` (UTC)  Part III  What's with blanking out the names completely? So much for compromise. I'm going back to COUNTING the pre-1925 champions. Here's why:  1. The outside sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, list them.  2. All the arguments that could be made against the pre-1925 French tournament could also be made against the other three.  3. The idea of the ``slam`` didn't even emerge until the 1930s, with Don Budge...but do we see anyone black out pre-1938 Wimbledon champs?  4. It's clear that the French tournament was MORE open...their first champ was a Brit, as was two runners-up in the early decades. Interestingly, the US ``Open`` in 1881 was open only to Americans, and was for several years. Yet we count them, because that's the origin of the tournament.  5. There's also the pro-am dispute, pre-1968.   6. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect pluralistic viewpoints, not just the one of one person such as Fyunclick who violates WP:OWN to contort this and similar tennis articles to reflect his own views, rather than reflecting outside sources that existed long before Wikipedia did.   15:25, 3 July 2009`