Talk:Emma Raducanu

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

2020 BJK Cup

As Raducanu was on the team for the 2020-21 BJK Cup, it seems inaccurate to say she was absent. Her match wasn't played as the tie was already decided, not because she didn't go or withdrew. Maybe a note should be added to the table? This seems to happen a fair amount as the team article (and others like it) do note when players were called up to the national team even if they didn't get to play, is there something usually done with tables when this happens? Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its current form is accurate. The table is "Singles performance timeline" and not "Doubles performance timeline." She was absent from any singles matches (played or not) that tournament. She was present, but for doubles and had her match cancelled. If the table was "Doubles performance timeline," I agree and think it should be noted, but not for singles. For what it's worth, the current table listing it as "A" is inline with Andreescu's who is in the same situation having also been scheduled for doubles that was cancelled the same year (Bianca Andreescu career statistics). 350z33 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, with no other doubles that makes sense. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halep quote about Romania

Since this has been added and removed several times, I thought a discussion may be valuable. Ping @Db1256 and CABF45: as recent editors. There are possibly valid points both for inclusion and exclusion. Raducanu has said Halep is one of her role models, so this kind of recognition might be worth a mention. But it could be considered over coverage of a single soundbite. It suggests a measure of Raducanu's popularity after her Grand Slam win, if her father's home country has "adopted" her as (more of) one of their own, so maybe it could be included/moved there. But it's a dubious nationalistic comment in a tabloid(?). Any other thoughts? And, yeah, I think exclusion until there is an inclusion agreement is the best way to handle this. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma has largely held up Li Na as a notable inspiration for her in the sport; Roger Federer and Andy Murray have received equal, if not more name checks from Emma than Simona Halep has. I make this point because it is easy to turn her life section into an attempt to landgrab based on the single parent nationalities of her parents; we already have where her grandparents live, we have her fluency in Mandarin and her extremely questionable "fluency" in Romanian (citing a Forbes article that clearly has an agenda for Emma to be the poster-child of no national allegiance, and uses the words "she isn't British" in its content; very dubious considering Emma's overt patriotic British sentiments. And I understand as an extremely popular new athlete Emma is, that it isn't surprising Simona Halep makes such an "adoption", as a Romanian. I'm sure if/when the Chinese tournaments start up, a current Chinese player will do the same for China. Maybe the Canadian PM upon future success will then say Canada claims her. Maybe Roland Garros will claim her like Wimbledon has adopted Roger Federer as a home player. The point is that her life section should represent her own self-identity and self-expression; it's easy for a Romanian/Chinese journalist to specifically ask her to say something pertaining to their countries, but for me, both post and pre-US Open fame, Emma has only expressed a British (via living in England, so English) national identity, albeit with a Romanian father and Chinese mother. Db1256 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts, though perhaps arguments based on policies and guidelines would be better than personal expositing here? Or, we all know inherent bias of sources, and ignoring your personal views, your comment touches on nationalistic sourcing issues; but the fact is, those things have been said, those people/nations feel that way, the media is making a "public truth" out of a certain perception and unfortunately Raducanu doesn't have control over how media want to paint her - and Wikipedia uses RS (of which I am not certain the source in the edit here is), not just what a bio subject thinks/feels (and, of course, I don't think you can know what Raducanu wants anyway). I am not trying to completely shut your opinion down, and am neutral on the inclusion of the edit here, but you can't just disregard sources (though, again, the one in the edit in question is a tabloid) because you think the message is interpreted by them differently to how you interpret the "truth". Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is one journalist saying they want Emma to be a poster-child for no national allegiance. It's a personal, political desire of one person. We have evidence Emma does in fact have very strong British national allegiance. But we're moving off the central point. I'm not concerned about that citation, since it was only used to state that Emma speaks fluent Mandarin, and it "claims" she speaks fluent Romanian. My main point is Simona Halep is not one of two "life gurus" for Emma, based on their nationality. We have Li Na, a strong inspiration, and than a multitude of other inspirational players, of which Halep is simply one of many, less so than Federer and Murray. Halep deciding "Romania has adopted Emma as on of their own" by be an interesting quip for a Romanian, and you could add it in a section on Simona Halep's wikipedia page under "who Simona Halep has decided is an adopted Romanian", but it's Simona Halep, not Emma Raducanu. Db1256 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow up because we will see how the discussion unfolds, but using the same argumentation of a "public truth" usurping even "the truth", or at least the truth as even believed by Emma herself, as you stated in your comment above my last comment, would you be able to consistently disagree with the following change to the opening sentence of Emma's wikipedia article:
"Emma Raducanu is a Romanian-Chinese ethnic professional tennis player who was born with a Canadian passport and later acquired a British passport. She reached a career-high ranking of No. 11 by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) on 25 April 2022, Raducanu is the reigning US Open champion and, according to Raducanu's Romanian semi-national associate Simona Halep, is the first Romanian woman to win a Grand Slam singles title since Simona Halep in the 2019 Wimbledon Championships. Raducanu was born in Toronto and raised in a Romanian-Chinese household. According to Shaheena Janjuha-Jivra, Forbes contributor, Raducanu holds no personal national allegiance and represents Great Britain since she came through the LTA programme."
I'm not saying this would actually be considered sensible as a change, I'm asking if you were being consistent with argumentation that you could argue against someone making this change. We have a clear citation from Shaheena's Forbes article that Emma is not to be seen as having a national allegiance. If someone utilised that citation to remove the prominence of the "British" emphasis in the opening paragraph, could you consistently argue against the change? Db1256 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since that edit violates the BLP policy about opening sentence, nationality and ethnicity in the lead, I would obviously disagree with it. I did ask you for policy, not personal, arguments.
WP:SYNTH, so has Raducanu said anything about seeing herself primarily as British, and/or has something like that been reported? 2. You seem to attribute the Halep quote to her/the reporter's personal thoughts, where it seems like she was asked what Romania's response to Raducanu was, i.e. anyone could have said it, it looks to be reportage of a general sentiment. Sources from the Transylvania Open, unconnected to Halep, say similar things, that Raducanu was received well in the country. This is all to say that either your interpretation of the source, or the way you are describing it in your argument, is inaccurate, or misleading, and so I would like to reiterate where I have asked for sources for your descriptions of situations. 3. More of an aside, but you imply that Raducanu is not really/completely fluent in Romanian. A source I read did say, on this, something along the lines of "mostly" or that she speaks it well, rather than fluency; is that not the source in the article? Because you could make an argument for amendment here, if that source can be found and compared to the current one. - Struck this because it is the source in the article, which doesn't claim she is fluent. Why did you bring it up... Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
An example is this interview with her as a child https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZH2f3kNfiY&ab at 00:33, Li Na and Roger Federer are stated as inspirations (Li Na's work ethic/movement, Federer's swiftness and effortless qualities). The weight of Emma's British national allegiance is so vast and constant I can just look at the past week. Wins the 3rd round of the Madrid Open, is interviewed for American (not British) media on the Tennis Channel (this video is not available in the UK, you need a US VPN or IP to watch it); https://twitter.com/TennisChannel/status/1520879710309425153 , casually throws in the comment at 00:36 "me coming to Madrid, as a Brit.....". For me to go through every interview and point out what must be hundreds at this point, of times she says "as a Brit" not to make a point, but always in passing, like it is self-evident (which it is; there is no other natural alternative, she isn't Bianca Andreescu for example, who would have a natural alternative) would be ridiculous. Same video, 2:05, states the coolest moment of the past year is getting a letter from the Queen, not winning the US Open. There is no example of her saying "as a Romanian" anywhere. It doesn't exist, she has never said it. During the Cluj Open, she always referred to Romania as "her father's country", not "her country", or "one of her countries" or "her 2nd country". The "GB We are taking her HOMEEE" insta post for a non-UK, non-BJK tournament, wearing an England shirt, referring to "the country" and "my country" for the UK/England.
Surely we've all watched the same interviews; it feels like I'm having to prove the sky is blue to people who already know what colour the sky is. I don't want to go off topic because to be honest if anyone is actually unsure about whether she feels British over Romanian or Chinese given everything she has ever said on camera or posted on social media, there's no convincing them. My main point is Simona Halep is just another professional tennis player. Her subjective opinion on the tenuous nature of the claim that her nation has claimed Emma as their own, is just her subjective opinion. If that gets to go on Emma's life section, then we may as well rename Emma's life section, "arbitrary national claims of Emma Raducanu independent of Emma Raducanu." Db1256 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, did you see where I wrote while she mostly refers to being British except when speaking to Romanian and Chinese audiences - but using this kind of collection of visual evidence would in this case definitely be
WP:SYNTH, so has Raducanu said anything about seeing herself primarily as British? Those interviews where she refers to being British are the visual evidence I was talking about, you saying there are lots of little clips like that is the SYNTH I said isn't accepted as sourcing. Come on.
Interesting you bring up Andreescu, as I had another thought: Raducanu has been compared to Andreescu, and there are reasons to do so. At the article Bianca Andreescu, you can see that the lead says She has strong support from both Canadian and Romanian fanbases., which is explored in the article. As media reception, and clearly (as seems with Raducanu) reception from Romanian fans, this is the kind of thing articles do include. If accepting the Andreescu article as a kind of base, of course, inclusion of a perhaps rephrased "she gets support from Romanian fans", at Raducanu's article probably still needs better sourcing. We could also discuss how the information is presented, i.e. not attaching to the Halep role model line, which may or may not warrant removal anyway. Though with your not-uncivil but somewhat-terse attitude in your comments, and non sequitur hyperbole, suggesting you think the matter is obvious and already closed despite presenting no sources, I feel like you have already made up your mind about how you want the article and aren't being receptive here. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Andreescu has two Romanian parents, and spent time growing up in Romania, so will naturally have a Romanian self-identity. This bears no relation to Emma Raducanu. Is there a single quote where Emma refers to herself as Romanian? Anywhere? If I had hours and hours to spare, I could go through every interview she has ever made, in all languages if necessary, and add up the hundreds of "as a Brit, xyz", "the country", "my country" examples. I implor anyone to find a single quote where she refers to herself as Romanian or Chinese.
Any comparison with Andreescu is frankly ridiculous. Db1256 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have clearly just made up your mind. You seem to think it is obvious, but it isn't. I told you what is wrong with abstract mentions in interviews, yet you have dug in harder on them. Your disregard of Andreescu as an example seems misplaced; I very clearly did not say that if Andreescu considers herself Romanian then Raducanu must be the same, which wouldn't even work if their situations were identical since they are different people. No, I explicitly only referred to Romanian tennis fans supporting them because of their background (something neither woman controls and which can still be true and relevant to their careers), and instead putting something about that in the article. I don't know why you seem to want to distance Raducanu from Romania as much as possible, but your arguments are getting more and more absurd.
Andreescu's article (and we are talking about articles, not people... or at least I am) mentioning Romanian fans supporting her though she competes for another country is a precedent for similar detail at Raducanu's article, and talking about the people is not how you refute that (you could try
sky being blue! We would need (and have) a source just for her being British since she wasn't born in Britain and neither were her parents, and that is simpler to find than someone stating what ties they feel (i.e. outright saying "I really only consider myself British" or the like), which, for the record, Raducanu does not appear to have done.
On this point, obviously a lack of sourcing for "just British" does not mean automatic inclusion of other identities, which also need a source that is not someone else's claim, but you surely know that even the text as implemented before was not saying Raducanu has Romanian identity, it was just a rather poetic way of saying Romanian fans support her, with a tabloid using name recognition of Halep, too? I don't even know what you are arguing against anymore, since nobody has tried to include the things you seem so fervently against. And, again, I am not arguing for inclusion of the original exactly as it was, and currently I am mostly just trying to explain why you repeating your perceptions of Raducanu's identity are not useful arguments for anything. Kingsif (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not trying to distance Emma from Romania at all; I'm the one who wrote the sentence that she wanted to be as athletic as Simona Halep. Bianca Andreescu has 2 Romanian parents. Spent time growing up in Romania. So you have an entire household of Romanian influence, plus lived experience in Romania (including where she began playing tennis). You can surely see the difference between Emma's one parent nationality, zero lived experience, and no intimation at a Romanian national identity anywhere ever, with Andreescu's national attributes? They really do not compare.
It has split into two different discussions which are clouding the situation. To be clear, my point was Halep claiming her nation "is proud" of her is, at least to me, self-evidently tenuous/non-sensical since it has never been her home, either literally in the physical lived sense, or even in a "she grew up in a Romanian household like Andreescu sense". It's borderline like Nadal saying Spain is proud of her. Not exactly, but pretty close.
The greater discussion past this very specific point about whether the entry should be posted or not, is simply that I do not know what less Emma could have said pertaining to Romanian or Chinese identity to convince you, or anyone, she doesn't identify as such. How can you make less than zero statements claiming to identify as something? Would she have to specifically say "I am not Romanian/I am not Chinese"? I know you said my comments are terse; it's more exasperation at what seems to be self-evident. 2.28.2.38 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently both The Daily Telegraph amd tennis.com quoted Halep's "adoption" claim. Nobody believes this is a legal claim, but it is important how Romanians feel about her. CABF45 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given her success and popularity globally, it is natural for people to want to forge links to Emma and her success, and people will decide whether Halep's claim is relevant (and I don't judge her or you or anyone for doing so), it's just that in my opinion there's a line where it becomes tenuous, and that line for me falls somewhere between Bianca Andreescu and Emma Raducanu. A self-evident highly Romanian-based player like Bianca vs a British player with one Romanian parent and no lived experience or any claims to a Romanian identity.
I would point out that the base of my argument is the arbitrary nature of Halep's personal opinion that a nation has "adopted her as one of their own" is being utilised, as though we've already established anything Simona Halep says, by definition, must be of relevance to Emma Raducanu (presumably because Halep is Romanian), but then using her quote to establish this Romanian national identity claim in the first place, making it circular reasoning. Db1256 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just in your opinion, please stop using just your opinion as an argument when it is clearly not held by others. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This "opinion" is based on objectively stronger Romanian links for Bianca, like actually spending time living there, and having 2 Romanian parents, as opposed to 1 parent and never having lived there.
I have remained civil, please don't gaslight me. Db1256 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Db1256 and CABF45: Why have you both edited the text in question while being discussed? I know it is looking difficult to find a compromise with one of you is refusing to use policy and seems to think it is being used for an actual nationality claim, and the other is, well, CABF, we haven't heard much from you, but your comment just restates the contentious edit, really, without giving an argument for its relevance. What do you both say to what I was discussing above as a compromise, refactoring the contentious edit into a statement that "even though she plays for Britain, Raducanu receives support from Romanian fans"? Sourced properly, of course. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather not have the comparison made with Britain and Romania like that, since "plays for Britain" is very distant; almost like she simply holds a sporting allegiance. While some other players may have this relationship, there is nothing Emma has said post or pre-fame that would indicate a different "tier" of British self-perception as Tim Henman, for example. Her support is global, so I don't see why there needs to be prominence put on Romania over and above any other global country. Maybe in passing "she has a strong global following, in particular those from the countries of her parent's birth." Though, again, I question the fact a claim by a Romanian player that Romania has adopted her makes it relevant enough. Do we know Romania actually has a strong following for her? Is this shown in TV views, clicks on articles etc over and above other countries? Db1256 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Halep was sarcastic. Based on these pictures do you think Raducanu's "father" is her biological father? I think Halep's emphasis was on adoption, not Romania. CABF45 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly sourced addition of British nationalism sentiment

  • As an aside, I have just added some pretty significant information regarding a letter Emma received from the Queen, cited, which she has repeatedly stated was the coolest moment of her past year. Firstly to at least show she does have British national identity (which isn't really evident in her personal life), and the Duchess of Cambridge interacting and praising Emma, who Emma has clearly stated is a major influence. In the absence of such statements evident in the life section, I felt this added some reality to the balance. @খাঁটি বাঙালি felt it unnecessary. I question this strongly. It only isn't necessary if you have already decided the Head of State of Emma's country isn't relevant personally to you (which clearly is contrary to Emma). Db1256 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If Emma had stated a letter from President Klaus Iohannis of Romania was the coolest moment of her past year, there's no way it wouldn't make her life section. If I'm wrong then OK, but I detect an anti-British bias regarding some of these deletions. Db1256 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader considers addition not pertinent; this talk section explicates how citiations were requested to prove Emma's British national identity, of which "the coolest moment of her past year", namely the Queen letter, would demonstrate this. It's only a small sentence, but gives at least "some" representation of her British national identity, in a section goes so far as to state where her grandmothers live (is this really pertinent?). If some slightly off topic but somewhat interesting trivia like where her grandmothers live is relevant, surely this tiny sentence actually showing Emma's self-identity of nationality is pertinent. Db1256 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity in the above comment, I mean *.......... which isn't really evident in her personal life section on her wiki page.
    it is clear in her personal life (which is why I gave a couple of citations as you suggested I do to substantiate this claim of British national identity). Db1256 (talk) 16
    35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
    If Emma had stated a letter from President Klaus Iohannis of Romania was the coolest moment of her past year, there's no way it wouldn't make her life section. If I'm wrong then OK - you are wrong. Both this theory, and the reality of you continually adding the British royal remarks, comes under something Wikipedia generally terms "flag salad". Adding text along the lines of 'X from Y country said Z about the thing' often only encourages more of the same meaningless entries, so it is discouraged from inclusion.
    You say that Raducanu mentioning a letter from the royal family is cool was a source for her national identity, which it really really isn't. Not only does it require original interpretation to get that impression, but combining them is still SYNTH, and I think until you learn how to properly source you shouldn't be making additions to Wikipedia, period.
    You are also leaning into outrage to try get your way again by claiming anti-British bias, and have explained something of your reasoning - that you think there is imbalance with mentioning her grandmothers but not making it clear Raducanu feels strongly British, though simply, of course, in interviews Raducanu has directly mentioned her grandmothers but nothing of Britishness. However, this only further highlights that you are an agenda-pushing SPA. Not only are all of your few edits about Raducanu, all of them are on the subject of pushing her Britishness and muting her multiculturalism. I suggest you quit it and reflect on the purpose of Wikipedia.
    concerning. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) [reply
    ]
    I just saw the USO Queen letter deleted from personal life as I was moving it to the 2021 season USO section as it was a very specific event in 2021 that happened that Emma has mentioned several times as a very memorable/special moment when asked by reporters. Not a general personal life topic, though. 350z33 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @350z33: I still think it should be discussed, even if it would probably be kept, as it was added as a kind of agenda pushing. I do agree with the poor placement, another reason for removal, which was literally, per its edit reason and the user comments above, part of the agenda. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no agenda; Emma has had a wikipedia page for well over a year now. I have been fine with the life section, until a random quote from Simona Halep pertaining to her claims of a national "claiming" was put in there without it being relevant. I simply thought posting one single statement regarding "the most cool moment of the past year", which happens to have a patriotic British sentiment, would add balance. Anything else you read into it comes from your own biases. Db1256 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You wrote above that you added the paragraph because It's only a small sentence, but gives at least "some" representation of her British national identity, in a section goes so far as to state where her grandmothers live - and just now implied that the patriotic British sentiment was an added bonus of your text. There is no reading into anything needed to see your agenda, and any bias you see from others is a false assumption that will be coming from your own worldview. Maybe you don't see what is wrong here if you really believe forcing a narrative is needed, somehow, but this is getting insane. You can't add that Raducanu thought a letter from the Queen is cool next to a mention of her grandmothers abroad when it is explicitly to try and mitigate that mention. Bios typically include details of mixed ethnicities, obviously where they are present, in early and/or personal life sections. That is how it is, and you being personally aggrieved for some reason that people who didn't already know will learn Raducanu is of mixed ethnicity is not a good reason (in fact, a very very bad one) to go against the BLP MOS.
    You say that until recently you were fine with the article, but assumed that the addition of the Halep quote was pushing some Romanian narrative? And this would be wrong, yes. But in response, you decided to push a British narrative instead? Which is the same brand of wrong, in reverse... Really, taking into account the refactoring of that discussion that was happening, how does Raducanu having Romanian fans take away from her being British and, importantly, why do you care? What impression of her are you trying to protect with your edits, because, as I have continually told you, opinions and your perception of other people's perceptions really don't matter; sources do. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not aggrieved people will learn Emma is of mixed ethnicity, I pointed out that where her grandmothers live right now is interesting trivia, but not directly on-topic, something which I was fine with including, but just pointing out that the Queen post was also interesting trivia, and pretty significant for Emma as well.
    Please stop the unjust slurs, it's thoroughly depressing. Db1256 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her father being from Romania and mother from China was already in the info, my point about the location of where her grandparents live was pertaining to the inconsistency of interesting, but not directly relevant, trivia with the Queen article. That's it. Db1256 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it should be discussed. I noticed it was deleted right after I submitted the edit to put it in the 2021 season section. I saw all this discussion after the fact...not before if that's what it looks like. I don't think it belongs in the personal life section fwiw, but it makes more sense in that USO section as she has mentioned the Queen's letter a few times even this year within the last month or so. 350z33 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have subsectioned this but maybe a new discussion is needed because this is some messy twist of events. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, my few edits are on Emma Raducanu, because my job isn't to edit wikipedia articles, I made this account because I happened to stumble on Emma's page and noted the bias it presented when that Simona Halep post was added, and with respect thought it wasn't balanced. I don't have a desire to push British nationalism, I think the article should represent the level of British nationalism that Emma Raducanu herself expresses. Without the Halep quote, it's fine. But if we're going to have a list of Romanian tennis players and in the future Chinese players stating they claim Emma as one of their own in the personal life section, while ignoring Emma's own British national identity self-expression (which you literally asked citations for up this comment chain), then that would be evidence of bias. Without the Halep quote, it's fine.
    But I take issue with the claim i am muting her multiculturalism. This is an attack on my character, and it is wholly inappropriate. This is the root of the issue. Emma's parents nationalities are great. It's modern Britain, and better for it. All those details in the life section are fine. But Emma expresses British patriotism. This may annoy you, it may "concern" you; maybe when you hear her make that statement about the Queen's letter you want to blank it out. Maybe Emma's wikipedia page will be forever gatekeeped by people who on the one hand claim to like Emma Raducanu, but go to bed wishing she wasn't a Brit and didn't identify as such (which is ultimately disrespectful to Emma herself). Ultimately wikipedia isn't real life, and if this page is going to be a fantasy of some editors who are adamant Emma must have no patriotic sentiment towards Britain whatsoever, then so be it. Regardless, without the random Halep quote, we don't "need" the Queen post (though there is literally nothing wrong with including it in principle). Db1256 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Db, I have pushed you to use sources properly and told you that your impressions and perceptions are not appropriate. Those are not personal attacks, even if you feel that way. They are also not attempts to blank the fact Raducanu is British. The prime irony is that you began by literally removing mention of non-Britishness, and are now throwing personal attacks of "gaslighting" and "gatekeeping". None of that is happening, but clearly my saying this will only be interpreted as an attack or some self-affirming proof by someone who has already made those jumps in logic. Well, sigh, I have extended every attempt for you to collaborate with compromise. You said the compromise didn't suit you, then added counter text as a loophole to getting your way; what more, besides everyone nodding along with your opinions (which your entire presence is based on!), do you want. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, my first post was adding detail on Emma's inspiration of the athleticism of Simona Halep and the mentality of Li Na, so please don't patronise me. I haven't had a problem with Emma's wikipedia page before in its long history before what I thought was a not relevant quote about what Simona Halep thinks Romania as a country thinks. That's literally it. The Queen stuff, while obviously legitimate and relevant, was only posted as a balance to that one quote. You don't need to make out I'm something I'm not. I removed one Halep quote, I didn't change any other mentions of Romania and China in the section.
    I get it. You don't want links or citations to Emma making British patriotic statements. I get it. "Emma Raducanu's wikipage" isn't "Emma Raducanu" so it's not that important. I just think the Halep quote is tenuous (which it is). That's it. Db1256 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you're using "patronise" wrong, and paired with your other laughably hip insults, I think you might need a dictionary, but that's beside the point. Nearly everything else is wrong, too. You say The Queen stuff, while obviously legitimate and relevant, was only posted as a balance to that one quote as if that last part makes it better when it actually is the part that makes it a bad edit! Editors trying to lead a narrative (here, your intention to add British weight in the nationalism non-question you alone see) is wrong. You say that you think other editors don't want links or citations to Emma making British patriotic statements when I literally asked for such, but also warned you that merely finding interviews of her saying she's British - or tangential things like finding support from the Queen cool (liking support from the Queen =/= liking the Queen, and even then, liking the Queen =/= British nationalism...) - and putting these together to infer British nationalism is
    WP:NPOV. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm glad you think my initial point about the Halep post is tenuous. I hesitate to press any further with the follow-up thrust of my argument about Emma's British national identity, because I don't get the impression there is much light to be gained here and I don't want to further get on the wrong side of you as someone who holds more sway than me. Regardless of no single positive citation anywhere of Emma having identified as having a Romanian national identity or Chinese national identity compared to almost uncountable numbers of "as a Brit xyz", "the country", "my country" statements infused in pretty much every tournament presser she's had in her career, I also understand I'm not an expert on the rules of citation and what counts and doesn't count for whatever reason as a legit citation on wikipedia, regardless of how self-evident something is. I generally watch and listen to Emma in interviews and look at her social media for my perception of Emma, I don't read what a Forbes writer or some other journalists' take is on who they think Emma should be, which explains a lot of the difference between the takes. I understand a wikipedia page is essentially a knitted together list of comments selected by editors as to their choosing, sourced from journalists writing articles. It doesn't surprise me there is a difference between my perception and what the result of this knitted together document is.
    The anti-multiculturalist charge was uncalled for though. Anti-Romanianism was not the reason for deleting the Halep quote; I simply think, outside of the obvious British fanbase of Emma (10 million watched the US Open final in the UK), the other aspect of her support is a wholly global fanbase. If someone can cite, not from the claim of one person, but with viewing figures, website clicks etc that Emma has a notable following in one global country moreso than another then it is notable for a life section. I just don't think the evidence is there for a uniquely strong Romanian fanbase yet. She of course has Romanian fans, she has American fans, she has Indian fans, she has Australian fans. Your suggestion, in my opinion, inappropriately balanced her "playing for Britain" with "having Romanian fans"; like there is a uniquely Romanian fanbase, not just over and above other global countries, but even the UK. I think this suggestion was actually worse than just putting the original Halep quote in. If you feel the need to specify a Romanian fanbase, you don't need to balance it with "playing for Britain"; by far the biggest fanbase is from the UK. Db1256 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some productivity, let's pick up from here. I would say you could follow-up, as I truly have no more sway than you or anyone, but as I get the impression it will more suggestions that some nationalism needs to be present, which I will reiterate often lacks NPOV in presentation, I'll take your silence.
    So I have three points: the first to clarify some of the sourcing issues, in that your viewing figure suggestion for fans would be auto-generated and so not permissible; the second to say that your inference there is cherry-picking in editing is again out of line; the third to try and get some editing done. If you agree that the only journalistic sources mentioning fans are generally about British and Romanian fans, what phrasing do you think would work to include such information? Would you also take part in a discussion of the inclusion of your edits about the royals? Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first point, I don't agree with the premise that because someone has posted a tenuous quote, that it is up to either of us to go digging for evidence Emma has a notable Romanian fanbase over and above another global nation. The claim was made by Halep, and the journalistic source cited this claim. It was said after a Romanian tennis tournament, during the height of Emma's popularity post-US Open success; her "Emma mania" period, back when she was selling out practice courts at Indian Wells. Her support was massive at every post-US Open tournament in 2021 since people thought this new tennis star was going to win every tournament coming. There are lots of Romanians at Romanian tennis tournaments so at that particular tournament, "Emma mania" came to Romania, like it had come to Indian Wells. She was the fans' favourite for all those post-US Open tournaments, particularly in the immediate aftermath (October/November). Until the evidence presents itself that Emma does indeed have a notably strong Romanian support, we don't need to find a better source, because it could well be untrue. It would be up to CABF45 or whoever wants to find such evidence, to find a good source and post it, and the editors will judge it on its merits. Maybe it isn't true and there isn't an adequate source, maybe it will be true in time and an adequate source will present itself. I don't think it's a case of someone having offered a bad reference to an inarguable truth, and we can simply find a better reference, I think the reference in of itself is unsubstantiated, though the claim may well be substantiated at some point in the future. And if that happens, and someone finds an adequate source for the claim, then that will be fine. The buzz over Emma has largely died down, so if at the Cluj Open this year the support is notably greater than other tournaments surrounding it, it will be noted in the media and the source will be there.
    On the second point, yes, since I think the inclusion of the Duchess of Cambridge's meeting with Emma and congratulations (due to Emma claiming she was "an inspiration for her and her country") and certainly the prominence Emma put on the letter from the Queen, the actual Head of State of her country, would be notable additions and I would engage in discussion on those edits.
    I appreciate there has been some heat in these threads, but sometimes that's where light can come. Db1256 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Halep quote has been re-posted again, before resolution.
    Just thought I'd let you know. Db1256 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted it, because I received no counter-arguments after mine. I'm not even close to violating 3RR. CABF45 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. CABF, I did ask to not have any contentious edits reinstated until there was some agreement, and you deciding that you had the last word means you are right is, well, not it. I also don't even know what your last comment, about the quote focusing on adoption instead, means. This has split, a lot, but you be happy with a compromise, using sources to write that Raducanu has Romanian fans instead of this back-and-forth? It is true you haven't reached 3RR by editing many hours apart, but if you are knowingly waiting to not hit an arbitrary line, you are definitely breaking the spirit of the rule. Especially after having been asked not to add it back yet, which could count as a warning, too. Kingsif (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe such a tenuous quote unsubstantiated should have the content of its claims posted simply because someone is adamant enough to repetitively post it, especially somewhere as prominent as a personal life section. If a Romanian fanbase over and above other global fanbases happens to arise and is substantiated and sourced at some point in the future, then it would be justifiable. Db1256 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the Royals to promote interracial adoption. What I was trying to say is this isn't her real father as you can see in the pics.
If a Romanian gypsy adopts somehow a Chinese girl, who goes on to become a British hero, then that's worth a mention in the article. I can't find a better way than Halep's quote to do just that. CABF45 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough kool aid for you. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expected you to be sensitive regarding this subject. CABF45 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure if you are somehow serious, but if you are, then I encourage you to stop editing Wikipedia and get mental help.
You want to use an unrelated quotation to promote a conspiracy theory that isn't even discussed by conspiracy theorists, you just came up with it yourself based on photos in the Daily Mail, and somehow believe it to be factual enough to include, sans even a terrible source. And you also somehow believe that explaining this delusion will encourage others to agree with you on the inclusion. Yes, yikes. Like, you could have at least tried to argue that the media has built up Halep as a role model, so support from her is worth a mention here, but, nope.
If Db's insertion of royals mentions to create their own perception of balance is wrong by intention, then whatever you have been trying to do with this is also definitely wrong by intention. Kingsif (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think based on the photos of her "father" that he is Raducanu's biological father? If yes, then you should stop editing Wikipedia and get mental help. Do you think those Meghan Markle-hating Royals knew about that family when they were supporting Emma Raducanu?
I'm absolutely sure that 1.6 billion East Asians will react to these photos of this "family" as relaxed as you do. Most Chinese do claim her as their own, but others do not. See this article at the BBC website:

But some users chose to keep some distance: "She's British - why are all of you now trying to claim her as your own?"

My conspiracy theory: some enthusiastic East Asians have seen her family members, others have not.
If she becomes more successful and widely-known, I just wonder how Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc. people will handle this situation regarding "her family". I guess they will all drink the Kool Aid.
Yikes. CABF45 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget about this quote:

Simona Halep says Romania is "proud" of Emma Raducanu's historic US Open win and have adopted her as one of their own.

I guess Halep should stop reading Wikipedia and seek professional mental help. She drank the Kool Aid after all...
Another reminder: both The Daily Telegraph amd Tennis Magazine quoted Halep's words. CABF45 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Raducanu career statistics page

At what point should Emma Raducanu career statistics wikipage be created and the statistics in the main page be migrated over? It would be inline with other players like Bianca Andreescu career statistics and Raducanu is coming up to a full year now on the WTA tour. The main article page is getting pretty crowded with stats. Maybe it's a large undertaking no one has wanted to start or there needs to be more time played before justifying it? I'm not too familiar with that process.350z33 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@350z33: Have you asked the tennis project, or looked at the timeframe for other articles? Because I agree, but have no idea what I'd be doing to attempt it, I've been waiting on you to be honest. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. Ok then haha. I guess maybe next week I could try something and base it off Iga's or Bianca's as they're similar in age and success. If anyone else wants to please do. I saw a breakdown of the clay/grass/hard W-L added today and was thinking it now probably needs its own page... 350z33 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions after 2021 US Open win

Here's what I think is a fair representation based on reliable sources:

Among the commendations for her win, Raducanu was congratulated by members of the

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge did so in person and through social media,[1][2] and Queen Elizabeth II sent a letter, which Raducanu said "meant everything to her".[3]

Most social media users in China started celebrating her Chinese heritage, while some distanced themselves from her emphasizing Raducanu's Britishness.[4]

According to Simona Halep, her role model, Romanians are proud of Raducanu's historic 2021 US Open win and have adopted her as one of their own.[5][6][7]

I added

Tennis Magazine, BBC News and Daily Express
, all reliable sources. Any thoughts?

References

  1. ^ Jobson, Robert (24 September 2021). "Queens of the court: Emma Raducanu and Duchess of Cambridge meet up for tennis match in London". Evening Standard. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Petter, Olivia (12 September 2021). "'We Are All So Proud Of You': Kate Middleton congratulates Emma Raducanu on US Open Win". The Independent. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Sims, Andy (13 September 2021). "Emma Raducanu planning to frame congratulation letter from the Queen". The Independent. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Raducanu: US Open champion celebrated in China for her heritage". BBC News. 13 September 2021.
  5. ^ Yasmin Syed (25 October 2021). "Emma Raducanu labelled a Romanian hero after her US Open success - 'They have adopted her'". Daily Express.
  6. ^ Molly McElwee (25 October 2021). "'They have adopted her': New local hero Emma Raducanu reclaimed by Romania". The Daily Telegraph.
  7. ^ Jordaan Sanford (25 October 2021). ""They have adopted her": Raducanu greeted with lots of love in Romania". Tennis Magazine.

CABF45 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This girl has ties to four different nations, it's crucial to add some content about that. CABF45 (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the premise that an extremely significant and noteworthy moment, as stated by Emma herself regarding the Queen letter, must be "balanced" with your desire to get a bit of Romania and China in there as well, regardless of 1. the relevance of the post, 2. the truthfulness of the post.
Emma wins US Open; Queen praises her and sends her a letter of congratulations; Emma frames it and repeatedly says it's her coolest moment of the year. Interesting, true, cited accurately, and clearly pertaining to the US Open. No problem. Then, for unknown reasons, you feel this must be balanced with "Halep said this thing in a post-match interview at a Romanian tennis tournament"..... and? So what? Seriously, what's your point here? Then you want to add something pertaining to China for this arbitrary sense of "balance" that no one asked for in the first place, where, in the day or two after the US Open win, "some" people in China (like the rest of the planet) praised her. Again, as I said to you on my "Talk" page..... it's been 8 months; she has 17,000 followers on Weibo. Eileen Gu has 6.82 million followers. Emma Raducanu is not relevant in China. She really isn't, the numbers aren't there.
You need to stop the agenda and accept reality. Db1256 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Halep statement and the BBC article regarding her popularity in China came right after her US Open win. You seriously believe that a US Open winning tennis player of Chinese descent is not widely known in China? CABF45 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue is with China and their ambivalence to Emma Raducanu, not me. (Though since she 1. wasn't born there, 2. has never lived there, 3. only has one parent who is Chinese, 4. doesn't pledge allegiance to China like, for example, Eileen Gu has, is it really that surprising that they don't "claim her as on of their own"? They have lots of their own athletes, they clearly don't have this insatiable desire to deny reality. Db1256 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with important info based on reliable sources being removed. Have you even read what you deleted? Most Chinese social media users started celebrating her Chinese heritage, some distanced themselves from her emphasizing Emma Raducanu's Britishness. CABF45 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues

I added the whole content in one paragraph, hope that satisfies everybody.

WP:MOS:

Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable.

CABF45 (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a notice: both DB1256 and Kingsif stopped discussion on the talk page. Does that mean they exclusively want to edit war from now on? CABF45 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nobody edit warred with you. 2. No, it means that you literally cannot be discussed with. No matter what we tell you, it's ignored or you repeat "LOOK AT THE PHOTOS" even though even if your theory was true, which it isn't, your
too rude, so ignoring your provoking notes it is. Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
1. Two editors, Db1256 and Kingsif edit warred with me. It was 2 vs. 1 editor, that's the only reason the info is not in the article as we speak.
2. If you can't discuss issues with other editors, you should quit editing Wikipedia, because that is what that project is about.
3. You removed information based on sources like
Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and you start citing that essay? CABF45 (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to believe that multiple editors combined reaching more than 3 reversions is edit warring, and while tag-teaming is improper, since there were hours between reversions and different reasons given, too, this is clearly not the case - instead, it shows that multiple editors have different reasons to oppose your edits. You seem to think that 2 editors not thinking material should be included, opposing just you thinking it should, is somehow unfair. Dude, consensus is clearly against you, and you not liking that nobody agrees with you isn't wrong.
You know full well that you literally cannot be discussed with is not a reflection on the collaborative ability of those who have gone out of their way to try to explain policy to you, instead a reflection on the fact that you refuse to listen and so attempting further discussion is pointless. Don't try to be a smartass.
No, I removed all of that based on policy. Reliably-sourced information can be removed if its inclusion is against policy, you can't only present half the facts, and only barely-relevant ones, too, to pretend you've been wronged. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see then how Wikipedia defines edit warring:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

That's clearly what happened in this case.
You removed information based on sources like
Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT
. That is not a policy. That's it.
The relevant policy is WP:Verifiability and both Db1256 and Kingsif ignored that policy simply because they didn't like my edit.
The reasons given in the edit summaries have been refuted one by one in my own edit summaries and talk page comments, that's why you started changing your reasoning. CABF45 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding the relevant paragraph as this thread was dedicated to MOS issues and readers no longer know what we're talking about.
Here's what I think is a fair representation based on reliable sources:

Among the commendations for her win, Raducanu was congratulated by members of the

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge did so in person and through social media,[1][2] and Queen Elizabeth II sent a letter, which Raducanu said "meant everything to her".[3]

Most social media users in China started celebrating her Chinese heritage, while some distanced themselves from her emphasizing Raducanu's Britishness.[4]

According to Simona Halep, her role model, Romanians are proud of Raducanu's historic 2021 US Open win and have adopted her as one of their own.[5][6][7]

I added
Tennis Magazine, BBC News and Daily Express, all reliable sources. CABF45 (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC) [reply
]

References

  1. ^ Jobson, Robert (24 September 2021). "Queens of the court: Emma Raducanu and Duchess of Cambridge meet up for tennis match in London". Evening Standard. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Petter, Olivia (12 September 2021). "'We Are All So Proud Of You': Kate Middleton congratulates Emma Raducanu on US Open Win". The Independent. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Sims, Andy (13 September 2021). "Emma Raducanu planning to frame congratulation letter from the Queen". The Independent. Retrieved 9 May 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Raducanu: US Open champion celebrated in China for her heritage". BBC News. 13 September 2021.
  5. ^ Yasmin Syed (25 October 2021). "Emma Raducanu labelled a Romanian hero after her US Open success - 'They have adopted her'". Daily Express.
  6. ^ Molly McElwee (25 October 2021). "'They have adopted her': New local hero Emma Raducanu reclaimed by Romania". The Daily Telegraph.
  7. ^ Jordaan Sanford (25 October 2021). ""They have adopted her": Raducanu greeted with lots of love in Romania". Tennis Magazine.

2021... way too trivial and should not be broken into sections.

My goodness the 2021 section is far too detailed. This is an encyclopedia not a book on the subject. I could easily cut it by 2/3 but perhaps those that care more about the subject would like to take a whack at it before I or someone else does? It's also rare that a yearly entry needs any subheadings... and this year has three! Even the 2022 section is lengthy considering we are 4 1/2 months into the year, it's longer than most player's entire year, and she hasn't progressed further than the third round in any event. We need to better summarize her events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a lot of trivia in the article that seems to be less of a summary and more of an essay on how famous British people reacted to her win. Some of this section is repeated a lot and is also summarised in
2022 Australian Open - Men's singles final
, given its significance as an all-teenager final with a qualifier and the impact it had on not only Raducanu's career but Fernandez's too.
I've removed some info from the 2021 section and removed the subheadings. Fully expecting some
WP:BRD to be required, given how many eyes have been on her since Wimbledon last year. Bonoahx (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The level of detail is oddly in line with the tennis bios I consulted before trying to tidy it up when I initially did that; they're very detailed, presumably because the tennis editors add a sentence for every match the subjects play. As it gets (got?) longer, hopefully we can condense to summary style, though I'm here more from the BLP side... well as that's going... so also might not know exactly what is important to keep/not. @Bonoahx: An article for the US Open final match may be a good idea, but would need someone who has written articles about tennis matches I presume? And, to save comparing edit histories, do you have a summary of what you removed in case, yeah, some is more/less significant than assumed? Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally found a lot of quotes about why she had chosen a coach, and what other commentators thought of the decision, as well what seemed to be quite a lot of trivia - including which channels and streaming services the final was broadcast on, who went to the final match, who her coaches were related to, and a lot of "fun fact"-style comments about how unprecedented the achievement was. Some of it was summarised elsewhere in the article, such as at
2021 US Open - Women's singles, which potentially some of the viewership stats could be put into. I'm not saying the win wasn't historic and a remarkable achievement which surely deserves more than a passing mention, but I do think there are areas where it could be summarised. Bonoahx (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
An argument would be that the US Open win was not only by far the greatest achievement of Raducanu's career thus far, it holds historical significance with the not dropping a set and being a qualifier. Of course she may go on to win other majors and render the US Open victory "1 major of many", but it's understandable why it would hold more than a passing paragraph like it's simply stating what happened in September that year before moving on to October like it was any other September. (Also I think the only mention of a famous British person reacting in the section now edited was the Duchess of Cambridge and the letter from the Queen (which she framed and said was the coolest moment of the year). Editors will decide either way, it's fine; just thought I'd make the point it wasn't random famous British people and filler trivia, it was a big deal for her at least. Db1256 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the level of detail tremendously bigger than most tennis bios. Sure, when players win tournament after tournament after tournament their year section gets bigger, but that is not the case here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be brash - I've tried to summarise the Queen and Kate Middleton's congratulations into a sentence at the end Bonoahx (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; yes that's good. Maybe the original citation from The Independent could be included (her framing the letter; where she's quoted as saying it "meant everything to her"), just so it gives the context of personal significance beyond general congratulation. Otherwise it looks fine; you've made the section more concise and efficient. Db1256 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonoahx: If the reasons for Raducanu choosing a coach dominate press coverage of her coaches, there should be some detail of it; has it been summarised? Yeah, I was the one who added the final broadcast information - I copied it over from the 2021 in television article; apparently, a network being able to purchase such rights like that is unprecedented, as were the viewing figures. That probably belongs at the US Open article, though. I did say (previously) the article would need to be cut back and summarised probably after Raducanu's full year on the WTA tour, but also thought at the time that if her primary notability is the US Open win, having it be a large focus in the article probably isn't undue (from a BIO perspective), what are your thoughts on that focus? Another question, for all, is whether Raducanu is active enough to get "20XX Emma Raducanu tennis season" articles, like some other players do (Category:Tennis player seasons)? Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, although some of these coaches such as Torben Beltz have their own Wikipedia articles where some of the information could be added as well. It might be worth having some info on things like her method of regularly switching coaches with sources like this, part of why Emma is such an interesting player is how differently she approaches these things to other players and how she's dealing with the often-cruel British tabloid media and other sports media.
Agreed the US Open as well as her breakthrough at Wimbledon should have a large focus in the article and that certainly isn't
WP:UNDUE. Feel free to add some of the bits I removed back if you think it's relevant, I have a match article in draftspace too. Not too sure when it would be deemed appropriate to have a year-by-year career stats article, Iga Świątek is the only active women's player to have had a statistics article since 2019, apart from a stub for Simona Halep, and in the men's it's normally the Big 3 and Medvedev, so I'm not sure if there's any consensus on when it is appropriate. Bonoahx (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Height

Re recent edits to the Infobox, this is not helped by information from apparently reliable sources, eg the WTA page at https://www.wtatennis.com/players/328366/emma-raducanu says that she is 1.75m tall but then says this is equivalent to 5 feet 7 inches, whereas in fact 1.75m = 68.89764 inches, ie virtually 5 feet 9 inches.

talk) 18:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

1.75m is reported by both the WTA as you linked and the Wimbledon reference provided in the article. The Wimbledon reference correctly converted it to 5'9" whereas the WTA is incorrect (and incorrectly listed for other players on their website that are 1.75m such as Yastremska). Even ESPN's website lists both at 5'9". I contacted the WTA a while back notifying them of the conversion discrepancy, but they never replied. 350z33 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reply wouldn’t have helped you, or us, since WP works from published information in reliable sources, not research by individual editors. You simply need a reliable citation. MapReader (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are rare occasions that replies do help, but not very often. When dictionaries don't give a spelling based on a definition, such as when to use runners-up and when to use runner-ups, it can help in contacting them when trying to form consensus on a talk page. In this case though, we go by sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the WTA website is just wrong in their conversion between metric and imperial so they have two different heights listed. The Wimbledon website correctly has one height listed in both metric and imperial. Even the WTA itself isn't consistent. For Coco, it correctly lists 1.75m as being 5'9" (https://www.wtatennis.com/players/328560/coco-gauff) and Pegula (https://www.wtatennis.com/players/316956/jessica-pegula) at 1.7m as being 5'7", but for Raducanu it has two different heights listed at 1.75m and 5'7". Also, I emailed the WTA for them to correct their conversion error on the webpage, not as a private response on her height as it doesn't matter which it is. I just wanted them to not list two different heights so we all would have seen it publicly if/when they correct their simple error. 350z33 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to put the three sources here in one comparison:
Wimbledon bio: 1.75m and 5'9" https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/players/overview/wta328366.html
ESPN bio: 5'9" http://www.espn.com/tennis/player/_/id/3398/emma-raducanu
WTA bio: 1.75m and 5'7" https://www.wtatennis.com/players/328366/emma-raducanu
So of the five heights listed, four are the same and one is different from the rest including being different on the very same webpage as the other listed height as said above. 350z33 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Raducanu&oldid=1201262044"