Sloane Stephens, Garbiñe Muguruza, Dominic Thiem and Daniil Medvedev's career statistics pages for example. Ym2X (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ym2X: Oh I see, I didn't check the career stats articles for other players so was unaware it was a standard thing - in that case it makes sense to me now. Thanks for the links and explanation! Bonoahx (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Wins a Grand Slam singles title in their second major main draw appearance" - sourced entry

This claim is sourced, where it states "This is just Raducanu’s second grand slam main draw appearance and no woman in the Open era had ever won in so few attempts". The Margaret Court contains an admittedly large list of accomplishments - but none of them meet this criteria. As per WP:BRD - can you provide some evidence that Court beat Raducanu in this feat? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That edit appears to have been reverted; it seems the user who made it confused "first in Open Era to win a Grand Slam in second major main draw appearance" (Raducanu's achievement) with "first in Open Era to win two Grand Slams" (which it seems Court was). Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I know it was reverted - it was me who reverted it. But given that the other editor then saw fit to insert again I thought it polite to ask why they were doing so - and lend credence to the "D" part of "BRD". Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it an edit dispute when there is obvious misreading of a factual statement, rather than conflict over inclusion? Presumably making the editor aware they misread the statement is the simple solution, and one they seemed to accept before this section was opened. Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Who knows? There was no way to know that the other editor had accepted the correction as you infer, because both reversion and discussion were opened at the same time. Could be that the other participant had some genuine knowledge that supported their stance. You just can't win sometimes - You get lambasted for ignoring BRD, then as soon as you try to engage the D part to understand why an edit was made and give others the opportunity to rationalise - you get criticised for that as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this for any bad criticism; over-discussion of non-disputes only bog down talk pages and can make others think that every nook and cranny needs discussion. A simple reading error may have been better pointed out to the user at their talkpage, as it is not actually an issue with this article (such a mistake could have been made about anything, anywhere, and doesn't need to be recorded for future editors or discussed with other topical editors). Kingsif (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're the one over-discussing it, and to say that the error "is not actually an issue with this article" is ridiculous. Once again - the original editor had already re-inserted even after it had been pointed out that the original information was correct therefore to move to discussion is not only sensible, but required by BRD. Given that the discussion wasn't even directed at you, it seems bizarre that you're now worrying about bogging-down talk pages, when if you'd just ignored and moved on we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. You're creating the very issue that you seem to be trying to avoid. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought you'd agree that starting a discussion was unnecessary and close it. But you reply otherwise, so I try to convince you. No need to get mad. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If I thought discussion was unnecessary, I wouldn't have started it in the first place - I like discussions as they eliminate any potential ambiguity and/or misunderstandings. There is no need to close discussions. Just stop responding. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)