Talk:2008 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final

Tennis Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Score

Bit confused - the score at the top right above the image box doesn't match what it says in the text further down. Did Federer or Nadal win the first two sets? 217.138.1.162 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523070633/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time violation warning

This sentence seems a bit odd: "Nadal received time violation warning from the chair umpire in the third set, but rain stopped play once again as Federer led the third set 5–4." First, the "but" suggests that the two halves of the sentence are connected by some sort of contrast, but in reality these are two entirely unrelated facts. The time violation warning has no connection to the rain delay. Second, the fact that the time violation warning is seen as worth mentioning at all seems very strange. A single time violation warning carries no punishment and for Nadal is not that uncommon. A time violation warning just is not that significant an event in a match to be worth mentioning. I suspect the time violation warning was something added to the article and just wedged in there, as a more natural thing to write starting from the previous sentence would be this: "Once the match had commenced, Nadal won the first two sets 6–4, 6–4, but rain stopped play once again as Federer led the third set 5–4." I will change it to that unless someone thinks there is a good reason to retain the mention of the time violation warning. 134.41.98.98 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the edit history and discovered that my guess was right about the time violation comment being wedged in the text. It was added by an edit on 23 June 2015 in an edit that also added the phrase "Nadal cheated by violating time rules". It seems adding the time violation information was part of an agenda by an angry Fed fan to discredit Nadal's win. I'm going to go ahead and delete the reference to time violations. 134.41.98.98 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious reference

Hello. This Wikipedia entry includes a fictitious reference. A ficticious reference is a source that is listed within an article that an editor has added to support specific text within an article, while in reality that source does not support the text.

In this article, it is written the following text:

"Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal, or perhaps his recovery from a six-month battle with mononucleosis was not complete."

The fictitious reference is this: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html

As you can see, this source (a NY times article) does not support the text of this Wikipedia entry. The article only mentions the Australian Open 2008 semifinal. The article even said that Federer had already received medical clearance to play normally the 26th of February of 2008. This article was made four months before the Wimbledon 2008 final. No mention to any Wimbledon 2008 final or a "six months battle with a mononucelousis" is made, so it is incorrect and misleading to include that text with no source supporing it. This ficticious source does not even mention the Wimbledon 2008 final, so it should not be included in this article.

The fictitious reference also fails to mention that "many analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the youger Nadal" as the text does not make any reference to the Wimbledon 2008 final. James343e (talk) 1:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So the wording is now changed to fit the source. No big deal here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a couple more mono/bad back sources to help out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the "wording change to fit the source" is adding the unsourced claim that Federer had back issues? This is the original text:

"Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal, or perhaps his recovery from a six-month battle with mononucleosis was not complete."

This is the new text "edited to fit the source":

"Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal. Federer had back issues and even before Wimbledon some had said that his recovery from a six-month battle with mononucleosis was not complete".

With the new text edition, there are now three fictitious references:

Fictitious reference number one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html

This article does not mention Wimbledon 2008! nor does it mention that "Federer had back issues" or any "six-month battle with mononucleosis" (it talks about mononucleosis during the Australian Open 2008, but fails to mention specifically any "six-months mononucleosis"). Importantly, this article was made 4 months before the Wimbledon 2008 final and only talks about how the mononucleosis affected his Australian Open, there is no explicit link with the Wimbledon 2008 final, as it does not mention Wimbledon. The article also says that Federer received medical clearance to play normally the 20th of February of 2008, five days before the 2008 Dubai Tennis Championships started. Last, the article also fails to mention that "Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal".

Fictitious reference number two:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jul/07/wimbledon.tennis4

This article mentions Wimbledon 2008 but does not mention that "Federer had back issues" or any "six-month battle with mononucleosis". The article also fails to mention that "Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal".

Fictitious reference number three:

Myles, Stephanie (1 February 2010). "Risks pay off for Federer". The Gazette. pp. B3. |access-date= requires |url= (help)

This reference does not include any valid link so it cannot be checked whether that source exists. That is an example of ficticious reference, "dead links where an editor is attempting to mislead other editors by claiming that the information was once contained within them". See (Wikipedia:Fictitious references#Examples of fictitious references).

Therefore, I believe all this paragraph should be deleted, as it is not supported by the fictitious references: "Many tennis analysts wondered whether this was the beginning of Federer's decline in favor of the younger Nadal. Federer had back issues and even before Wimbledon some had said that his recovery from a six-month battle with mononucleosis was not complete".James343e (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You looked at and listed the wrong sources, and newspaper articles are perfectly fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The back issue was definitely present in 2018, though not necessarily before Wimbledon. However the rest of his statement is valid in describing his 2008 season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOURCEACCESS (which is part of a policy, contrary to WP:FICTREF which is an essay). Just because a source is no accessible through an active online link it doesn't make the source unreliable, let alone invalid. Your claim that because there is no valid link it cannot be checked that the source exists is flat out wrong. It's perfectly possible to acquire a copy of the print-only sources or to access one in a library or an archive. These are perfectly verifiable. As for Mononucleosis, I suggest you do some research on that topic as well. It's a very serious disease that can affect a person for a considerable time. Just because Federer was cleared to play competitive professional sports again in February following a break after his Australian Open loss, he didn't automatically regain the top form he had prior to contracting the disease. It could have easily taken months for him to get back to anything resembling his form and consistency prior to contracting that disease. In fact, only at the US Open in August-September 2008 did Federer finally show a level of form comparable to what he had throughout the preceding season.T v x1 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of Nadal stopping Federer's potential record of 6 consecutive Wimbledon titles

This paragraph has been deleted for no reason in the significance section:

"Federer had won five consecutive titles at Wimbledon (2003-2007), a record shared with Björn Borg. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer was pursuing to surpass Borg’s record, and become the first male player in the Open Era to win 6 Wimbledon titles in a row. Nadal defeated Federer at his most succesful Grand Slam and ended his 41-match winning streak at Wimbledon."

This paragraph is relevant from an historical point of view. Federer was in position to be the only man with 6 Wimbledon titles in a row, and his career rival Nadal was the first man to defeat him at Wimbledon in 5 years.James343e (talk) 9:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The back issue was produced in late 2008 (after the US Open 2008 title), not at Wimbledon 2008

@Fyunck included the following sentence in the significance paragraph:

"In a March 2009 interview, while discussing 2008 and early 2009, Federer said "Some people forget I had mono and a bad back. I had to work extremely hard to come back."[13]"

Reference: Frias, Carlos (28 March 2009). "Federer refuses to go quietly". The Palm Beach Post. pp. 1c, 5c. (No link avalaible).

This reference is a bit problematic, in the sense that, in the list of examples of fictitious references, it is included "dead links where an editor is attempting to mislead other editors by claiming that the information was once contained within them". See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Fictitious_references#Examples_of_fictitious_references

I do not doubt that that referece exists. But the problem is that it cannot be checked by other editors to read it by themselves. We have to rely in one editos's testimony. Anyhow, according to Fyunck's testimony, Federer was asked generally of "2008 and early 2009". Federer mentioned back issues and mono. However, Federer was talking in general terms of some problems he had in 2008 and 2009, but was not refering specifically to Wimbledon 2008. He did not mention Wimbledon 2008.

There are many references which allude to a Federer's back injury, AFTER he won the US Open 2008, but there is no single reference suggesting that Federer had a back injury specifically at Wimbledon 2008.

In this source, it is said that Federer had back issues in "late 2008":

https://books.google.es/books?id=1ZALsHtogbwC&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=federer+had+a+back+injury+in+2008&source=bl&ots=Yg8KLG9IQi&sig=ACfU3U2Tx5AS9z23uvvRZNZJQD-U5Hh-bg&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmgIOcgdziAhWMGBQKHVugD-A4ChDoATAGegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=federer%20had%20a%20back%20injury%20in%202008&f=false

In this source, it is mentioned that Roger Federer withdrawed from the Paris Masters (4 months after Wimbledon 2008) with a back injury

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/3330509/Roger-Federer-withdraws-from-Paris-Masters-with-back-injury.html

It is even said that: "Federer said in a statement on his official website: 'My back has been stiff for the last couple of days'" (Roger doesn't mention the last couple of months, and so he is not refering to Wimbledon 2008).

In this source, it is mentioned that Federer had a back injury in the Shaghai Masters in late 2008:

https://books.google.es/books?id=SWNvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT145&lpg=PT145&dq=federer+had+a+back+injury+in+2008&source=bl&ots=cllTNoeB_f&sig=ACfU3U27culD3J-ZC5OprLFjjPBJ_R3x6Q&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7ubv6gNziAhX68eAKHZOyAzYQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=federer%20had%20a%20back%20injury%20in%202008&f=false

In short, because all the references mention that Federer's back injury was produced in late 2008, after the US Open 2008 title, and because Federer did not mention specifically Wimbledon 2008 in Fyunck's original source, I decided to eliminate that allusion to a back injury. James343e (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]