Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Court

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.141.124.77 (talk) at 01:20, 27 March 2012 (→WTA ranking?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Image required

"...with their image placed on a postage stamp of Australia as seen here."

There is no link or image. (I failed to turn one up with a quick web search.) Molinari 00:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Surely EVERY time Court won the US Mixed Doubles Title except for one the score couldn't have been 0-6, 6-4, 6-4 ?? !!! That is TOO MUCH of a coincidence to be correct . No score could be the same so often not 7 times !! - particularly such an unusual score . I think this has somehow been duplicated . I DO KNOW and can verify for certain that a 0-6, 6-3, 6-4 score is correct for the LADIES DOUBLES of 1969 when Court and her partner Viginia Wade were beaten by the brilliant and for once only partnership of Francoise Durr and Darlene Hard . The second set was 6-3 though NOT 6-4 . So NEARLY correct on that one . This wrong score then seems to have been copied numerous times down the list - How could ALL those US mixed wins except the first one be by that most unusual score ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.30.86 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Court's Reputation

I am posting this here as a question ...

I was very much into women's tennis for decades, from the 70's through the 90's. However, I never heard Margaret Court talked about as the greatest woman player of all time. Indeed, I often got the feeling that Court wasn't that highly regarded by her peers and by critics (in terms of her talent and performance).

Did I just get the wrong impression, or is there some reason why Court isn't considered the greatest player of all time? Or is she? I'd love to hear your comments.--Caleb Murdock 01:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she's the greatest of all time is a matter of opinion. However, she was extremely highly regarded by her peers and the tennis-loving public during her time and for years later. How could she not be respected when you look at achievements such as:
  • more Grand Slam titles (62) than any other person, male or female. Martina Navratilova, for all the incredible hype that surrounded her astounding career, managed only 59
  • more Grand Slam singles titles (24) than any other person. The next best was Steffi Graf (22)
  • more Grand Slam mixed doubles titles (19) than any other person. The next best was Doris Hart (15)
  • one of only 5 people to win a calendar-year singles Grand Slam (1970). She is in such exalted company as Don Budge, Maureen Connolly, Rod Laver and Steffi. Maybe Roger Federer will join them in 2007, who knows. Quite a select bunch.
  • won two calendar-year mixed doubles Grand Slams (1963, with the same partner; 1965, with 3 different partners)
  • one of only three people to win a career "boxed set" of Grand Slam titles in all categories (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) at all 4 championships (the other 2 were Doris Hart and Martina N.)
  • shares the record of 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles titles with Maureen Connolly and Martina N.
That her star was waned from the public spotlight has more to do with her choice to become a minister of religion and no longer seek the limelight; not to mention the fickleness of the sporting media which is all about "the next big thing", who's making news right now, and referring to retired players, absurdly, as "former greats". Her achievements made her great, and no passage of time can ever change that.
Not to mention that she came from Albury, NSW, upon the relevance of which I am prevented by modesty from elaborating. JackofOz 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above assessment. Women's tennis, especially, suffers from a lack of respect of the 120+ year history of the women's game. Personality and looks count for too much (think Anna Kournikova, Maria Sharapova). And for those who degrade Court for (gasp) playing part of her career before the Open era: that's like saying Babe Ruth's homers shouldn't count, because he came before Jackie Robinson. In reality, it was not her fault and she showed that, in the Open era, she could beat anyone, professional or amateur. Only Steffi Graf has also won the calendar-year grand slam in women's tennis, although Martina Navratilova won what would have counted if the Australian Open hadn't been shifted to Dec. 1983 instead of Jan 1984.Ryoung122 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 Done - article moved per consensus. Neıl ☎ 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed "Margaret Court"

The article should be renamed to Margaret Court. That is what she is most commonly known as, that is what the tennis arena was called,[1] and that is what she calls herself.[2] Peter Ballard 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She does call herself Court these days because that's her husband's name and she's no longer in the tennis limelight. However, she's notable for one thing and one thing only - her tennis career. Had that career never happened, we wouldn't have an article on her at all. For most of the entire period of that career she was known as "Margaret Smith". Towards the end, after she married, she became "Margaret Court". As this is an article about a tennis player, if we're going to go to one surname it should be "Smith" rather than "Court". But it's quite standard for married female sportspeople who change their names to refer to them as <first name> <original surname> <married surname>, eg. Chris Evert Lloyd, Melinda Gainsford Taylor, et al. I don't see a case for changing the article, sorry. -- JackofOz 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever other female sportpeople call themselves is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) is clear: "But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under." "Margaret Smith" is an interesting choice but she married about halfway through her career (not right at the end like, say, Shirley Strickland), so she is much better known as "Margaret Court" and won many titles under that name. The tennis arena is "Margaret Court Arena", the Australia Post stamp called her "Margaret Court", as do any other number of good sources I might find. And she calls herself "Margaret Court". I think it's a pretty clear cut case. Peter Ballard 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with "Margaret Court" - she may have been known to many at that time as Margaret Smith, but when she makes her biweekly pronouncements against whatever she's pronouncing against or running a 40-strong rally outside Parliament House in Perth, it's always as Margaret Court. She's been known as that for at least two decades, probably a fair bit more. As a curiosity, I went to school with her kids. Orderinchaos 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As another curiosity, I grew up in Albury, where Margaret Smith (as she then was) played amateur tennis. At one match that my Mum attended, Smith lost her cool during a match, and flung her racquet away, which landed in the crowd, right in my Mum's lap. Smith came up to retrieve her racquet, and apologised to Mum for her behaviour. -- JackofOz 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no further discussion, do I take that as consensus? I propose renaming it in a day or two. Peter Ballard 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, there is no consensus to change the name of this article. Tennis expert 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what arguments are there against moving it? The argument for moving is pretty clear: (a) WP policy is to use the name by which she is most commonly known; (b) She is most widely known as Margaret Court. Peter Ballard 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was stated above. But as this is a borderline case, I won't be expressing any further objections to the proposed move. -- JackofOz 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that she is "most widely known as Margaret Court"? And there are hundreds of references in WP to "Margaret Smith Court," which is irrefutable evidence of no consensus among WP editors to shorten her name. I strenuously object to renaming this article. There is no consensus to do so. Tennis expert 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be moved. http://www.margaretcourt.org.au/ is evidence that is what she is known as and is what she wishes to be known as. A simple Google test shows "Margaret Court" an comfortable winner. —Moondyne 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What WP editors call her is irrelevant. What is relevant is what name she is best known as in the real world. She calls herself Margaret Court. Tennis Australia called the arena "Margaret Court Arena". The Australia Post stamp called her "Margaret Court". (See refs above for those). Take a look at the 4 external links in the main article: all call her "Margaret Court" either exclusively or at least for part of the article; and none call her "Margaret Smith Court". I think it is obvious that she is best known as "Margaret Court". Peter Ballard 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, consensus is relevant to you at 02:35 today but not at 12:30 today. And what is "obvious" to you is not necessarily proof. Tennis expert 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is always relevant to me. What I was saying is that when answering the question, "what name is this person most widely known under?", we look in the real world, not just WP pages. Peter Ballard 03:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real world examples of "Margaret Smith Court": International Tennis Hall of Fame [3]; Encarta encyclopedia [4]; Encyclopedia Brittanica [5]; U.S. Open [6]; USAToday[7]; The Tennis Channel [8]; Reuters [9]; CBS (American television network) [10]; Wimbledon [11]; ESPN [12]; New York Times [13]; Sydney Morning-Herald [14]; BBC [15]. There are many others. Tennis expert 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Those real world examples are not as reliable as Court herself or Tennis Australia or Australia Post. Because reporters make mistakes. When you name a tennis centre, or produce a stamp, you are more careful. In any case, your examples are flawed:

  • International Tennis Hall of Fame [16] - Wrong. It calls her "Margaret Court-Smith" and "Margaret Court". It never calls her "Margaret Smith Court"
  • Encarta encyclopedia [17] - true.
  • Encyclopedia Brittanica [18] - Inconclusive - also calls her "Margaret Court". A sloppy article which can't even decide what her name is.
  • U.S. Open [19]; - Cherry picked - according to google, usopen.org uses "Margaret Smith Court" 13 times and "Margaret Court" 13 times, so that site is inconclusive.
  • USAToday[20]; Cherry picked - usatoday.com has "Margaret Smith Court" 49 times and "Margaret Court" 80 times, so that site slightly favours "Margaret Court".
  • The Tennis Channel [21] - Inconclusive. The heading says "Margaret Smith Court", but the text says "Margaret Court".
  • Reuters [22]; - Cherry picked - reuters.com has "Margaret Smith Court" 10 times and "Margaret Court" 18 times, so that site slightly favours "Margaret Court".
  • CBS (American television network) [23] - True - google results favour M.S.C. 12-4.
  • Wimbledon [24] - Cherry picked - wimbledon.org overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 32 to 2.
  • ESPN [25] - Cherry picked - espn.go.com favours "Margaret Court", 134 to 118.
  • New York Times [26] - Inconclusive and Cherry picked - the article uses both, and in any case nytimes.com favour MC 685 to 67
  • Sydney Morning-Herald [27] - Cherry picked - smh.com.au overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 81 to 5.
  • BBC [28] - - Cherry picked - bbc.co.uk overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 155 to 18.

So of the 13 examples you offered, only 2 favour "Margaret Smith Court". Many of them are cherry picked and actually favour "Margaret Court". "Margaret Court" is her name, it is the name she has used for over 40 years. It is supported by the best sources. Peter Ballard 08:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the International Tennis Hall of Fame article? You must not have, as here's a quotation for you from the very first sentence: "For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment there has never been a tennis player to match Margaret Smith Court." As for the consensus issue, here is what you said first: "There's been no further discussion, do I take that as consensus?" Ten hours later, you said this: "What WP editors call her is irrelevant." I see no logical way to reconcile these statements. Tennis expert 05:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the HOF article is Inconclusive, because I admit that first sentence, I only checked the title ("Margaret Court-Smith", LOL), then scanned. Also I admit Britannica and The Tennis Channel slightly favour MSC. So 5 of your 13 sources favour MSC, 8 favour MC. What is signficant is the 5 are all American. The Australian sources (and the BBC) overwhelmingly favour MC, as do a few of the US sources.
Correction: usopen.org was tied 13-13, so that's 5.5 for MSC, 7.5 for MC. But I still stand by my point that the best sources - those closest to her - call her MC. smh.com.au hugely favours MC, as do other mainstream Australian news sources like abc.net.au and news.com.au (all with ratios about 10:1). Peter Ballard 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding consensus, I was talking about different things. When I said "What WP editors call her is irrelevant" it was in determining the answer to the WP guideline "what name is this person most widely known under?". In that case we look in the real world, not just WP pages. Peter Ballard 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled "Margaret Court Smith" and then the lead para confusingly says "Margaret Smith Court". From then on she referred to simply as "Court" ((six times). I'd say the inconsistency there says a lot about that HOF editor. —Moondyne 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening this move discussion by placement of the move template at the top of this section as well as listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Moondyne 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that only two reasons were given to oppose the move, and both have been answered:
1. "That the naming convention <first name> <original surname> <married surname> is quite standard." I pointed out that WP is not bound by this standard and WP policy is to call a person by her most common name. This argument has not been raised since and I think it is fair to say no one is advocating it now.
2. "Margaret Smith Court is actually her more common name". I think I answered that convincingly above on 31-Oct and 1-Nov.
In conclusion, I think there are no outstanding reasons not to rename. "Margaret Court" is what she is most commonly called, and what she calls herself. Article should be renamed "Margaret Court". Peter Ballard (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that 1 or two new people can weight in with their views also. —Moondyne 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from every other reason not to rename this article, there is not and never has been consensus to rename it. Tennis expert (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't know what Tennis expert's idea of consensus is, but it is not necessarily represented but unanimous agreement. I count 3-1 in favour of the move, with sound arguments presented to do so. Perhaps he/she could summarise for us the arguments to keep the current name. —Moondyne 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mothers Day

Merely mentioning that the Bobby Riggs match took place on Mothers Day, without further context, is an invitation to regard this as a piece of apparently useless trivia, and remove it, as I did. On the other hand, if Tennis Expert's edit summary "one of the leading theories for Court's debacle against Riggs was the match being played on Mother's Day. Riggs used that against Court" is correct, it needs to be included, with a citation. -- JackofOz 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four years on, I've fixed it by removing the apparently irrelevant Mother's Day. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style of play

The article is overflowing with facts attesting to her skill, tirelessly enumerating her victories, but there is nothing at all describing her style of play. What was it that made her so successful on the court? Some material on this would be nice. Pimlottc 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded CSMR (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - as requested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jankovic

Why is the quote about Jankovic pertinent in a Smith-Court article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Court not Smith - Court. Some women DO respect marriage and their husbands and do not hyphenate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.176.26 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about Jankovic but what you removed are well referenced remarks regarding Smith-Court's views about homosexuality.--JD554 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it warrants a separate section in the biography. How about this for a compromise? I referenced her support rather then the tabloid style "he said, she said". If we are going to add controversial quotes for Tennis players, then the articles here would be stuffed with them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that compromise--JD554 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. Given Court's athletic career, what Court said about Martina Navratilova and other lesbian tennis players is very relevant and should be kept in this article. If anything, Court's opinions about Western Australia legislation are less relevant than what she said about tennis players. Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Living in the same city as Court, I was unaware that she "campaigned" over the issue. I wonder if the SMH journalist has taken some license with a view she held and espoused as a preacher and comments she'd made years before. That word may be too strong a term and gives a false impression of the reality. Also, I don't think that "ruining the sport and setting a bad example for younger players" is a quote but is more likely something paraphrased from what she meant from one of the cited news articles. And certainly a whole section devoted to the issue seems like overkill. But I agree with TE that the emphasis would be more appropriate on what she said about other players. Perhaps something along the lines of: "In 1990 Court accused Martina Navratilova of being a bad role model for young female players. 12 years later, in 2002 when asked about Damir Dokic's concern about his daughter Jelena being exposed to lesbians, she said 'homosexuals commit "sins of the flesh" and can be "changed", and that when the open tennis era came in "there was quite a lot of it in there"'." WP:Undue weight applies here. —Moondyne 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While not changing my opinion about the relevance of her opinion concerning Western Australia legislation, she DID campaign about this issue. For example, I recently found and read a transcript of a radio interview program where Court fiercely debated the proponents of the legislation. You can find it pretty easily through Google. Tennis expert (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean this. But as I said, an appearance in a current affairs tv panel show is not quite 'campaigning', more expressing a view. Anyway, the more important issue is what goes in the article. —Moondyne 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tennis expert for choosing to take it to the talk page rather then simply reverting. I appreciate that you've chosen to respect consensus rather then overriding with your own POV. I agree with Moondyne that the new section is given undue weight. Why not for example, have a section on her her Christian Ministry work and corresponding quotes and citations, which have surely taken up a much larger portion of her time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because her Christian ministry work is not notable even if it is noble. Given her tennis achievements, her views about homosexuality in tennis ARE notable. I couldn't care less about the Western Australia legislative controversy. I didn't add that originally. I simply copyedited it and added/corrected the citations. I'm reverting your article deletions until consensus develops. As you know, you made the deletion without gaining that consensus first. Tennis expert (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just about numbers

I'm not knocking Court's achievements but I feel mention should be made in the article that many of her Grand Slam titles came (for obvious reasons)in the Australian Open, which at the time she was competing did not attract a world-class entry field, to put it mildly. The best players in the world simply didn't make the trip down under in any great numbers. Although Navratilova's total of 58 GS titles is four short of Court's, by the time she was competing, the situation was very different and Navratilova faced much stiffer opposition. I think few would place Court above Navratilova taking that into consideration.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such observations would violate WP:NPOV, to put it mildly. Tennis expert (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite tag

Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? Exaggerated edit summaries don't help anyone, wouldn't you agree? Tennis expert (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of 2012 Australian Open protest to this page

Some users have attempted to delete from this page the following information about the 2012 Australian Open protest of Court's views on homosexuality:

In January 2012, Court's views prompted the creation of a Facebook group, “Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena,” which urged spectators to display rainbow-colored gay pride banners at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open. Kerryn Phelps, former president of the Australian Medical Association and one of Australia’s most influential gay spokeswomen, called on the state Government of Victoria and Tennis Australia to drop Court’s name from the 6,000-seat show court arena that is named in her honour. Tennis Australia said in a statement that although it respects Court’s playing record as "second to none … her personal views are her own, and are definitely not shared by Tennis Australia." In response, Court asserted that the tennis was no place for a gay rights protest and confirmed to Reuters News that she remains "staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage."

The reasons given on the 'revision history' page for its exclusion are:

  • The article is about Court, not Tennis Australia's views.
  • Everyone has a facebook page, and this article is about Ms Court. What was there is sufficient.
  • Random facebook pages don't get coverage in BLP's

I contend that the information is clearly relevant to the subject of Court's views on homosexuality. This is illustrated by the fact that Court herself has made several public responses to the planned protest, which once again revolved around her opposition to homosexuality. As is noted in the text, she "...confirmed to Reuters News that she remains "staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage.""

These comments, and the context in which they took place (the planned protest), were widely reported in the news media. It has been reported on hundreds of news sites worldwide. It seems rather absurd to me this page would not have any information whatsoever about the protest given 1) its direct relevance to Court's public views on homosexuality and 2) the very wide extent of its reporting internationally, all of which has linked the protest to Court's views on homosexuality.

The fact that the protest itself was generated from a facebook page strikes me as being no good reason for excluding the entire paragraph. It is the protest itself and its relevance to the subject which is important, not the particular means by which it was generated.

The views of Tennis Australia (and Kerryn Phelps) were again widely reported and are directly linked to the subject of Court's views on homosexuality. Indeed the quoted passage from Tennis Australia explicitly references Court's "personal views [on homosexuality]". The opposition to Court's views made by other female tennis players is already included within the article, and I don't see how responses made by Tennis Australia and Phelps are any less relevant. Edelmand (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the protest, and the Tennis Australia position. I hadn't heard of the Facebook page until reading this. My news came from mainstream media. Don't show a Facebook obsession. It won't ever go over well here. There's far too much rubbish there. Stick to mainstream news sources. The same message can be delivered. So, include the news. Forget Facebook. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to amend the sentence as follows: "In January 2012, Court's views prompted the creation of a protest group which urged spectators to display rainbow-colored gay pride banners at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open." Edelmand (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This part sounds fine. The rest, just because you have a source doesn't mean it belongs in a Margaret Court article. There are plenty of sources that say what good she has done in the community but we don't add those either, nor should we. This is not a newspaper or Gay pride periodical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just one source - hundreds of news sites worldwide. Mainstream news websites, not Gay pride periodicals. They are reliable sources containing information which directly pertains to the topic. If there are plenty of reliable sources reporting what charity work Court has done in aid of the community, then I would argue that this subject would warrant a separate mention in the article. But I can't find them. The issue of her charity work has no relevance to the discussion concerning her views on homosexuality. Edelmand (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Something like that should help keep the peace. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the page accordingly Edelmand (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be put in a "controversy" section. There are enough reliable media reports about this controversy to support its mention in this article. But I would wait to include anything about rainbow-colored banners at the Margaret Court Arena until such a protest action actually happens and gathers significant media attention. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no a thousand times no. Not a controversy section. They're one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. Keep the various aspects of this particular story in one place. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is something we better get right because it is contentious material about a living person. I have put a question about it on the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Margaret_Court_views_on_homosexuality
MakeSense64 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We also have some fairly major WP:UNDUE issues here. This isn't a minor player, she's the most decorated ever and we have at least ten percent of her article dealing with these recent dustups over her views on homosexuality. That's both undue and WP:RECENTISM given this is the only thing she's been in the news for lately. This mess is a drop in the bucket of her overall life, and RECENTISM addresses this point right in the lead, as a problem to have "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." Courcelles 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's because of her fame and success as a tennis player that Court's views on homosexuality gained the coverage they did. I'm sure she knew they would (she's not stupid!), and was happy for that to occur. And this isn't just a protest by a few ratbags. It's big. It led Tennis Australia, the organisers of one of the world's top four tournaments, to issue a public rebuttal of her views. I understand both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, and I don't think they apply here. Court has deliberately made this issue a very public one. And the tennis community has picked up the ball. (No pun intended.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there is major UNDUE weight problem here. That's also why I posted the question on the BLP noticeboard. Not only is the section too long, but it is put ahead of the tennis information, and that's what she is most famous for. For example on the Rafael Nadal article I see the "personal life" section put at the end of the article after his tennis career, and I think that makes sense. We should have this section in the article, but it is not because M. Court manages to make some noise by repeating her personal views every two years, that we should add another paragraph about it every two years. We can summarize it into one or two paragraphs. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing about undue weight. Her bio leans a bit too much on her homosexual thoughts. Yes she spoke out about it and we need to encompass that, but it's pretty much in line with the Catholic Church and 1/2 the USA. She does accept gays into their faith and she has some in her Parrish. But they are absolutely against gay marriage. You are right I think... about every two years some comments are made and we keep on adding it. I think you should summarize it but since it is a volatile subject we should have more source links than normal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already pointed out, and seemingly been ignored by the last two posters (I'm always suspicious of motivations when key pints of an argument are ignored - maybe they're really good points!), that this is NOT just an every two year event. This was the time Tennis Australia felt it necessary to make a public statement opposing her views. That to me makes this more important this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an every two year event. There is always some group opposed or in favor of things... this time it's Tennis Australia. But this is a Margaret Court article, not a Tennis Australia or even Australia Open article. Things need to be in proportion. This event is mentioned and sourced but how many sentences to apply to a "Margaret Court" article is what we are talking about. You aren't being ignored we are just looking at a bigger picture than you are it seems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least commenting on that point. Surely it's significant that this time the (quite formal) opposition is not from an activist group, but a body that would not normally be expected to comment on such matters. I agree that the quantity of material needs to be managed well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the incident has been mentioned. And let's not call them the opposition... they said their view is not her view. I have different views from my friends all the time without being the opposition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTA ranking?

There reads: Court also was ranked No. 1 for 1973, when the official rankings were produced by the Women's Tennis Association.
However, according to List of WTA number 1 ranked players, the rankings started only in November 1975. 82.141.124.77 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Court&oldid=484107143"