Talk:Margaret Court

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm hoping that 1 or two new people can weight in with their views also. —Moondyne 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

What reasons? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. She was Smith, and now she's Court. --DeLarge (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCP. She is most commonly referred to as Margaret Court. I hate to also include my own WP:OR but I have only ever heard her referred to as Margaret Court as well. EJF (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (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.

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)

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)

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)

Seconded CSMR (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - as requested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm happy with that compromise--JD554 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah. Something like that should help keep the peace. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the page accordingly Edelmand (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure on that. The WTA page says it started "Computerized" rankings in Nov 1975. It could likely be that the rankings in 1973 were more informal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Court's views on LGBT rights

Hello there! I recently expanded the section dealing with Court's opinions on homosexual rights, using correctly referenced material. However, almost immediately they were deleted by User:Fyunck(click), with the statement that "way too much undue weight on this subject.. She is a tennis player first and foremost and wouldn't even be listed here if she wasn't.. We touch on the subject but we don't make it a third of the article." Now, I see these as valid criticisms, but as opposed to simply deleting my work, I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss it in a rational argument. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

Right, I'll explain myself. I absolutely concur that Court is a tennis player first and foremost. That is pretty indisputable, and as a result the article should certainly reflect that. However, since the 1990s, and her retirement from the game, her Christian work and social activism (i.e. anti-LGBT rights activism) has easily become the most noteworthy thing in this period of her life. It has attracted media attention, both domestically and abroad, and for this reason should certainly be discussed in the article. I have expanded the section discussing her activism and the criticism that she has received for it, but only to the extent where it takes up three paragraphs (which is hardly a lot in my opinion), and I believe that that is justified because of the media attention that she has attracted.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

No problem. Depending on your screen width, after the intro there are 35 lines of tennis prose, 3 lines on her religion. That's pretty standard. After your homosexual additions there are 14 lines on homosexuality plus the blue infobox homosexuality quote. For a person notable for tennis this is way too much talk on her homosexuality views. She's a Catholic minister.... they all have these views so they're nothing special. It was certainly talked about in Australia but what about the UK, USA and Canada? Pretty much nothing in the USA. This is undue weight for an article this size. The reason it was removed by me quickly is because it was already discussed on this very page three months ago. It is a drop in the bucket when shown against the background of her entire career yet you have made it 1/3 of her bio. Please remove it and see Wikipedia:Recentism. And you have wikipedia protocol backwards. If you add something and it's removed, it stays removed until discussed. Not they other way around. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Court's views on LGBT rights ARE significant because her status as a well known tennis player gives them a much greater level of publicity than those of most other religious ministers. She would obviously realise this, and is clearly not holding back. She takes advantage of her public status from tennis to push her LGBT views. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree her views carry more weight than some but as others before me have said not this much weight in her bio. The average minister isn't here at all and gets zero coverage in an article. Plus it's an English wiki and there has been little notice in the USA and I presume Canada and UK as well. So it's proportional as to what we include. There was info there before (probably more than proper weight already) but since it came from Margaret Court it was reasonable to keep it. But this is way overboard. And I see MB didn't remove it while we discuss so I shall do so now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Three paragraphs is not necessarily undue weight on this issue; the problem here lies in that other sections of this page (regarding her biography and tennis career), are just too short, and too poorly referenced as they currently stand. They really do require much greater work into them at some point if this page is to reach GA and then FA status. I appreciate that that's going to be a lot of work for someone, and I wish them well in doing so. However, regarding the current debate at hand, I am more than willing to concede and edit down the section on Court's LGBT views, for instance by removing the blue quote box, but still think that my additions added some valuable information that was otherwise lacking (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)).

I do agree on that point... this article is way too small. It should be Federer-like in size and we should be fighting to make sure it stays within wiki size limits. If that ever happens this would need re-examining as far as proportion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss the reintroduction of several of the references that I had put in, with some - though not all - of the information that they contained? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Sure but lets talk replacing existing sentences rather than addition. It's quite long enough already and wiki isn't a newspaper, magazine or tabloid. We have:

• Court campaigned against laws proposed and passed by the Government of Western Australia in 2002 that gave same-sex relationships equal legal rights as heterosexual couples.
• On Australian television, she expressed a belief that homosexuality could destroy families.
• In December 2011 Court publicly spoke out against same-sex marriage, stating that "Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take".
• Openly gay tennis players Navratilova, Billie Jean King and Rennae Stubbs criticised Court's comments.
• 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.
• She responded that the tennis court was no place for a gay rights protest.[

to me that's quite sufficient but you have other entries that could easily be switched in place of the existing lines.

• Court has become well known as a consistent critic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage rights in Australia.
• Although stating that she did not hate homosexuals themselves, and includes them in her Parrish, she remarked that she considered homosexuality to be an immoral "choice" that clashed with the will of God as expressed in the Bible.
• Openly homosexual tennis players Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King have criticised Court's comments.
• Court's views also prompted the creation of a protest group at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open.
• Court responded that the tennis court was no place for a gay rights protest proclaiming that "To target me and the tennis is a political stunt."
• Margaret Court's views that homosexuality is a "choice" has been condemned by the Australian Press Council but upheld by the Australian Christian Lobby and some sociologists.

That gets in your key points and we include your links to the actual articles for our wiki readers to follow up and learn more. The amount of extreme detail of what others think is not really needed but we could certainly include some links for others to read. I think this was brought up on this debate at BLP where we also don't want citings on the Navratilova and King articles from people who are disgusted with their lifestyles. It can get to be a tit for tat here. The fact that two prominent players disagree with Court should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about a two paragraph section; the first dealing with Court and her views, and the latter dealing with the response that she has received?

Court has become well known as a consistent critic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage rights in Australia. In 2002 she campaigned against laws proposed and passed by the Government of Western Australia that granted same-sex couples the equal legal rights to opposite-sex couples, and in 2011 publicly spoke out against federal government plans to legalize same-sex marriage. Although stating that she does not hate homosexuals and welcomes them into her congregation, she has publicly expressed her opinion that homosexual activity is a sinful "choice" and that the LGBT community are "aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take".

Court has been criticised for such statements by openly homosexual tennis players Billie Jean King, Rennae Stubbs and Martina Navratilova, the latter of whom called them "truly frightening". An LGBT rights protest group urged spectators to display rainbow gay flag banners at the Margaret Court Arena during the 2012 Australian Open, and called for the renaming of the arena. Court condemned their actions as "a political stunt". Court has also been criticised by the Australian Press Council (APC) for propagating false and "potentially dangerous" information about homosexuality in an article published in the Herald Sun tabloid; in response, the Australian Christian Lobby condemned the APC's decision, declaring it to be a "dangerous precedent against free speech".

How does this work in your opinion ? Best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

I'm not gonna squabble over bits here or there. As long as nothing more gets added (and this gets the correct references) this looks ok to me. Go for it. And people say editors at wiki can never come to a compromise :-). have a great day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your input. :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

Australian Mixed Doubles

What gives with Australian Mixed in 1965 & 1969? According to Wikipedia the finals were not played (why not?) and the title was "shared".

But in this case, should not Mrs Court be shown here as having 21 Mixed titles, bringing her total Major titles to 64?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Court record holder is not in the number of tournaments won in singles.

I would like to ask you how you know that the Supreme Court's winner of the tournament in singles? What if there is a tennis player who won more than 192 tournaments singlových, but did not talk about it? I mean to tennis players who play or senior Wheelchair tennis. Why should one group titles should count and not another? This is the reason why not consider for Court's record holder in this area. Mouchatm 05:00, 4 Oct 2012 (UTC)

Court record holder is not in the number of tournaments won in singles 2.

I want to tell you - the statistics collected in the number of tournament titles (now not talk about the grand slam, those are not affected) are counted only in the open era. Why? Counting all sorts of titles from the period before 1968 in tennis statistics would lead to chaos!! Mouchatm 11:00, 4 Oct 2012 (UTC)

Stir titles is how to mix apples, pears ... in one bag

In tennis, there are three types of records: the first is the Open Era record - this record is only valid for the open era (since 1968), not for the entire tennis history. the other is the historical record - that applies to the entire tennis history (since 1877). and the third record is the historical record, which, however, can only count as open era - it is just a record number of tournaments won. If we wanted to define a classic historical record (Category 2) in the number of tournaments won, we would have to count all the tournaments in which he ever played tennis, and we did not distinguish at all categories - we counted in one bag titles amateur, professional, open, senior, junior exhibition, "just for fun" program. The problem is, however, one considers the tennis tournament. Someone should resent it when added together junior and senior titles with ATP or WTA titles, but he should not mind it, adding a WTA titles with amateur titles (before 1968). Another, however, was the opposite ap. In sum, if we counted all together, making a mess of it. Therefore, we must respect the threshold that we set the organization WTA or ATP - count only the titles of these circuits. Record number of wins WTA tournament is not open era record in the classic sense of the word, is a historical record of the WTA Tour, and the third record category! Mouchatm 15:17, 9 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Court did not win Australian Championships 1965 and Australian Open 1969 in mixed doubles

Just got to the final, which did not take place because of the weather, so it is just a finalist. In tennis, the match and the tournament can be only one winner, not two!! Mouchatm 13:57, 28 Dec 2012 (UTC)

I believe according to the tournament, there are two official winners on record. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The direct authority and organizer of the tournament, the Australian Lawn Tennis Association (a.k.a. Tennis Australia) decided to give the title to all the finalists. So that's not two but all four of them at both finals who can equally claim those year's titles. That is the historical fact. Whether you Muchatm or anybody else rightfully or wrongfully disagrees with TA's decision or not, is a separate matter of ex-post-facto opinion.

Basically this situation is sort of like when soccer teams reach the semi final knockout stage at certain events/certain times and lose to the finalists, both semifinalists are awarded the bronze medal to share it, rather than conduct a "third place final" match between them (which is what happens at other times/other events). Loginnigol (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges here. Look at tennis. Can be used as a precedent situation from the tournament in Monte Carlo in 1981, when the final fought Jimmy Connors and Guillermo Vilas, final, however, did not occur due to rain - as in the case of Australian Championships / Open in 1965 and 1969. mouchatm — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As said, per the sources you are incorrect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious views and ministry---Involvement w/ Kenneth Copeland Ministries.

Very good page. Interesting. Mrs Court and her church are partners with Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, Texas. She is featured on page 26 of the Copeland's just issued "2012 Covenant Partner Report." There is a half-page picture of her on that page and a caption of her discussing her use of KCM teaching materials. This is important info for the above-referenced section.johncheverly 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Comments on Homosexuality

Fyunck (talk · contribs) What discussion is needed? On what basis did you revert the previous seven edits? Cjhard (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm new to this but the recent editing and reversals on this page was pretty juvenile. Can someone tell me when the page will be unlocked so that we can add in the latest update (AGAIN)? PolemiCol (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll note an administrator did so first. We have a bit of an issue of undue weight. What she does now is minuscule compared to her tennis career. As a minister she wouldn't even be notable except for the fact she is one of the greatest female tennis players in history. So if you add something new to the section, to keep things balanced, you should also take something out of the section. Or perhaps quadruple the size of the rest of the article. Try comparing it to Serena William's article since they have many similarities of accomplishments. Serena's lead section is about the same size as Margaret Court's entire career section, and that's just wrong. Even the "Religious views and ministry" section is short compared to the "Views on homosexuality" section. Where are all the great things she does as a "Pentecostal Christian minister?" I'm sure there are many, yet they aren't in the article.

We are not a tabloid, and the undue weight issue is a pretty big issue as far as this article is concerned. Plus she is a Christian Minister and many Christian Ministers (if not most) look at homosexuality as a sin against God. She and other ministers are going to keep preaching that way and keep doing things to further their beliefs, so this is going to keep happening over and over until she passes away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

For the last 20+ years she has been far more political than tennis orientated. This is NOT about her being a minister of religion, so much as a newsworthy person on these issues. A person such as herself should not be relegated to have only a single part of their life as noteworthy and the rest remain as a sideline novelty. PolemiCol (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, the only reason she is notable is because she was one of the greatest tennis players in history. She wouldn't even be on this site without her tennis accolades. That said, we do include mention of her activities in the last 20 years, but there is undue weight to consider when it is sitting next to her tennis career. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I assure you that she would have gained the same notoriety on these issues just from being the daughter-inlaw of former Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court, and sister-inlaw of Richard Court, also former Premier of Western Australia. It takes some knowledge of the Western Australian political scene to know that Margaret has been far more than a tennis hack in the last few decades. Perhaps we need TWO separate wikis just so we can keep your precious tennis star sanitised; a Jekyl and Hyde approach.PolemiCol (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And I assure you it wouldn't have been the same notoriety. She wouldn't have had a tennis court named after her. And she was never a "tennis hack" nor is she my "precious tennis star." She is one of a number of high profile tennis legends where we need to be careful on keeping article balance and not going into WP:UNDUE weight. I simply don't have the loathing you seem to have for her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Given your long-standing attempts to sanitise this page of her controversial statements, perhaps it would be best for you to assume good faith, rather than accuse people who disagree with you of loathing the subject matter. 'So if you add something new to the section, to keep things balanced, you should also take something out of the section. Or perhaps quadruple the size of the rest of the article.' is a preposterous statement, not supported by WP:PROPORTION or any other policy. Court's comments on homosexuality are not isolated, and she is no longer notable simply for tennis career, but also as a 'vocal critic of LGBT rights', as stated in the lede. Does this need to be the subject of dispute resolution? Cjhard (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a load of horse manure. And I did assume good faith except that I was responding to the "precious tennis star" comment (which you seem to have ignored). It is not preposterous in the least to ask that we not exceed "undue weight"... in fact it is wikipedia rules that tell us that. So yes, if you keep adding more and more so that the balance is more on her ministry rather than her tennis accolades, we will continue to have run-ins. Many many Christian ministers have problems with gay marriage, and speak about it. So does the Pope. She just happens to be an ex tennis superstar. Certainly it must be mentioned in the article (which it is), but not to the extent that there is undue weight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The way to fix this is to segregate her tennis career from her ministry career. Done.PolemiCol (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. And that one addition is ridiculous and border vandalism. What it looks like I'll have to do is to really quintuple the size of this article so that any extra things about her ministry won't be looked at as undue weight. I guess that'll be this week's wikipedia work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. win-win! Except you actually dared mark that FACTUAL addition as vandalism? Which school of tyranny did you graduate from? PolemiCol (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe you actually added "She is also homophobic who thinks her opinions are superior to others." I didn't mark it as vandalism because of other added items. Had that unsourced opinion been added alone then yes, I probably would have tagged it as vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Check the log of edits. I NEVER ADDED THAT LINE! I've kept ALL my edits civil and factual. You are mistaken or deliberately being deceptive in this record. I trace that line about homophobic to user 88.215.47.66 on 25 May at 19:04 I note that there was also a change you made regarding the word "record", which was not my doing and the log shows several reversions of that item. We need to get past this point of difference. The current discourse around her comments is noteworthy and should rate a mention in her continuing career. How do we find the middle ground? Would you not be satisfied in renaming this section "Post tennis career" in order to set some demarcation? PolemiCol (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I did check the logs. Your addition was right here plain as day. It could have been a revert but the summary was not labeled revert. I was not opposed to the addition of new material on the matter. I am opposed to undue weight vs her tennis career. If you want to compact and remove some other lines to make room for this updated info, we can work with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the information deleted by Fyunck (talk · contribs). While I understand Fyunck (talk · contribs)'s concerns relating to weight and having a great portion of 'one of the greatest female tennis players in history' dedicated to her controversial opinions on homosexuality, the information relating to her recent, widely-reported comments is entirely relevant to her as a topic. The solution is not to remove this information or remove other information pertaining to her public comments, but to expand the section on her tennis career. The section on her views on homosexuality isn't particularly long, it's just that the section on her tennis career is too short, and probably not fitting one of the greatest female tennis players in history. Cjhard (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I decided to let it go but moved the section to after her tennis years. I also balanced the new addition with another source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

we edited at similar times at cross purposes and I thought you had deleted the section. I agree with the chronological change and will move it back down.PolemiCol (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference it is interesting to see the space allocated to Martina Navratilova's "Activism and Opinions" compared with the rest of her article versus the debate over space allocated here for Margaret. If Margaret was such an iconic tennis player (and I don't doubt it) she should have much more in her article than what exists. A few paragraphs reflecting the last 3o years of her life is nothing. PolemiCol (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that aspect. That is why I said I will be expanding her career this week and next. I have to get all the match info to make it look more like Serena Williams article. Martina's article is also too short. Then again Serena Williams article needs to be cut in half. No one does any pruning on that page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

However this is not a tabloid.WP:TABLOID. We do not plop in every single item out of someone's mouth just because we can or it can be sourced. Encyclopedias do not do that, they summerize. We may add an extra current source, or a single followup, but that's about it. Newspapers and tabloids carry the rest of the load. The overall controversy gets mentioned and we let readers decide whether they want heavy details on the matter, where they can check the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the section to its proper place above her career statistics, in conformity with every other wikipedia article on a professional athlete. Fyunck (talk · contribs), I'm a little concerned that it appears that you're editing counter to wikipedia style in order to bury the section on her comments under statistics. Cjhard (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm convinced, these sections tend to go above the career stats charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Apartheid

After it had been changed several times, I finally removed the recent addition on apartheid. The final form had made it a comment more about US race relations, and it didn't match the heading. Anyway, it should be discussed here before being added back in. StAnselm (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree... I was trying a compromise yet still including what was in the sources. An encyclopedic summary of a player with a comment from 53 years ago really shouldn't be in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Although the book in question is about an American tennis player, the context is his being excluded from playing in South Africa. (Maybe just from playing against Whites?) So I think it's misleading to turn it into a condemnation of US race-relations. By saying that SA 'has the racial situation better organized than' the US, she can only be saying that the US was not segregated strictly enough! Nick (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Even assuming she no longer believes it, I think it's notable unless we find a later quote that publicly repudiates Apartheid. Even at the time most Australians were against Apartheid, so stating that you approve of that style of race relations is remarkable. Nick (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm told she discusses it and repudiates Apartheid in her 2016 autobiography. But Google Books won't even show snippets. Nick (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The quote from a half century ago wasn't one of outright approval. It was saying she had friends there and that US race relations were even worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

She said "better organised than any country"! Without context, it sounds like she's condemning the US for moving towards integration. If we can get access to what she said in her 2016 autobiography, presumably she'll make herself sound more reasonable. But let's not pretend that this happened at a time when everyone thought that way. The reason why her comments are worth noting is because South Africa had already become an international pariah state. She wasn't the only one to violate the boycott but it's not as though she can plead ignorance. She heard both sides of the argument and chose the wrong side of history. Nick (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

But with the tiny bit of extra context it sounds like she felt the US situation was even worse than South Africa. Heck in 1964 my family and friends probably thought the situation in S.Africa was fine, but by 1984 that had changed. The thing is, in a one page synopsis bio of a player, all we have is the highlights or most important aspects of a player's career. Commenting on a situation such as apartheid is hardly encyclopedia worthy, and the fact it was 53 years ago is even less so. Now, the fact she is a Christian minister and is against gay marriage, and continues to speak out against it, is part of her persona and should be included in this wikipedia, but within reason. We make sure readers know of her stance to accept all gays into her congregation but that her beliefs say they are sinning and should never be allowed to marry. That info needs to be here. But we aren't a tabloid or newspaper. We don't continue to add things every time she professes she is against gay marriage. Readers will already know that. We might say "to this day she continues to be against gay marriage" and add a new sources to back that up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should add a paragraph about these comments, such as:

Navratilova also condemned Court as "a racist" after she became aware of comments made by Court in 1970 in support of South African apartheid. Court had said, "South Africa has the racial situation rather better organised than anyone else". Sources per: source 1, source 2, source 3 Court defended South African authorities who refused to let African-American player Arthur Ashe play in the country. Per this source

This remains related to tennis by using Navratilova as a quote and Ashe as an example of discrimination, uses reliable secondary sources and is notable, being covered now by multiple sources. Of course, if her views have changed then that can be added for balance, but it still remains of interest that she held such views at the time of her playing career. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, all the sources say the comment was made in 1970, and all cite the same original source, which is an interview in the New Zealand Herald of 30 January 1970. Fyunck was the only one who said 1964[29] but that's because he misread the Eric Allen Hall source. Hall's cite for the quote (footnote 23 on pages 109 and 290) is the 1970 New Zealand Herald. Fyunck misread it as '1964' because of a follow-on sentence on page 109 that mentions that year, but the year is not related to the quote. It's a paragraph about the expulsion of South Africa from the 1964 Olympics. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This suggested paragraph is not bad there'll need to be something more once everything has settled down. In her autobiography, her excuse was ignorance, she didn't really understand what apartheid was. But now she's telling The Australian that she doesn't know what she said and that she was never in favour of apartheid. Nick (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There were a lot of folks ignorant about it at the time that know so much more about it now. That quote didn't say she was in favor of it back then. She said the United States was worse. She said she had friends living there and those white friends, who were insulated from the situation, probably had a lot of influence on her view of the situation in South Africa. It's 47 year old trivia from one interview... for all we know, right after a tennis match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509203617/http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10190 to http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10190

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and undue weight

Fyunck (talk · contribs), what issues regarding the section based on her religious views do you have? I thought we were already resolving your qualms about having a section in an article about "one of greatest female tennis players in history" dedicated to her well-publicised, public statements about her religious and political views. After trying to prevent any mention of the latest controversy and then trying to bury the section under statistics, slapping a neutrality and undue weight notice on the section doesn't look great. Cjhard (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The same things I complained about the whole time. Um, the moving was talked about with another so back off your high horse and your agenda, which looks mighty biased. I don't see you adding important tennis-related items to this article so this looks ingenuous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1970 comments on apartheid are neither "post-career" nor "religious" - so don't really belong in this section. I'm not convinced they belong anywhere in the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, they really don't belong at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to change the section title to something like "Political and Religious Views". I think the three sentences proposed by Celia Homeford above seem appropriate weight. As for her views on homosexuality, I think we probably could trim that section slightly and still leave it clear that this has become her crusade post-tennis. Nick (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't know that in the least. "Her crusade?" Her crusade is her ministry and church. When reporters ask her questions she doesn't flinch in her non-mainstream beliefs. Yes, she did write a letter to the Herald when the head of Qantas openly promoted same-sex-marriage, which is illegal in Australia. But a crusade? That's a far stretch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on her opposition to same-sex marriage, since approx. half of parliament is also opposed it can't be that notable. I mean her opposition to homosexuality more generally. I would strongly oppose the phrasing you used above, 'We make sure readers know of her stance to accept all gays into her congregation...', since she in fact believes in conversion therapy[30]; that's what puts her beyond the pale. Nick (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the line about her not hating gay people and accepting gay people in her congregation as it misrepresents what the sources say. "We have them in our church. I help them to overcome. We have people who have been homosexual who are now married" absolutely does not support the claim that "Margaret Court has homosexuals in her congregation." It was also out of place in the article, looking like an attempt to artificially mitigate Margaret's own comments. Cjhard (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally have experience of her crusade over the last 20 years and I know it dates back to at least 1994. yes, that's merely anecdotal and I recognise my own bias. However, if I need to trawl through the archives of The West Australian to provide numerous citations I am more than happy to do it. There is a lot more I would like to add to this section, but I agree that brevity is necessary. I think three paragraphs is not too much to ask.PolemiCol (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Pics

Court's been in the news internationally of late - would anyone here know her and be able to get a current photo under a free license? - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been in contact with her but Wikipedia made it too hard with too many hoops to jump through to make it work out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mixed doubles titles

I'm not sure why someone is trying to remove the information on Margaret Court's mixed doubles titles. I saw the removal, and reverted it, and it was removed again. I checked the Australian Open Official website on Mixed Doubles Champions to make sure the original info was correct. All seems to be in order. So my question would be, why is editor Mouchatm removing the info?... the same info he removed in 2014. It seems to go against the official source. See more discussion at Talk:Margaret Court career statistics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This was also explained to this same editor awhile back under on this same talk page, right here. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Are you so thickheaded that you fanatical stick to what is written on the official AO website? AO website deliberately complements two major titles of the Court to improve her grandslam record. This is an artificial treatment that is unjustified in the history of tennis. "Shared titles" do not count among regulars. It was not Bud Collins, it is not even US Open (https://www.usopen.org/en_US/event_guide/grand_slam_alltime_champions.html) and that Aus Open does not mean that Wikipedia has to copy AO. Mouchatm (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Any recurrence will result in you being reported and will significantly reduce your chances of being able to contribute here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"A History of Tennis" by Bud Collins (2nd edition). Page 377, mixed doubles titles of the Australian Open. 1965 Shared Title, 1969 Shared Title. Also "Encyclopedia of Tennis" by Max Robertson and Jack Kramer (page 374) shows Court with the Australian mixed doubles titles. Also, the International Tennis Hall of Fame recognizes the titles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It does seem to be a tournament-by-tournament type of thing. There have been other examples of rained out finals in doubles and singles. Women's doubles final at December 1977 Australian Open was not played due to rain. ATP Volvo International singles final, Queens Club doubles of 1998, Rosmalen 1999 Doubles Championshipship, WTA Austrian Open of 1973, Virginia Slims Palm Spring 1991, WTA Eastbourne 1997, etc... According to newsprint the results have varied from from co-runnersup to co-champions to nothing said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Extreme social and religious views in lead

There have been some crude attempts in recent days to add more to the lead about Court's anti-gay stance. While these were unacceptable because of the way they were written, I think they are understandable, and maybe should be guiding us to add more there in a better way.

I am of mature years, and can remember her tennis success, but to a majority of Australians now she is just that old bigot from Perth with a tennis court named after her. She is (in)famous to them because of her extreme views, and the fallout from that (e.g. calls to rename the tennis court and other criticisms), not her tennis success. I think we need to somehow reflect that more in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree. The only reason she has a place in this encyclopedia is because of her tennis magnificence. Adding even more on her religious practices is undue weight, especially in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is in my first sentence really. There are plenty of people out there who see her religious position as the most significant thing today. They want more in the lead. And will probably keep putting it there if we don't reflect her image more honestly there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

But we are not a newspaper. Over her entire tennis career and 75 years of life, today is but a small part. If readers don't understand the catholic faith they can read up on it. The lead is a summary (and is actually a bit big now) and states that she is critic of gay rights. There is more in the body of the text and links to articles there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in that comment you have shown some of the confusion. This isn't about the Catholic faith. It's where she has gone to from there, and how she uses her fame as a tennis player to push an extreme social view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the Catholic faith per the Pope and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that is her church's view. She follows that same view. Usually that view gets expressed when the press asks her questions. Many in the celebrity Hollywood acting community also have extreme views, and while it may be mentioned in their articles, not usually in the lead. Even Jane Fonda's exploits barely have a mention in the lead section, yet it's forever part of her persona. So these items may be explained further in the prose (keeping to undue weight) but in the lead it either don't get mentioned or we give a sentence as we did to Margaret Court. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It bothers me that you aren't up to date with what the article actually says about her religion. She is NOT a Catholic! She "became associated with Pentecostalism in the 1970s and became a Pentecostal Christian minister in 1991. She later founded the Margaret Court Ministries..." I would actually like to know more about that. What led to her change? Was it the influence of any particular person? Etc..... HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was using the Catholic Church as an example, and I said "that is her church's view" also. Her Christian church happens to use the same philosophy as the catholic Church. Other Christian churches are more open. I really don't follow all the different Christian faiths much so I'm limited in my knowledge of all of them. That other info would be interesting. She wrote three autobiographies so you might find what you want to know in one of those. Even in her playing days her outward display and love of her faith found her ostracized by her peers and the press. I think it was in 78 or 79 that because of her mental and physical pain that she decided that the church was her calling. Why she changed from one church to another I'm not sure. A business decision? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Unfair and Biased against Margaret

Notable here is that before the Open era and after 1927 very few women played on the professional circuit. This must be included in this Wikipedia article to be fair to Margaret Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User Fyunck(click) is doing everything he can to censor this historical fact, Fyunck is unfairly harming Margaret.47.202.49.36 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Very few women played professional tennis. So? Margaret Court didn't either. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Almost all women played amateur tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You know fully well what matters here. Wikipedia is right in the Intro very quick to point out that only 11 of her 24 wins were in the so-called Open era. Many news articles run with that claiming her 24 wins were not legitimate because she supposedly didn't play against the best players in most of her wins, which is false. It must be made clear here in Wikipedia that before the Open era, or after the Open era, makes no difference here. It must be added in the Intro that Notable here is that before the Open era and after 1927 very few women played on the professional circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a big Margaret Court fan. It doesn't say "only" in the lead sentence it simply says "She won 24 Grand Slam titles in total (11 in the Open era)"... it doesn't need any more than that in the lead. I always look at her 24 as legit. The press doesn't usually say her 24 titles are suspect because of the Open Era, they tend to say her titles are suspect because most of her wins came at the Australian Championships. They way you have it worded will confuse many readers because professional circuit has no real context yet. They think of professional as you would today's professional circuit. Most men didn't play on the professional circuit either, but the few who did were the very best players. The place to bring this up, with better context, is in the Playing style, Grand Slam titles and world rankings section, not the lead. But I'd take that chip off your shoulder before discussing in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like my wording then reword it. It does belong here in this article, not somewhere else. Many sportswriters incorrectly claim that she didn't play against the best, the professionals, who were not allowed in the major tournaments before the Open era. But in fact there were very few women professional players before the Open era. This must be made clear here, not somewhere else. I think my wording was perfectly clear. What I am pointing out is stated in this link if you will look, but it certainly also belongs here in the Margaret Court article, so sportswriters will stop saying she didn't play against the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#The_Professional_circuit47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not belong there. And you are incorrect about sportswriters claims. Most claim she did not play against the best because many of the best did not play the Australian Championships back then. I know that era so you are preaching to the choir in her achievements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Sportswriters typically throw it out there that most of Margaret's wins were against amateurs and not professionals. Look at this typical link where he throws it in that most of her wins were against "only amateurs" in the pre-Open era. Wikipedia should allow my wording inserted to set it straight. See his typical sportwriter garbage here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/01/23/serena-williams-doesnt-need-pass-margaret-court-slam-queen/2658894002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's time to say something here. Been watching this discussion. I agree agree entirely with what Fyunck has said. Because I had nothing different to say, I said nothing, but I note our IP editor has now unilaterally changed the article. That's unacceptable. I've reverted the change, and given our newcomer (who has so far contributed nowhere else on Wikipedia) a formal welcome on their Talk page. Hopefully that will alert them to our broader policies and bring them properly into the fold. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, the IP is correct in that for women the change to the Open Era meant pretty much nothing as far as missing players. Most men also did not go to professional tennis but those who did were among the very best. That wasn't the case for the women. Saying something about it in the main section, either under "Tennis career" or "Playing style, Grand Slam titles and world rankings" is not a bad idea. Just a short sentence probably, but we need a source that talks about the issue. However you will also get arguments that the Pre-Open Era wasn't as strong because only the rich could afford to play on a regular basis. Once it was open to anyone and money was to be made, within a decade the overall quantity of quality players started to rise. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Who?" note at Russell Jackson should be removed.

Russell Jackson is an Australian journalist. Add "Australian journalist" to the text in front of "Russell Jackson," and the complaint about his name being "weasel words" should be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:5CDE:3E90:D8B7:F7C5 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Support for segregation

Needs a section.

Lots of archival material can be added on her historical support for segregation based on race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)