Talk:Martina Navratilova

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:

• Paraguay stamp - Martina Navrátilová.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

After the semi-finals of the US Open, Navratilova decided to stay in the USA and not return to Czechoslovakia, motivating her decision with the desire to be a free person, which was impossible in the socialist Czechoslovakia. A month later, at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Navratilova received a special card for the possibility of living in the United States and possessed the citizenship of Czechoslovakia. She received US citizenship in 1981. On January 9, 2008, Navratilova was returned citizenship of the Czech Republic. She herself left, that is, she lost her citizenship of her own free will Цйфыву (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Which country when

The table has two flags Czechoslovakia and USA - quite appropriate - but only one set of dates being from her birth to 1975. Nothing for the the USA flag so seems likely you are expected to assume she represented the USA from 1975 or 1976. Reading the text however tells a different story and perhaps more tellingly from Navratilova's own words: (effect #13) "I applied for US citizenship and received it on July 20, 1981. Since then I have proudly represented the US in numerous competitions". Ok so she was a citizen of Czechoslovakia to 19 July 1981 and a USA citizen from the day after. Antipodenz (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Country representation has nothing to do with citizenship. She needed a national governing body to represent her to even play in international events, and the United States stepped forward. All the tournaments listed her as representing the US since she defected. But she did not play Fed Cup for the US until 1982. The performance timeline shows the timespan of the USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Activism sections

There is a HUGE difference in being anti-trans and against transexuals competing against women in sports. HUGE!!!! This section needs balance or to be removed. It should be discussed here in exact detail for everyone to work out the best wording before re-inserting because as it stood it was ridiculously slanted. It has no business in the lead section, but bits could be re-inserted in some form in the body by saying "some groups feel she is anti-trans" as long as we also show that some groups say she is not. Balance is key. She is outspoken about trans participation in women's sports but not about all trans issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I see someone re-added the bias stuff without working out the best wording here. It was removed by one editor, and then removed again. One thing for sure is that the one-sided writing sure does not belong in the lead section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

First off stop engaging in the removal of well-sourced information, which is reliably sourced and accurate. The constatnt removal of sourced information in the stable article is just pushing the bias Navratilova wants to portray.

Being a patron of a group which is exclusively dedicated to taking away the rights of trans people is clear that she is an anti-trans activist. Her dedication to being anti-science and pushing to exclude trans people from sports is anti-trans activism. No reputable science supports the exclusion from sports of trans people in the way Navratalova wishes to go. This includes her BBC (a very anti-trans mouthpiece) documentary, making out there is some form of debate on the existence of Trans people in society and in sports. This is not about fairness of safeguarding nonsense. It is about removing trans people from society beginning with sports.

The information regarding her anti-trans activism is multiple-sourced and reliably sourced. The information is verifiable and accurate. Not including it and washing the anti-trans activism. Labelling it as 'lesbian rights' is pushing the bias and propaganda that the group what to label themself so as to disguise that they are only interested in removing the rights of trans people.

The non-inclusion and washing of this out of the article to sanitise her views when Navratilova is simply a transphobe campaigning against trans people's rights is pro-Navratilova bias and using her slants to give her a nice clean image instead of the genuine underlying. Navratilova is using sport as her wedge to begin the removal of trans people from wider society as seen by her pivot to being a patron of the lesbian project which is an organisation with notorious trans hate people such as Julie Bindel. Working on the wording fine but the push the wash it out and sanitise Navratilova as anything other than an anti-trans transphobe is pushing her bias and not the reality of her transphobia.

Sparkle1 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's biased and one sided you bet I'll remove it. This is a living person and to twist things into something you like by using only one-sided sources is wrong! and will always be wrong! It is not clear she is anti-trans (whatever that truly means). You'll have to supply a full definition. She has always been against trans competing against women in sports, as does most of the world. This needs to be balanced, in fact including too much makes the whole article unbalance compared to her accomplishments. It's a small part of her persona over the course of a career. Her involvement with the group is fine, but leave the link to the group so readers can find out about it themselves. She has always been for lesbian rights and she feels that transexuals competing against women in sports is unfair, and she will fight for their rights gained from Title 9. I don't see where she is against transexuals having free speech or to take away the gun rights. There are a lot of people that work with the official Black Lives Matter group. That doesn't mean they agree with the full actual platform of BLM... or gosh I hope not. She is very sports oriented and very sports protective. This needs to be worded fairly and balanced, not be overly long, and certainly not in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You reverted multiple editors 4x and you have been warned on your talk page. Sorry I didn't see the do not post on the talk page memo as I was writing the warning. I won't post there again but then will be forced to take directly to administration instead of warning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's start again.

There is currently some discussion and disagreement over including truthful, factual, well-sourced and reliably sourced information pointing out and showing Navratilova as an anti-trans activist engaging in and being active in the Gender Critical (GC) movement. It needs including or it is biased in favour of Navratalova as this is not a place just for her spin on her GC activism. BLP arguments against inclusion do not wash as inclusion is covered by the fact the information is demonstrably true and heavily reliably sourced. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with including that Navratilova is against transports athletes competing against women because she feels it is an unfair advantage. That's a given. She has said it many times and has said she welcomes dialog. She has always pushed for Title 9 and LGB issues. Again a given. But let's not stretch it into something it's not and only use one set of sources to come to an agreement here. This is a tiny part of Navratilova's career and this article is a small summary of that career. That's what an encyclopedia is. This is not lead-worthy but these facts can be mentioned in her activision section. I don't really care if it's mentioned she stands with The Lesbian Project, but labeling that group is over the top. I read their mantra tonight and it is far from what you wrote. We mention she is a patron that group and if there is an article on it, we link to it. If not we source their website and a website that says she is a patron of it. That way readers can see she actually is a patron and what the group does, and leave bias sources out of the mix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources that Sparkle1 has introduced are somewhat spurious, too. At a glance I see one source that isn't reliable, another source that doesn't adequately support what the statement written said, and two sources that were combined to reach a conclusion, which violates WP:SYNTH. — Czello ^(music) 11:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Of the two versions we seem to be arguing about here, I think Sparkle1's is the less bad. The attempt to pitch the anti-trans stuff as "lesbian rights" is, at best, egregiously POV and, at worst, a divisive and possibly even homophobic mischaracterisation of the actual lesbian rights movement. I would have reverted that too. I might even have issued a (low level) warning template for POV editing to whoever added that description. I think it was a mistake to reinstate the previous version in total. It does not represent any sort of valid status-quo version that we can use as a basis for improvement. Given that Sparkle1's version has problems too, I think that the most neutral and productive thing to do would be to revert that section to the state before either Sparkle1 or Fyunck started editing it and then build up gradually from there. DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with a bigger revert to a more stable version. I think we need to be more particular about what the sources are actually saying (not to mention the quality of the source itself) when we build the article back up. — Czello ^(music) 11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Fyunck, I'm sorry to have to break this too you, but politics is full of groups who are not entirely what they claim to be. On Wikipedia we give priority to the assessments of independent reliable sources over organisations' own self-descriptions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey this is true. Look at BLM. But we also have to be careful about using one side of a contentious issue. Even what is antitrans is a contentious issue today. This article is 99% about a notable tennis player. Sure we mention peripheral interests because it's part of her persona, but usually that would be limited. We know she is a lesbian and has always championed lesbian issues. Of course we tell our readers those things but we don't wright a book on it. She now is firmly against trans people from competing against women in sports. Of course we mention that fact, but it's a sentence or two without embellishing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have gone back to the 28 March 2023 version. Before I get the pile on of course I have kept the edits which are nothing to do with this dispute in the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It's probably the best version with neither of our edits (or others). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose describing her as an activist for LGBT issues when reliable sources contradict this view.  — Freoh 14:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

New York Post

 Question: why are we referencing the New York Post in this article [1]? As I recently pointed out [2], Wikipedia consensus is that the NYPOST is not a reliable source.  — Freoh 14:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Transgender athletes

Should it read transgender beliefs or something similar instead? She speaks regularly of transgenders besides sports. Volleyingvirgo (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But it seems like 99% is about transgenders participating against women in sports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe 99%-100% in the news but look at her Twitter feed, her views go far beyond trans sports participation regularly. She's tweeted about funding anti-trans group like Maya Forstater's group; she's funding a Lesbian group by Julie Bindle, they say it's not just anti trans but take a look, etc. I guess not really postable to Wikipedia unless it makes the news to cite, but Wikipedia should give an accurate pic which this fails to do IMO. Volleyingvirgo (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, she's doing everything in her power to stop trans from competing against women in sports. Those groups will help I'd think. She is of the opinion that if it hurts lesbians and women in the field of sports, something she's spent most of her trying to help, it can't be good. This is pretty much a sports issue for her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

LGB vs 'gay and lesbian'

DanielRigal you suggested we should not use the term LGB because you felt it was "not neutral", and favoured "gay and lesbian" instead. I think I disagree. Perhaps you think this because many TERF's and GC's use the term to describe themselves, but that doesn't mean the term is not neutral. For example, much of the scientific literature refers to sexual minorities as "LGB" people, e.g. from a quick google scholar search: here, here, here, here and here. You can find countless more and this dates back to the 90s, long before the whole 'LGB without the T'. Perhaps I am mistaken on what you meant by 'not neutral'. However, I think we should follow what the sources say, so if she has supported lesbian, gay and bisexual rights then LGB activist is fine, if it's just gay and lesbian activism, that is better. Still I wanted to join this out for future edits. It's better to not let the GCs have ownership of the acronym 'LGB'. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the cat can go back in the bag on this one. "Sexual orientation" would be fine with me, as would merging the subsection with the one on trans athletes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Martina makes the news so much about making comments regarding trans people I think someone should enter a section called Transgender Beliefs or similar and merge Transgender Athletes into that m. I talked to Fyunck who is adamant she is only against trans sports participation which Martina has even stated but there are many reliable, well-documented sources to the contrary. Volleyingvirgo (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Also some of the examples given under the 'transgender athletes' section include a cisgender male drag queen and a cisgender man who crossdressed as a hobby. It seems evident to me at this point it isn't about 'integrity in women's sports' but disdain for anyone who doesn't conform to gender norms, cis or trans. I'm sure at first this was about 'integrity' but like many transphobic people (which she is) the initial 'I'm just concerned and asking questions' quickly developed into full blown hatred in a matter of a few years. BreakfastSonata (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the ship has already sailed on "LGB". Whatever it was in the past, they own it now, at least for the time being. If sources support it, it would be better to add "and bisexual" than to say "LGB". Alternatively, I'd be happy with "Sexual orientation" as suggested above. DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

error in transgender athletes

I added "after being outed" after died since it seems very relevant and tried to provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia hyperlink to "outed" but failed. Can someone correct that for me? I don't want to make it worse. Seems I need to practice more before I publish again. Thank you! Editorcgvv (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've fixed that link to make it an internal link. DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) Why is this in the Transgender Athletes section since the person was a cross dressing Republican politician, and 2) where does it say in the reference that she was 'happy,' as it does twice in the entry? 2600:1017:B014:60F9:7D9E:8231:C08F:4988 (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct, too biased here. She even tweeted later she wasn't happy about the death, just happy they couldn't hurt any more women, alluding to the 1819 site's as far as I know unsubstantiated belief that he (he used he/him) was hurting women. It should just read what she tweeted, the world is better off or whatever. It made the news and definitely was an unpleasant thing to say, and of course Martina follows the Right's transgender news closely. Somebody should link the 1819 and Bob Copeland pages too. Editorcgvv (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I added citations that were missing for the last entry for views on transgender people.

What about 1975?

She competed for Czechoslovakia before 1975 and the U.S. after 1975. What about 1975 itself? Didn't she play that year? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done fixed in infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: As far as you changing it to October, maybe yes maybe no. It's a little fuzzy back then as to when the USTA accepted her. She defected on September 7. She played in three US tournaments before September had ended. Not sure for whom she played. Could have been under US or perhaps nothing or perhaps still Czech? In the second week of October she was given permanent residence, got her green card, and was playing for the US. Usually, and even today, you can't play professional tennis without registering with the ITF and being represented by a country's tennis association. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly when that happened for Navratilova. October is probably correct but it might have been September. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. If you're uncomfortable with "from Oct", maybe we could have "Sep/Oct" in both "until" and "from" (or circa), and have a footnote in the article explaining what you write here. Since you know these details, there must be sources, right? We could put them in the footnote, backing it up. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly dig up sources that show vagueness on the situation. The trouble is we don't want the infobox overly wide or line wrapped, and we don't want refs in the infobox either. Really what's in the infobox should technically already be in prose. Your October is as good as anything else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

The Bibliography section contains puffery which I think should be deleted. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now deleted the puffery. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)