Talk:Serena Williams/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Battle of sexes

I am continuing to wonder why there is still a dedicated section on an exhibition match. The references are poorly cited and are not accessible for fact-checking; it is as if the section is written in an anecdotal manner. If anything, it seems it was written purposely to shed poor light on Serena and Venus, at a time when they were just bursting onto the scene. Please consider removing or reassessing the section unless credible references are made available to our readers. 2607:FEA8:5A40:162:4C4D:CF6F:5012:DE8B (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussions are in the talk page archives. And it is not a dedicated section, it's a subsection. It used to be much longer in a subsection just above controversies. It also used to be longer and smack dab in the middle of her 1998 professional stats, which could confuse readers. As a smaller subsection it works pretty well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This section is now being used to degrade Williams based on recent comments made by John McEnroe saying "she would be ranked around 700 if she played with the men". So it seems the people who want to minimize Williams' accomplishments and shed poor light on her (as many, many people have said) have gotten their wish.Svrodgers (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Was something recently changed in this small paragraph? I didn't see it in the history but I certainly could have missed something. As for outside newspapers commenting on McEnroe's musings, it looks like the reputable ones use the original sourcing... not Wikipedia. I would have no idea why any real journalism would use wikipedia as a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many vs. Some

I'm confused as to why Serena Williams is not afforded the same type of respect Federer is shown on Wikipedia. It is a fact that just as many people view her as the greatest female/overall tennis player of all time, but she is only given the title of "some" commentators analysts, etc. There are ample sources to provide to back this claim up, but they are shot down with no real reasoning behind it. Can someone explain the difference between the two cases? Svrodgers (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Two things. Federer should also say "some", and I've tried to get it changed to that. And it is not a fact that just as many people view her as the female goat. God I hate ceib (current era is best) from sportswriters. It has plagued tennis throughout it's 150 year history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Serena vegan?

The article recently included a paragraph about Serena being vegan. The link was old and I couldn't pull it up anyway (I don't know why). I've read many articles and seen videos of Serena eating meat-based products and flat out meat. However, this article confirms she is not vegan or even vegetarian. There is some evidence that she eats "clean" during tournaments.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Greatness RfC that may affect this article

Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Blatant misogyny

Serena has won a record 23 singles majors in the Open Era. This means she is unequivocally, unquestionably a superior tennis player to Federer (20), Nadal (17), Sampras (14), Djokovic (12), Borg (11) and so on. Her status as "the greatest" was qualified with a sneering "female" after it, so I have removed the term. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Titles don't tell the whole story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, yes they do. Within the game of tennis, Serena Williams has had more success than anyone else. Therefore, she's the greatest. There's no debate to be had. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but in order for it to be included in this encyclopedia it needs to be sourced. Once you've done that and convinced others here, it can be inserted. Until then you don't get your way until discussion is done. Easing off on the attitude may also help bring others round to your way of thinking.

WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, Ayrton Senna is often considered the greatest F1 driver in history, despite being ranked 5th for actual F1 wins. Titles are not everything. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not "opinion". It's fact referred to as opinion because the patriarchal Wikipedia won't allow a woman to be correctly regarded as the greatest. This is really disgusting. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Where did you ever get the idea that tiles are everything? Different decades different events were important to tennis players. Timespan on winning titles is also important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

And per the latest consensus, we are not to use "greatest of all time" in the lead. It's been removed from Federer also. We simply say "one of the greatest players of all-time" or one of the best. GOAT is a very subjective term to be avoided in encyclopedias. This was discussed at Rod Laver and listed on this talk page during the discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, why can't we call Serena simply "one of the greatest players of all-time", without the sexist qualifier? The article is protected, so all I can do is ask you not to be part of the problem, and to do the right thing. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what is supposed to be there per consensus. That change would require no "female" term qualifier, is easy to source, and is not such a subjective phrase. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly contend that Serena has had more success than anyone else. She does not hold the record of grand slam titles in singles or either of the doubles variants, let alone overall. In fact, she's only joint-third in overall grand slam titles. Moreover Doris Hart, Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova all collected a boxed set of Grand Slam titles (Court even collected two complete sets), which Serena hasn't done. Lastly, she doesn't even hold the record of singles titles at any of the four grand slam tournaments, which even puts here behind Federer.Tvx1 09:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Women cannot compete with male athletes. She would have no chance against Federer or Nadal, or even any male tennis player in the top 100 on the ATP. This is a fact. If you want an authoritative source, find that interview by John McEnroe where he says as much. Serena is not the greatest of all time if you compare her to men. Not even close. Probably not even in the top 500 of all time. You might not like biology, but it's reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.64.240 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Serena Williams hits.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

my recent changes

I’ve just made three changes in the section "2018: Return to tennis, Wimbledon runner up and return to Top 30" to make it clearer.

Most important, I think, was to add that people thought the #25 seed at Wimbledon was biased *in her favor*. I had a hard time figuring that out from the text as it was before.

The second change was just sentence structure, moving words around.

Later in the section, I removed the part of the quote that (I think) isn’t relevant to the context and may confuse the meaning.

I’m posting these changes here because I may have misunderstood things or policies.--Geke (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a section of her uses of previous cheating

This has been happening recently so I wanted to know, should we make a section to the page of times she has cheated. And I don't mean for her specifically, I think it should be with all athletes who are caught cheating. Chris Roe234 (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Explain? Chris Roe234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That is trivial over the course of an entire career, and I don't believe she has knowingly cheated. Match fixing, drug enhancement... that is cheating and almost all article will say something about that already. To require a section for each and every player is trivial and not worthy of this encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Records section

I wondered if the "Records" section of this page could be tidied up a bit, at the moment it's a little vague on whether or not the records achieved are all-time or open era, I propose having a separate section for verified all-time records, as if we have them all in the same section it becomes a little complicated, as many are difficult to verify for certain due to the lack of sufficient data available, or were only able to be obtained in the open era, such as Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 results; this is why pretty much every other records section for other players contains only those obtained in the open era, with several players having a separate list above for records that are verified as being all-time records. Thetradge (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Greatness

Hello, there's current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#New Guideline Proposal for "Greatest of all time" Mention in Lead Sections about adding GOAT/nicknames to lead sections. Feel free to add your thoughts! on camera 00:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

The part where Wikipedia talks about her religion under personal life. It says "she never really practiced it." I've checked the original source and although she says that, she also says the religion is important to her and she has been wanting to "get into it." That feels important to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.152.154 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

1998 French Open Mixed doubles score was 4-6 4-6, not 3-6 4-6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z35LC_QP-70) Rushscott (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Iffy★Chat -- 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Problems with "Different Strokes" section; no citation, objectivity, wrong location, and notability; deletion?

The Different Strokes section has multiple problems. There is no citation for a what is a relatively large amount of text. There are problems with objectivity, referring to the crowd cheering when she made errors, and describing how she used "mental strength" to win, when all that should be reported are results and notable events. The page location itself is wrong; if it took place during 2002, it should be folded into 2002-2003 "Serena Slam", not between 1998 and 1999. Finally, it has issues with notability, giving a single set of matches in a larger tournament more text than entire tournaments are given. This section seems to have been added by a WikiEducation student in an editing-focused class. The section itself is named after a 2020 book about representation in tennis. I suggest this section be deleted as it isn't notable in an article talking about her career on the tournament level, not match level, and when the outcome of the tournament is already described in a different section. If someone can verify the book and source it, perhaps some of the information regarding audience reaction can be integrated into the proper section. Speakercrab (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The book itself might have useful information, but the only possibly worthwhile thing from this section is the comments on crowd favoritism. Even that is tough to understand from the writing - what does it mean that the crowd "responded to Davenport's unforced errors" and why is that relevant in a Serena-Mauresmo match? If someone has the book and wants to include those details in the relevant part of the 2002 section with a citation, go for it. For now I'm deleting the section entirely. --Shmarrighan (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

In the 2017 section, please change "In interviews, she maintained that she intended to return to tennis after her pregnancy" to "In interviews, she said that she intended to return to tennis after her pregnancy", per WP:DOUBT. There might have been some room for doubt at the time she gave the interview, but there's no doubt now that she did return. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F438:E61F:5563:52E5 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, see Special:Diff/1008349644. Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Doubles Claim

Article states that with Venus Serena is the only female to win gold medals in the Olympics for both singles and doubles “in the history ...”. Well what about Helen Wills (Moody) in 1924. If this is about since tennis was reintroduced as an Olympic sport in 19xx then it should say that otherwise drop this sentence altogether. Antipodenz (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done You are correct and it has been removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time to Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time Arck4848 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ranking (Edit Request)

Serena Williams is ranked 20th in the world as of August 9th, 2021 https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles

 Done It has been corrected. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021 - Table Overflow

Wrap the "Grand Slam tournament performance timeline" table in a div and style the div with "overflow: auto". BlessedOneKobo (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you — LauritzT (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ITF World Champion

Where is the record of the ITF World Champion in this article? Antipodenz (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Active streaks

A number of records are listed with respect to having the Olympic Gold medal (e.g. which allows a period of four years to attain certain 'goals' prior to the following Games). For example Serena won the singles in 2012 so she could achieve certain other 'records' prior to the next games in 2016. They are all listed but a number of these, other than those with a 'matched' player is in bold which means "peer-less achievements". Fair enough except they do not clarify the period in which these records could have been acheived. Because they link the Olympic achievement with the Grand Slam ( four Grandad Slam tournaments) this achievement was impossible when the Olympics were played in the period to 1924. So any Olympic related 'feat' should be qualified to the period in which it was actually possible to achieve. Antipodenz (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Records for most career Grand Slams

The most Titles won at each Major/Grand Slam tournament is 4+ and that is recorded in the Steffi Graf Wikipedia article. As impressive as it is to have won 3+ titles that does not equate to a record and actually implies that that is the highest number achieved. While this entry shows that Steffi Graf and Margaret Court also achieved this it is an achievement, not a record as Graf exceeed this number. Also in Margaret Courts Wikipedia article no such claim for this 'record' is made. It should be removed from this section but is suitable to be recorded elsewhere as a significant achievement. Antipodenz (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Career Golden Slam in Singles and Doubles

Great record but when it makes the point of only player male or female to achieve this it should have a note to make clear this was only possible since 1988. Antipodenz (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It could also have been done in the 1920s. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you do not accept French Open as being a Grand Slam tournament until 1925 and the last official inaclusion of tennis in the Olympics was 1924 (until modern reintroduction) it would not have been possible to win all four major tournaments (as Grand Slam ones) plus the Olympic Games tennis gold medals. Antipodenz (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Antipodenz: You failed to take into account the title of this post... Career Golden Slam. That's not the same as a Golden Grand Slam like Steffi Graf won. Your post here was specific to a career record. So a player that won the 1920 Olympics, the 1923 US Championships, the 1926 French Championships, and 1930 Wimbledon, would achieve the Career Golden Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok good point - wasn't focussed on the 'career' qualification. So I have gone on to the Graf site and requested that be amended, in part, to state that her Golden Slam was only possible since 1988. And any claim for a Career Golden Slam should, at least, note that such a record was only possible since 1925 and that tennis was not an official olympic sport after 1924 until its reintroduction in 1988. Noting however that this is in regards to a singles and doubles combined record it would be better to note that Womens Singles at the Olympics have only been available from 1900-1924 and since 1988 and that Womens Doubles (not including Mixed Doubles) has been available from 1920-1924 and since 1988. Added to this the claim that she became "the third player to win Olympic gold medals at gold medals in both singles and doubles at one Olympic games" is incorrect and would only be correct with qualifications made. In relation to timeframes for holding the Olympic gold and The Grand Slam the term simultaneous is used (meaning at the same time) but the term is misused to include non simultaneous holding of grand slam tournament titles when being the Olympic Champion and the use of simultaneous in relation to the singles and doubles implying the same period when they actually apply to different Olympic Game periods.

Above comment was written by Antipodenz (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

7 titles at 2 grand slam tournaments

This claim is not a record. Helen Wills Moody has 7+ titles in two Grand Slam tournaments (8 for Wimbeldon and 7 for US Open) while Williams has 7 for each. Antipodenz (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done fixed and added Helen Wills. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is fixed. So this is added in because someone looks at the next best record being Chris Evert who has 7 FO and 6 USO and figures out that Williams has 7 each AO and Wimbeldon so gets the record. Except Wills has 7 USO and 8 Wimbeldon which is what 7+ means and why it is better than Williams and thus should not be here as a record. It could be put into Wills article but she doesn't have a specific section or even a table related to her records. Antipodenz (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a different issue. It is now fixed in that it is truthful. Whether it should be there is another matter. There are players that have won four each of the majors.... the extras are no matter as long as the minimum of four is reached. Do I think it should be put there as a record.... nope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for adding Wills. That improves things from being as poorly (that is a considered qualifier - too often additions do not look at the history before claiming something) incorrect as they were but it doesn't resolve this. This remains 'not truthful' because:

- the claim is "7 titles at two different Grand Slams" which applies to Williams but not to Wills; if this was to be correct for both it should state: "A minimum of 7 titles ...."

- even if this is corrected this section is about records which is about the highest attainable and in that Wills has 7+ which exceeds that of Williams (the use of + is widely used in these statistics/comparisons and seems useful here); to draw this out further there are 6 different 'two different GS combinations' and this is the record for the best record for the maximum number for each combination and it makes no sense to say, for example, that Williams achievement of 14 vs 13 (Evert) is a record but her 14 vs 15 (Wills) remains a record for a Williams;

- to comment on your comment four each of the majors - the attainment of each tournament win (career GS) becomes significant when all four are achieved, but, as I have separately commented in this talk section, the idea that the 3 career GS that Williams holds (impressive as that is) is a record is not correct (not truthful if you like) as Graf has 4 career GS - again, if this is recorded separately as an achievement great, but it is not a record. Antipodenz (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess it's semantics here. I would definitely say that Wills won 7 titles at two different majors. I would always use the lowest common denominator as a base. But certainly I agree with you on the Graf Williams data you mention. There are many "records" in this article that are extremely dubious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah well it’s time that got changed. Two reasons for this: - it disrespects other players by claiming something that they actually own the record for (e.g. Wills and Graf) - it, by proxy and unfortunately, disrespects Williams by making her appear to be grasping at records she is not entitled to Antipodenz (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Tier 1 FTC etc records

It should be made explicit here that these records were only available from 1988 (as records in the Open Era women’s singles article). Antipodenz (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cartoonist's comments (ref345) misquoted

Under Match Controversies > Other Issues, article states that "The cartoonist defended his work as his contribution to 'stop by family from being abused,' a reference to Williams defending herself as a wife and mother in her dispute with the umpire." This implies that the cartoon itself was created in response to abuse.

Reference #345 actually states, "[The cartoonist] says he suspended his Twitter account overnight because of abuse towards his family over his cartoon of Serena Williams' US Open tantrum. Knight says he did it to protect his family and friends."

While some of the references do state that Williams accused the umpire of sexism, reference #345 doesn't say that Williams was defending herself as a wife and mother, and there is no other source cited for the claim. Stevey275 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I just edited it to remove the incorrect information.--Shmarrighan (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Rather than stating she’s regarded as one of the greatest “female” tennis players of all time, simply state that she’s regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time, period.

Change “Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time” to “ Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roger-federer-calls-serena-williams-183713199.html 173.66.15.103 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is likely to be a contentious change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead needs condensing

The lead section needs to be condensed, per WP:LEAD and the guide on writing better articles. Right now there is too much tennis trivia there, or at least, information that is only of interest to tennis fans. The section could probably be shrunk down to 2-3 paragraphs. --Elonka 04:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JVO1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wbog.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A17omogb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ndagfc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwands11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Polisci2000. Peer reviewers: Polisci2000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lauradeane3, Claireparker101, Isabelreilly (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Livingstoneag, Phoenixbra, Glazejasmyn, KennedyLundeen.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smsaxe6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 23 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmgonzalezforti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)