Talk:Maria Sharapova

Doubling up on the same thing from other sections

I have no idea why a few editors want to double up on the same thing in multiple sections. It was reverted of course and needs to be talked about before re-adding. It's one thing to write something fairly derogatory about someone, but if the sources are there we follow those sources. But to write it in two different sections is undue weight! I'm not sure if the whole drug section is a bit too long and undue weight already but as long as it doesn't continue to grow it's not a big matter. But flowing it into the candy section is trivial. Do we start talking about diabetes in every article that has to do with candy bars? No. This is simply a section on her candy business. But before it gets added back in it needs to be discussed. Goodness, Djokovic says something unfair to women and we aren't allowed to add a single sentence about it without it getting deleted. Here some want to double up on remarks. Let's keep things on an even keel folks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that it wasn't completely doubling up (and it could have been worded a bit better so as to prove this), I thought the information was necessary to include because it spoke of blood sugar levels, which I believed held some relevance in the Sugarpova section. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was doubling up, but discussion of the addition is well and fine. I assume we all want the article to be complete and the best it can be. Now, I still don't think it needs to be mentioned again at all, but if it was added it would go under her "personal life" or perhaps a "health" section, not her candy company. It was also written as "Sharapova said that one of the health issues she had been using the drug meldonium to treat for ten years was diabetes,[173] which can result from high blood sugar levels." Well that's incorrect. She said the she took the drug because of some heart concerns and that she has "a family history of diabetes." Big difference there! This was written as if someone said to themselves... my god, she has diabetes and she runs a candy company... I better include this contradiction. That's not what we're here for.

If it got mentioned again at all it would be under some health section that simply said Sharapova has said her family has a "history of diabetes." It wouldn't need anything more. We have to be very careful about how this gets framed on wikipedia. We have to talk about it for sure, but it wasn't illegal like heroin. It was banned in tennis, and for that she'll be severely punished "by the ITF." But it was totally legal in many countries. She was under a doctors care and had a prescription. From everything told to us so far this was not Lance Armstrong. We just have to be careful and treat this encyclopedic, not like a blog. Summarize what happened, make it short and "sweet" (pun intended), keep in mind wikipedia weight guidelines, and make sure it's 100% factual with many many sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We know you thought it was doubling up - there's no need to double up on your point, Fyunck.

I agree totally with 4TheWynne. The fact that she cited diabetes as one of the things she needed to take meldonium for, albeit "only"because of "a family history of diabetes" and yet she is responsible for a coy. which sells sugary "foods" is most definitely noteworthy. Juxtapose that with her seriously considering changing her name to Sugarpova, and .... I rest my case. Oh, and by the way, it IS true that one of the health issues she says she took meldonium for for ten years is diabetes. It's just that she took it for "a family history" of it. If someone takes a drug, they take it for to treat something. In her case, it was to treat a propensity in her family for debates. Allegedly. Boscaswell talk 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Combining her family's diabetes and her marketing of sugary drinks to make or suggest a point is original synthesis, which is not permitted. Unless there is a reliable source saying this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WADA substance controversy - really getting bloated

Every time I look, this section is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Like a 50's horror movie. What's gonna happen when a ruling comes down? Double the size? It's already WP:undue weight in my opinion. We don't need everybody's take on the issue... just the facts and a couple key quotes. I mean no one cares what Carl Frampton says. It really needs a trimming. The things that meldonium does or doesn't do really belong in the Meldonium article , not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've stripped it down a fair bit and removed anything that I didn't think was relevant, and kept some of the opinions which stood out, but I don't want to become subjective about all of this, so I'll leave it to you guys to decide if the section looks fine now. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL... I wasn't going to touch it either... too much controversy. You did a great job. I guess the only thing differently that I would have done would be with the quotes from other tennis players. I'd have to think a bit on how I'd handle it. (I sit back and stare at the ceiling for two minutes) Capriati is a drug user herself. I probably would have lumped Capriati, Azarenka and Cibulkova together in a sentence that said "Jennifer Capriati, Victoria Azarenka, and Dominika Cibulkova also showed little sympathy for Sharapova".[180][188][189] ... and let the 3 links to their quotes speak for themselves if readers wanted to see. The rest I think I'd leave as is. Again nice job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The section is look fine now actually and I like it, but why the statement from Kristina Mladenovic has been erased? (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/12/kristina-mladenovic-maria-sharapovapa-cheater-tour-simona-halep) it should be include on that section. She's maybe not popular as another female top players but her opinion about Sharapova is reliable. Politsi (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We really don't need a quote from everyone. A summary and cites from a few notables would be adequate. It would be also worth keeping in that Sharapova is, by the same accounts, not that popular among fellow professionals, which may balance their lack of sympathy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In response partly to Fyunck, the reasons why I made this edit without incorporating Capriati as part of that are, firstly, because she is a former player as opposed to Azarenka and Cibulkova, who are not (which makes sense), and secondly, because the verbal attack that she made on Twitter was so significant that I felt even the stripped-down version of what she said/did belonged on its own. I even had a look at her Twitter at the time when this was first reported, so I have an idea of exactly what she said. Anyway, that was my reasoning, but apart from that, I basically went by what you suggested. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The recent edit by you perhaps at that section. It's good!. Simple but straight to the point. And I wondering what's gonna happen if Sharapova read her profile in here. But she deserve to get the consequences, and also another (a lot of) Russian athlete who also use Meldonium. Politsi (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck: Oh dear. Turn away and work hard on something else for a few days and look what happens. I absolutely definitely 100% do not agree with deleting "The things that meldonium does or doesn't do", because it removes any semblance of balance. We have a lot of space given over to Sharapova saying why she took meldonium, about what she says it does or doesn't do. Funny that they have not been trimmed, eh? What happened to WP:NPOV?

I am not, however, arguing for her arguments to be trimmed right back, I considered trimming her quotes a few weeks ago but determined that to do so would be putting to put a slant on it and would be unfair to her. But where we have her saying I took it because I was told it does this, and at length, then we need to have back in the sentences which discussed what it is used for and what it does, because otherwise there is no balance. Yes, that discussion also belongs in the meldonium article, but. \what was there before deletion belongs in this article. Most readers are not going to go elsewhere in Wikipedia, they are going to look only at this article. The article is now unbalanced and therefore the deletions were wrong. I have spent a lot of time working on this article, a lot of what has been deleted was written by myself, though there were other editors involved, but anyone looking at the revision history will see my name a lot, and so I would appreciate it if anyone who makes such substantial changes pings me when they propose to do so. It is not hard to do that and Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. It is not possible to monitor every article I work on, I have a life as well. Thank you. By the way, yes, the section was getting long. But the subject of her suspension is massive. Every section about her career is long. This is in effect another section about her career and not something to be made little of. The trimming of the reactions by other sports people paragraph - fine. That was getting too long. Well done on that. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Is it acceptable to give no time for discussion at all after a suggestion is made on Talk before going ahead and deleting something which is likely to be controversial and which others have worked hard on? Please explain. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually this is all pretty new material, so one could also look at it as before it should ever have been added it should have been discussed. So there are two ways of looking at it. This is a collaboration and it's why I brought it up here. IMHO this is not the article to discuss all the merits or dangers of the drug. That is for another article. If readers are really interested in what the drug may do they will click the link and find out. Over the course of her entire career the weight given to this was getting ridiculous and continuing to grow. We don't even have a determination as to what punishment will be handed down. Marin Čilić's section on his drug use is six sentences... and that includes all the punishment and appeals. Viktor Troicki was four sentences including his appeal. Martina Hingis is five sentences long including the punishment. Some of these people don't even have separate sections for the drug stuff, it is simply melded into the full year of tennis. Sharapova's section is MASSIVE in comparison, and that's without even a hearing and result. I still think it might be too large but 4TheWynne did an excellent job of trimming it to a reasonable level. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I went by a couple of suggestions by Fyunck and avoided trimming her own quotes. Again, after I made the edit, I said I didn't want to become subjective about all of this, and I would leave it for others to deliberate on. Nothing's been set in stone yet. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck I don't dispute that the sections on others are far shorter, but a. Sharapova is a massive figure in the world of tennis, and more importantly, b. it's conventional for matters which become historical to be subject to trimming, severe or otherwise. We haven't reached that stage yet, it's still a current event. Also, Wiki wasn't as well-used or as well-edited at the time of the earlier misdemeanors? The main area of the section which had been continuing to grow a few days ago was quotes from tennis players and others. That *was* getting crazy. And probably still warrants some trimming. The work on what I have now reinstated was done during the days after the initial revelations. I take you point over it being better to put things to Talk before putting them in, in an ideal world...., but you probably realise that it's more or less impossible to establish a measured Talk discussion during the frenzied days which follow major revelations, as I've discovered during the past week on the Panama Papers. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

4TheWynne Thanks for that. All the best to all. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But we are not a newspaper that puts every detail of "current events. It was far too much bloat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck I set out in great depth why I re-introduced what I re-introduced. When deleting it, all you could say in your Edit summary was "much better as it was". And all you could say here was "too much bloat". The amount I re-introduced was only about 35-40% of what has been deleted by 4TheWynne. So what you have carefully constructed is an article which sets out the reasons why she took it and leaves out any discussion of what meldonium does or doesn't do. Only wanting to include her reasons is unbalanced and suggests violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore, I have reverted your edit. Boscaswell talk 04:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And I saw no one agreeing with you. What you added was the same bloat that was removed. And that new stuff under the candy section was ridiculous. Write out here what you think is vital and we'll all discuss it. There are 4 editors who agreed with 4TheWynne's changes, and only you who demand all the trivial stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with doing this, and I appreciate the support, Fyunck(click), but is it worth going for an RfC? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We certainly could. What's mind boggling to me is I tried to add a "single sentence" about Djokovic's comments about men deserving more prize money. It was crushed by a single editor and no one would support me. A single sentence still has not been added. This article seems to be the opposite. I can never figure out wikipedia. The thing is we only have one editor with a problem... Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I had already done what you have just asked ("write out here what you think is vital"), Fyunck. Just page up and you'll be able to read it. I'm sure you can't have done so already as otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to do so again. I have written out in depth why I believe that what you have just deleted again should be in. I have made the points over and over, but you do not engage other than to dismiss what I would like to include as bloat. I am following WP:NPOV. You only seem want to include Sharapova's opinions. You have not yet answered that point, which is of prime importance and fundamental to Wikipedia, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.

This isn't the Djokovic article. Please leave out any sentiment you have about that one when you consider this article.

You are the only editor who has agreed with yourself over your deletions. 4TheWynne has not been categorical. The others have not seen my entreaties.

Would you like to reconsider? Boscaswell talk 07:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed the part about discussing it instead of ramming it through against consensus. It contains Sharapova's statements to the press, it contains multiple attacks against her by her fellow players. It provides links to the substance meldonium where readers can find out all details about the substance. It contains the fact that WADA has banned meldonium and that it's not licensed in the USA. It contains the fact she has been provisionally suspended by the ITF. It contains what companies have severed ties with her. This could be more info than all other tennis players with suspensions combined. If it was like most it wouldn't even have a separate section... it would simply be contained in 2016. It was bloated. 4TheWynne took on the responsibility of helping us trim the thing, and I think he did a pretty good job... as did others in thanking him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And I think other articles such as Djokovic's or even Bob Hewitt's rape conviction are interesting comparisons about the way wikipedia handles these things. A sentence such as Djokovic came under some criticism in March of 2016 for saying that male tennis players deserve more tournament money than women was nixed while here we have a separate section getting bigger and bigger by the minute. When she has her hearing and gets slapped with her punishment it should probably "replace" items already here rather than simply add on. But right now I see 4TheWynne's edit as a good compromise between bloat and a summary of the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I never said I wasn't being categorical – again, I said I didn't want to become subjective. I still agree with my edits. I was only trying to trim it down – I was not trying to include only Sharapova's opinions and/or quotes, and I don't believe that that's all there is left of importance in the section. Therefore, I don't agree entirely with your point about WP:NPOV. I still think that the best course of action would be to start an RfC. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, 4TheWynne. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The section in question has been edited to one paragraph and two paragraphs. We have the current version:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence, however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis. Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat several health issues, including diabetes and low magnesium,[170] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list, but had they done so, they would have looked for mildronate and not found it on the list".[171] However, a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, titled "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List", outlined the addition of mildronate.[172][173] It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[174] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

and we have a longer version:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The Latvian manufacturers of the drug, Grindeks, told Associated Press that "treatment course[s] of meldonium preparations may vary from four to six weeks [and] can be repeated twice or thrice a year.”[170] The company said it "cannot improve athletic performance",[171] while the drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping."[168] But he also said that it "[optimises] the use of oxygen".[168] It is advertised as giving a mental focus, and having an ability to increase oxygen movement to muscles could therefore have a positive effect on stamina and endurance.[172]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat several health issues, including diabetes and low magnesium,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list, but had they done so, they would have looked for mildronate and not found it on the list".[174] However, a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, titled "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List", outlined the addition of mildronate.[175][176] It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

What if we used this instead of either of those items:

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping",[168] but he also said that it "optimises the use of oxygen".[168]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiancy, an irregular EKG and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Her lawyer John Haggerty said, "Unfortunately no one from Maria's team looked at the 2016 banned list." It has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times in 2015 that meldonium was due to be banned,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

Thank you for that, Fyunck. I really appreciate your work on this ^^^^^. In the hours between my last comment here and this moment, opening up again to look at what was here, I'd been thinking that a re-write along the lines that you've come up with would be the answer. And you've done one, which looks pretty good. So please, your suggestion is great, please go ahead. Thanks again. Boscaswell talk 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's make sure others agree. We don't want someone unhappy like you were. As you said this is a group effort and we want to get it right. Does anyone have a problem with this or suggestions on how to make it better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking again, my suggestion is this, which is broadly as yours. Fyunck, but with one sentence dropped and another added and a few other minor ce changes. My suggestion is half a line longer than yours.*gasp*

Meldonium is not licensed in the United States, Sharapova's country of residence,[168] however it is used legally in Russia, the country that Sharapova represents in tennis.[169] The drug's inventor Ivars Kalviņš said that he didn't think taking it should be construed as "doping",[168] but he also said that it "optimises the use of oxygen".[168]

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiency, an irregular EKG...expand abbrev.? and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. The addition of mildronate was outlined on a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) summary document, "Major Changes – 2016 WADA Prohibited List".[175][176] It was reported that all tennis players were warned five times before the ban on use of meldonium came into force,[177] but on March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

...and then, following our trimming exercise, we continue with another major quote from Sharapova herself. *sigh* :-)

Over to you. Boscaswell talk 14:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

EKG is a very common term and it's what Maria used. A simple EKG should suffice. The other change I'm not so sure about. Most other problems such as this don't need the exact document that tells of the drug's banning. That's trivial. And you want her lawyer's quote removed to insert it? If others agree we could do the substitution but it should read:

Sharapova said that she had been taking the drug to treat magnesium deficiancy, an irregular EKG and family history of diabetes,[173] and indicated that she had not read an email informing her that meldonium had been banned for use in sport. Mildronate's addition was outlined on a WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency summary document, and it has been reported that all tennis players were warned five times that it was due to be banned.[175][176][177] On March 11, 2016, Sharapova denied reports about the five missed warnings via Facebook:

How does that look? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks, Fyunck. :-) Boscaswell talk 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What's interesting is this section may become no more than an astrix since WADA may revert its ban to only athletes who have it in their systems after March 1, 2016. This could very well lift Sharapova's ban. But we aren't a newspaper, so we just have to wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- I know there are Sharapova fans here who trying to clean up or minimize the negative impact of Sharapova's doping violation with false narratives and incorrect headings. This is very irresponsible, disruptive and should STOP. The event that occurred is a "Doping Violation" and should be correctly titled as such. Not "WADA Substance Controversy". WADA did not initiate the event or cause the controversy. Sharapova did. So why is WADA leading the title? This seems like a ploy to mislead readers and it is wrong. Also it should be clearly stated that it was CAS that reduced Sharapova's suspension to 15 months. Not the ITF. They are two different organisations. So this line should be more factual and say "On October 4, 2016, the suspension was reduced to 15 months by CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). The doping violation narrative itself on the article seems to be heavily saturated with a lot of Sharapova quotes and Sharapova perspective of the event, as if it everybody else did something wrong except Sharapova herself, who actually committed the crime. Again, an attempt to mislead readers and reduce the negative impact of Sharapova's crime. Where is the neutral point of view in that? Where are the quotes and perspective of the ITF tribunal who actually investigated and ruled on the case? Their perspective is not important? This event needs real account of what happened. Not what Sharapova fans want readers to know.

What ever validity your point may have has been lost by your complete failure to assume good faith and casting of aspersions on other editors' motivations. This is not a constructive contribution to this discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet-Judging by Escape Orbit's ignorance and complete failure to grasp the basic simplicity of my point, means he or she is exactly the problem and one of the distruptive editors that I'm referring to here. Folks who come here to twist facts and logic into their own bizzare false narratives, because they are obsessed fanatics of that certain athlete. Before you question my point, how about actually read, think and use your brain, assuming you have one, to deconstruct my point. It's really really simple. STOP the bias pro-Sharapova editing that is saturating her page! Edit with truth and facts. Not alternative-facts. Get it??

Fatality1, you need to watch your tone – right now, you're the one who's editing disruptively. The editors who do the most work at this article to keep it as neutral as possible, such as myself, are not simply "obsessed fanatics" of Sharapova, as you say. You could just as easily be a Sharapova-hater, and you are certainly giving off that impression. The only "basic simplicity" to your point is that you need to assume good faith, as Escape Orbit said, and not just make these ridiculous claims that us editors are biased and "twisting facts and logic into our own bizarre false narratives". The WADA substance controversy section, due to the work that's been put in by a number of experienced editors, is one of the better-written sections of the article. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- "I need to watch my tone"? Are you threatening me, 4TheWynne? Because that sounds a lot like a threat. So for you lecturing me on my tone, you need to check yourself. You talk about editing in good faith and neutral point of view when you or your so-called experienced editors have completely twisted the Sharapova's doping narrative with falsehood, such as using a misleading header that says "WADA substance Controversy", as if trying to lead the reader to assume or believe that WADA instigated the incident or somehow caused a controversy out of nowhere, which is completely false. Sharapova was the one who was caught doping and admitted her doping violation, so the title of the doping story should suggest as such. The incident is NOT a WADA Substance Controversy. It is a "Doping Violation" and should be titled as such. There other misleading parts of the article, such as her incorrect/inflated prize money, no context given for her ranking suspension, leading readers to think her ranking was just suspended for no reason, and no statement about what organisation actually reduced her ban or why her ban was reduced. So before you come at with your threat or unfounded accusations, check your manners and your check your behaviour. Fatality1 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not threatening you, Fatality1. What I will say, however, is that – in your most recent comment alone – you've given me enough evidence to suggest that you are a sockpuppet of Aries009, who seemed to have the very same problems with this article. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aries009 sockpuppet- So whoever disagrees with your disruptive editing is a sockpuppet? That is your logic, 4TheWynne? It can't at all be because you are a self-proclaimed Sharapova fanatic who might have questionable motives or a disruptive agenda towards her article that needs to be checked or questioned? No? Well, you are certainly allowed to have your own opinion, however ludicrous or idiotic it may be. I was simply making a suggestion here about the false narratives that I have seen on her article before you engaged with your threat, rudeness and idiocracy. And if multiple folks are seeing and saying the same thing as me, then I can't be the one with the problem, can I? So I will tell you once again in case it wasn't clear the first time. Check your attitude out the door and check yourself! Fatality1 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Does this edit contradict neutral point of view?

The consensus is that this edit does not cause the WADA substance controversy section of the Maria Sharapova article to contradict neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2016 (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.

---

Does this edit cause the WADA substance controversy section of the Maria Sharapova article to contradict neutral point of view? The edit in question is a small portion of an overhaul that I made to the section. The relevant discussion can be found above. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• No - I don't think it does, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be tighter with some tweaks here or there. It could even have more and better info in a smaller space if we tighten things up. I even made a suggestion right above this RfC. Of all tennis players that have been banned for substance abuse I think this article by far has the most written about it...and all those other players have had their hearings and punishments handed down and included in the prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• No IMO the current text is neutral. I think all 3 of the blocks in the section above are neutral, but I think the last one is the most concise and encyclopedic. John, AF4JM (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (in reply to RfC)
• No The text, as I see it and as it currently stands, does not violate the rule enforcing neutrality. -The Gnome (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

I request you the permission to edit the page 'Maria Sharapova'. I won't do unneccesary edits.

Joliekukku (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

How many Grand Slam Match Wins has Sharapova?

The Number of 180 given in the statisticsection seems to be wrong. Sharapova has 46 Wimbledon-Wins. So she has 179 Grand-Slam-Wins without this years Australian Open and 183 with it. What number is correct? --Intimidator (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Something does not cross-foot. It's 180 wins adding down the rows but 179 adding across the columns. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said she has 46 Wimbledon-Wins and not 47. --Intimidator (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So the numbers of wins by year is right; it's the total for Wimbledon that's off? —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the WTA (assuming it's correct) they give her 183 wins. It includes this year's 4 wins at the Aussie Open. The ITF also includes her wins at the Australian Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the WTA page, I agree with dropping the Wimbledon number to 46. Any objections to that edit?

I'm mixed on what to do with this year's Australian. However, the ITF has it in her stats; I'm inclined to say include but put in a note. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So the prize money and the ranking points are gone, but the wins remain. But another problem comes up with your links. At WTA she is credited with 601 wins. The ITF has her with 588 wins. --Intimidator (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Who knows what the WTA and ITF will eventually show. It's kind of fluid. As for the wins, there are events sanctioned by the ITF that aren't with the WTA and vice versa. Although usually it's the WTA with the smaller total. It's why we use them as sources, but overide them when we can show they missed something. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)