Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:44, 3 September 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Proper consensus needed over nationality

Okay, this is getting out of hand. We need a proper vote, or debate to decide whether we refer to Murray as British or Scottish. This debate could also extend to other persons on Misplaced Pages.

A vote/debate is needed, because it keeps changing between the two. I have changed it in the past, but have now stopped because I do not believe in edit wars. Please, lets not have an edit war, lets have a proper discussion.

I for one think it should be British, so that all Great British people can just be referred to as one. This also reflects the way in which England, Scotland and Wales are united. Please do not use Welsh/Scottish Independence arguments, as they are off the topic. This debate is not about whether there should be a United England, Wales and Scotland or not. This is about clarifying Misplaced Pages and making it a better place for everyone.

Thanks, Dewarw 11:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

There is/was a debate on the issue at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). The original proposal, that people from UK nations be referred to a "British" was rejected, due to a lack of consensus. Lurker (said · done) 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I have come up with a compromise on the page for the time being.

I have included both British and Scottish until a formal decision is made.

Please do not change from one to the other until the decision is made.

Thanks, Dewarw 11:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

This "compromise" frankly looks silly. There already is a compromise- the article says he represents both the UK and Scotland. Other sources, such as newspapers, tend not to refer to people as "British (Scottish)", they use one or the other. Lurker (said · done) 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, it's a simple statement of fact. --Breadandcheese 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be a loaded question and why there is an edit war, but WHAT IS MURRAY'S NATIONAILTY? Or can't that be answered so easily? It seems that per wp:mosbio we should use his nationality. Anyways, there does not seem to be any consensus either way currently. How do other bios treat this? I mainly work with US bios. TIA --Tom 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest not discussing his nationality in the introduction and mentioning both Scottish and British within the main body of the article. The fact that he represents Great Britain and Scotland alongside his place of birth really says enough on that front for an intro. --Breadandcheese 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bio articles tend to have nationality in them. I suggest saying he is "from scotland" and "the UK number one" in the first line- avoiding the contentious words "British" and "Scottish" althogether without sacrificing meaning. Lurker (said · done) 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention his nationality? We do it for all bios per wp:mosbio and its appropriate. I have tried the old "xyz-born ABC" :) Also, I removed the scotsman reference as POV. --Tom 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it so that it contains both "British" and "Scottish", without looking like a clumsy compromise. That should satisfy, unless people want to war over the order the terms appear. BTW, The Scotsman is a newspaper, so is a reliable source, not POV. Lurker (said · done) 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also, used the term "scottish-born", to avoid another edit war. Lurker (said · done) 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>I was refering to the scotsman as a non neutral source when it comes to how one refers to this person. Anyways, its too bad that certain editors are very militant when it comes to ethnicity and nationality issues. I still haven't seen an anwser to my question. What is this man's nationality? Can that be answered/determined or not? --Tom 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why a respected newspaper should be subject on this issue simply because it is Scottish. As for Murray's nationality, as has been mentioned before, there is precedent for using both. Media sources (I've seen an article in The Times describe him as a Scot- if I can find it I'll add it to the article as a ref), and common usage, tend to use both terms. Lurker (said · done) 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi lurker, thanks for the response. I am asking not to make a point but out of ignorance unfortunately. I am not really slamming the scotsman, itsmore that they have an article about famous Scots and mention Murray, but I am not sure what that really accomplishes. He is Scottish, I got that. What I am trying to do is conform to wp:mosbio which says that the person's nationality should be mentioned in the lead sentence. He is not English, got that. Is he British? I think so. Is British a nationality? If so, I would go for Scotish-born British xyzer. Anyways, --Tom 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish is also regarded as a nationality, which is why I have incuded both Lurker (said · done) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, then he should be called Scottish since he was born in Scotland. Sorry for beating this issue but I thought I could help since I don't have a preference either way accept to try to conform to wp:mosbio. Anyways, --Tom 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would probably describe myself as British, but if I had to choose between English and Scottish, I would almost certainly go for English, despite being born in Scotland. I have English parents and grandparents, and only lived in Scotland for 18 months after I was born. Where you were born is not always your nationality. Richard B 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. We have many bios of folks born in other countries(non US), who then move to the US, become citizens and we refer to them either as xzy-born American whatevers or just as plain American whatevers. Again, WHAT IS THIS MAN'S nationality? Can you be a citizen of Scotland and carry a Scottish passport(is there such a thing)? I have a feeling that you don't and that is the reason for this symantical tiff. Anyways,--Tom 14:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Lets take Rusedski for example. He was born in Canada, so therefore by this reckoning he is Canadian, but he is a British tennis player, he represented them in the sport. He's not a Canadian tennis player is he? No. Never has been, but he's still Canadian. So as his article states Gregory "Greg" Rusedski (born September 6, 1973, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) is a former British tennis player. Similarly Andy Murray should read. Andy Murray (born May 15, 1987, in Glasgow, Scotland) is a British tennis player. This is what the bio policy means. It doesn't mean including Scotland in the main prose of the intro. It means including Scotland as his birthplace like it is above. Someone cannot not be described as a Scottish tennis player, just the same as someone cannot be described as a British footballer. You could put Scottish born British tennis player but this implies Scotland is separate to Britain, so the least clumsy way is as above. All this infers rubbish is also wrong. Please remember if you going to quote Wiki policy don't forget the one that says you should assume ignorance on all levels. People reading this article may not know Scotland is in Britain. They also may think reading the words Scottish tennis player that is possible to play tennis for Scotland, which it is not. As you can only represent GB, it must be described as such.

Also on a side note have you noticed all the people arguing Scottish inclusion are members of a Misplaced Pages Scotland project. I have been told it is insulting to claim that someone’s nationality would effect their editing, but it is clear this is the case. One of the editor and I won't name names had two discussion on his talk page. One to do with this, the other to do with Alexander Graham Bell and his Scottish ness. I see a theme. I fully understand people are proud to be Scot, and a lot of Scots want independence but for now it is still very much part of Britain. I myself am proud to be English, but I have not tried to change Henman’s article to say English, even though I have seen the discussion. Why? Because it is as it should be. And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. The same would go for Lewis Hamilton. I saw a case on the death page the other day. Jane Tomlinson was marked as British, whilst someone else who name escapes me was called Scottish. Surely it's one or the other. These only seem to come around for Scottish people you don't see many Welsh people doing this. JimmyMac82 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I did not mean to cause such an uproar! However, now a sensible compromise has been found, why don't we stop "warring" over this, and spread this example to other British persons, who are Wiki, starting with (of course) Tim henman. Dewarw 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

do what you want with the Henman article, as long as it is constructive. But please discuss the Henman article on the appropriate talk page, not on this one Lurker (said · done) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He should be described as "British," because that is the proper way of saying it. Saying he is Scottish is silly when British will do. All British people should be described as British- how hard is this to see? It also is better for foreign people looking at the page (namely, people from the USA- they will not assume English!). Therefore it should say British. End of story! 81.153.107.190 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

People do assume English. "Scottish" infers "British" to people who know better. To those who don't know any better, it is made clear that he is Scottish. What is so hard to grasp about Scottish inferring British? 77.102.8.117 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now says both "Scottish" and "British" without making any political statement about his nationality. Is there any need to change this? Lurker (said · done) 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The current revision looks fine to me. I have a feeling someone might end up fiddling with it, though. 77.102.8.117 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

self identification

What does Murray identify himself as? Scottish, or British? Why not just use that and be done with it? • Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter what he identifies himself as. This is an encylopedia not a Murray fansite. He could say he was Mongolian, he would still be a British tennis player. JimmyMac82 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer the original question, he identifies as both. Media sources also use both. So both should be included, and I've carefully worded things to make this happen without sounding clumsy. Hopefully, the article will be protected soon. Although the request for protection was used by one participant in an edit war to attack another, which is not a good idea, that doesn't remove the need for this protection. Lurker (said · done) 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Using both seems best, then. • Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK! I was just asking, as it seemed if there was a dispute with valid sources on either end, and he said he favors one, that this should receive extra weighting. • Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he favours neither- as an interview cited in the "national identity" section states. BTW, if this article changes again, I will have to report both Clydey and JimmyMac82 for 3RR. Lurker (said · done) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They just did. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bugger Lurker (said · done) 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Report me, Lurker? I am changing it to *your* edit. How dare you? That is your edit that I am supporting. Where do you get off on threatening me for reverting to your edit, what I consider a fair compromise? Clydey 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And for your information, he favours Scottish more than British. That is why he stated explicitly at Wimbledon 2005 that he is Scottish, that is why he repesented Scotland at the Aberdeen Cup, and that is why he wears a saltire wristband. That enough for you, Lawrence? Clydey 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no stake in this, I just stumbled into this landmine from a recent changes edit I had done, which led to several people commenting on my talk page about it. I have no interest nor care whether the fellow is Scottish, British, French, or Chinese. • Lawrence Cohen 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why would you warn me without checking your facts? You ignored the fact that I was following the consensus and that I adhered to a fair compromise. You ignored JimmyMac82 and the fact that he violated policy. Please, explain to me why I was singled out when I followed consensus? This whole thing makes me a bit sick. Is this what happens when you try to adhere to a conensus that has already been reached? Clydey 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest or singling anyone out, and you'll notice I never even touched this page before... I just saw edit warring. If someone is editing contrary to consensus, my understanding is that does not give you (or any other person) the right to violate 3rr. • Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requested

See here. • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3rr reports

I filed the 3rr reports here. Sorry... • Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed that after I filed mine. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to respond to me, Lurker? I am upholding your edits and you report me. I wasn't even aware of a 3 edit policy until mentiond today. Not only that, but I just cannot get over the fact that you have it in you to report someone who is using *your* edits. Clydey 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected that page. Work out your disagreements here by discussion. If reverting resumes after the protection expires, I will block individuals. Tom Harrison 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is little chance of us forming a consensus on our own, I'm going to suggest RfC. Any objections? Lurker (said · done) 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem here. Again, does this fellow have a passport? What does it say? Does that equate to nationality? Is Scottish a nationality? Someboby above insinuated that it was, so I was like case closed, but now it seems that this is not the case?? IMHO we should defer to wp:mosbio and use his nationality in the LEAD along with his birthplace and go from there. Anyways, I will now step out and go back to less contentious articles relating to the Middle East, religion and politics :) Cheers and good luck to all! --Tom 15:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is a nationality. British is also a nationality. People believe that they can't both be. The fact is that Scotland existed as a nationality long before Great Britain. English is also a nationality, although people don't need so much convincing about that one, given that many believe Scotland is just a part of England. It's nonsense and we shouldn't seek to perpetuate that myth. Mentioning both Scotland and Britain is the fairest way to sort this matter. Clydey 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

There is much debate about how to describe this person's nationality. Currently there seem to be two options favoured by parties in this dispute- describe him as British, or describe him as both Scottish and British. How should we describe Murray's nationality? Lurker (said · done) 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear cut case: Murray is a Scot (and as per official Misplaced Pages policy WP:VERIFY we have the references to prove it). In common with all citizens of the United Kingdom he is entitled to play for both his national team - Scotland - and for the UK team (which in the case of most sports is actually called "Great Britain", for rather complicated reasons mainly to do with Northern Ireland). Murray has been fortunate enough to represent both the Scotland and the GB teams.

This is an encyclopaedia. We are here to disseminate knowledge, not obscure it. English/Northern Irish/Scottish or Welsh implies British; however the reverse is not true!

All other Scots are called Scots here at Misplaced Pages. You do not suddenly stop being a Scot the moment you pick up a tennis racket. --Mais oui! 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. What makes one a "Scot"? Somebody pointed out that being born there does not necessarily make one Scottish. Do Scottish folks have their own passports? Anyways, if reliable sources refer to him as Scottish and he self identifies as a Scott, that would work for me. Is there really some type of Misplaced Pages standardization for this issue? Maybe the lead should include: Where he was born; What nationality he identifies himself as; and what National teams he has represented. Anyways, good luck :) --Tom 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"What makes one a "Scot"?" - Most sports have very similar rules regarding nationality. You are allowed to represent your national team if you fulfil certain criteria (usually to do with birthplace, residence and/or parents/grandparents). An example of such nationality criteria is explained at the England national cricket team article. Murray obviously fulfills the criteria set by the national governing body Tennis Scotland, otherwise he would not be selected to represent the country. --Mais oui! 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Further link: Tennis Scotland's official website: www.tennisscotland.org. --Mais oui! 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should certainly avoid using the term 'Scot' as synonymous with 'Scottish (person)' as it carries more ethnic connotations and can occasionally be considered pejorative. --Breadandcheese 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray calls himself a Scot, has lived most of his life in Scotland, and has Scottish parents. That's good enough for me. --MacRusgail 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He clearly views himself as both and that is verifiable. Ergo, both should feature or none at all. I very much disagree with Mais oui! that Scottish identity automatically implies British identity, in fact in 25% of cases it does not, apparently. --Breadandcheese 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible to be Scottish and not be British? It's not possible unless we're talking in terms of ethnicity. Also, 'Scot' is not a derogatory term. Clydey 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple - some people are offended by notions of Britishness, particularly its imperialist associations. In a few cases, a Scot may take non-British citizenship to avoid travelling on a British passport for example. --MacRusgail 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The chief way, it seems, that Misplaced Pages analyses identity is on the basis of self-identification. Therefore someone who identifies with being Scottish, but not British, is the former. As my poll cited above suggests, it's not an enormously uncommon belief. --Breadandcheese 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For a moment I thought this might be a sensible discussion. Perhaps, Breadandcheese, you may wish to take the phrase, "we should certainly avoid using the term 'English' " to, for example the David Beckham talk page? When such a discussion reaches consensus that the use of this word "can occasionally be considered pejorative" and should be avoided, I for one would be happy to take your suggestions seriously. For now however, I am struggling to find a category to place this notion in that would also imply that I find your ideas intentionally helpful. As to the main question, the existing version seems fine to me. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but all the same in some contexts I've seen it considered a prejorative term. The same does not apply to 'Scottish' or 'English' - in the same way that 'Paki' is not conflated with 'Pakistani'. We wouldn't go around labeling British people as 'Brits' for similar reasons. --Breadandcheese 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reposting this down here as I posted it up there day ago but seems the discussion has moved on to here.

Lets take Rusedski for example. He was born in Canada, so therefore by this reckoning he is Canadian, but he is a British tennis player, he represented them in the sport. He's not a Canadian tennis player is he? No. Never has been, but he's still Canadian. So as his article states Gregory "Greg" Rusedski (born September 6, 1973, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) is a former British tennis player. Similarly Andy Murray should read. Andy Murray (born May 15, 1987, in Glasgow, Scotland) is a British tennis player. This is what the bio policy means. It doesn't mean including Scotland in the main prose of the intro. It means including Scotland as his birthplace like it is above. Someone cannot not be described as a Scottish tennis player, just the same as someone cannot be described as a British footballer. You could put Scottish born British tennis player but this implies Scotland is separate to Britain, so the least clumsy way is as above. All this infers rubbish is also wrong. Please remember if you going to quote Wiki policy don't forget the one that says you should assume ignorance on all levels. People reading this article may not know Scotland is in Britain. They also may think reading the words Scottish tennis player that is possible to play tennis for Scotland, which it is not. As you can only represent GB, it must be described as such.

Also on a side note have you noticed all the people arguing Scottish inclusion are members of a Misplaced Pages Scotland project. I have been told it is insulting to claim that someone’s nationality would affect their editing, but it is clear this is the case. One of the editor and I won't name names had two discussion on his talk page. One to do with this, the other to do with Alexander Graham Bell and his Scottish ness. I see a theme. I fully understand people are proud to be Scot, and a lot of Scots want independence but for now it is still very much part of Britain. I myself am proud to be English, but I have not tried to change Henman’s article to say English, even though I have seen the discussion. Why? Because it is as it should be. And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. The same would go for Lewis Hamilton. I saw a case on the death page the other day. Jane Tomlinson was marked as British, whilst someone else who name escapes me was called Scottish. Surely it's one or the other. These only seem to come around for Scottish people you don't see many Welsh people doing this. JimmyMac82 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not a part of project Scotland. And even if I was, it would be in no way relevant to my motives. I am also not a supporter of Scottish independence. You appear to put the SNP on a par with the BNP for whatever reason. I'm a firm believer that the separate nations can keep their own identity whilst still being of benefit to one another. I veered off topic a little, but your incessant sniping is becoming tiresome. Clydey 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. Please don't make out that you are being accused of having an agenda. You've given up the right to say that be your constant snide insinuations that any editor who disagrees with you has a political, nationalist agenda. Lurker (said · done) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On many occasion Clydey has accused me of having an agenda, on both talk pages and in edit summaries. And if anything you are the one accusing me of wanting to do away with all Scottish references. Also I give up no right. England still has free speech, I'm guessing Scotland being the same country is the same. Now if both of you would like to attempt to answer the first part of that post rather than snipe at the second part, we might get somewhere. JimmyMac82 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also not part of project Scotland or any other Scottish agenda... My opinion from the previous discussion still stands. British_or_Scottish. Sticking with the old not all brits are scots but all scots are brits idea. Scottish people have been around for a few hundred years, how can anyone argue that a Scottish nationality/ethnicity doesn't exist? --I already forgot 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for disclaimers like "I'm not part of a Scottish project". Doing this dignifies the slur that Scottish editors are somehow biased. Lurker (said · done) 10:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The statement was adding in response to Scottish editors being wrongly accused of bias. Doesn't matter, we should stick to the topic at hand and not comment on the editor or non-controversial edits made to the talk page. --I already forgot 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Inter-article comment: The very same issue is currently RFC'ed for at least 3 articles: at Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#RFC (British vs. English), at Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality, and at Talk:Colin McRae#Protected. Maybe an admin could do some grouping to a common forum is possible? The issue isn't really about the article subjects per se, but about the representation of nationality in encyclopedias and on Misplaced Pages, with the same problems/solutions/wars in common. — Komusou  @ 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page being edited to suggest Andy Murray is English? Is there any justification for this?--Breadandcheese 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like simple vandalism to me. I don't think there is any purpose other than having a laugh. Lurker (said · done) 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish is not a nationality. It's like starting Roddick's article with "Andy Roddick is a Texan professional tennis player..." 62.131.85.211 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the very first line of that "Scottish" wikilink you're using. Perhaps you'll learn something. --Escape Orbit 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Murray is British whether he likes it or not. He payes taxes to the UK, holds a UK passport, is a citizen of the UK etc etc. Not to mention the fact that he represents Great Britian at tennis? Are the Scottish really that petty and small time to refuse to have him known as British? You're all a bunch of idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.40.90 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Master Cup

When did Murray take a Tennis Master Cup? I never hear that. 125.212.157.54 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fansite Controversy

This has been recently added and appears to be a minor legal copyright spat between the official andymurray.com & fansite murraysworld.com. It is unlikely to directly involve Murray himself. As such I think it should be removed. Thoughts? --Escape Orbit 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to dissect what is wrong with the original contribution;

a fan site about Andy Murray received a legal request by his lawyers

The letter refers to www.andymurray.com as the lawyers' client. This is not necessarily Murray himself.

to cease and desist all use of photographs and images of Andy Murray

The letter specifically refers to photographs and images from their website that they own copyright on. It's incorrect to claim that they say all photographs and images of Murray. That would be ridiculous and legally unenforceable.

or risk "serious consequences"

The letter specifically says that the "serious consequences" would be a result of not responding to the letter, i.e. ignoring it.

the fan site claimed that the legal threats were attempts to "suppress a website because it is often critical and in some cases damaging to Murray's image due to its journalistic principles".

This claim comes from a moderator on a forum post in the website. Is this a representative of the website? Maybe. But it's open to question, which is why forum posts are generally not acceptable cites on Misplaced Pages. --Escape Orbit 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The letter actually refers to all images that the website does not have copyright over regardless of whether the official website owns it or not.

I have included a statement from the fan site - although it appears the comment is simply from a moderator, if you go into the user's profile you will see that the user is in fact the administrator of the website. I included the statement because if you look at the Misplaced Pages page of Prince and the Prince vs Fansite controversy section, they also decided to do this.

You're right about the whole Murray lawyer inaccuracy, I have now reworded it to "Onside Law, the legal firm representing Andy Muray, made an official legal request" which is 100% accurate.

I also agree with the rest of your edits and hope you agree with mine as well. 81.99.127.149 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The bit that refers to 'all' is being lifted out of context. Everything else on the letter makes it clear the "all" they're talking about is the material that they own copyright on. Any other request would be ridiculous as they have no authority, or concern, over copyright images owned by other parties. The lawyers are also representing the website, the letter explicitly say this. Bringing Murray into it implies his personal involvement in a matter that he may well have nothing to do with or interest in. Unless you can produce a cite that says he's involved, we can only go with what the letter says; which is the website. --Escape Orbit 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is rediculous that the letter asks for ALL materials on Murray to be removed.

"We ask for your confirmation by return that you will immediately remove all photographs of Mr Murray that you do not own copyright in".

But at the end of the day, it is a legal document and has to be represented exactly how it was written. It is not our right as Misplaced Pages editors to make an edit based on our own interpretations of the situation however likely it is that we are correct. It's especially important as this particular part of the legal document is one of the main factors behind the fansite's argument of suppression and therefore would surely be wrong to ignore.

I concede to your argument regarding the legal representation, as technically the wording of the legal document shows you to be right even though the firm obviously works for Andy Murray. 81.99.127.149 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Height

I think 190cm is actually about 6ft 2 and a quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.173 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

National Identity & Popularity

Regarding addition by anonymous IP editor. I've removed this again for the following concerns. Could the editor please address these before re-adding.

• If any editor believes their questionable additions should be included it's their responsibility to cite them adequately, not challenge others to find cites that support them.
• The anonymous editor claims that two existing cites support his addition, but if she/he'd attempted to verify this he/she would have seen that one of these cites is a dead link. So the idea that it supports the statement is again the editor's unsupported personal conclusion.
• The other cites provided say nothing about "nationwide popularity". They are either personal opinions or discussions of others' personal opinions. They do not provide any measure of his "nationwide popularity", or evidence that it is Murray's assertions of national identity that adversely affects it

--Escape Orbit 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that you don't seem to be able to understand what "nationwide popularity" means or how the term was used in the article. To clarify, it refers to the fact that throughout the nation of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland his popularity is at different levels, notably in England where his perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) anti-English sentiment and separatist attitude has harmed his popularity amongst some fans whilst others disregard it, and naturally in Scotland where his popularity is highest. THAT IS ALL THE STATEMENT "These controversies have affected his nationwide popularity in Britain" REFERS TO. The citations provided offer adequate proof that this is at least an issue amongst British tennis fans, as the links lead to discussions regarding his waxing and waning popularity amongst fans in Britain, the hate mail he received for the anti-English controversy, and the support he's received regardless. The statement is non-judgemental unless you are deliberately looking to read it judgementally! 79.73.1.96 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please provide cites that compare/contrast his popularity in different parts of the UK and pinpoint his asserted nationality as explanation for the differences (if any). The section you're adding this to is about his nationality identity, where's the controversy? All your cites do is say that some people don't like him, for a number of possible suggested reasons, and that some people disliked his joke about England in the World Cup. This is all adequately covered in the Controversy section in a clearer and more even-handed way without the sweeping statement you're adding.--Escape Orbit 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article illustrates my point perfectly! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/29/andymurray.wimbledon1 However, I shall not re-insert my edits, as the information has already been included in this article in a satisfactory manner. 79.73.63.105 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

British nationality

Why isn't their any mention of Andy Murray being British? Surely it would make sense to put both nations? After all their is no such thing as a Scottish passport, so Scotland is really only a de facto nationality anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.206.116 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It used to, but some IP edited it out. This happens from time to time. Anyway, I've just put it back - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Murray has stated his nationality, perhaps we can put an end to this long running dispute. He is both Scottish and British. ( and ) Therefore , taking the lead from WP:UKNATIONALS (Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality.) and MOS:IDENTITY (Use specific terminology.) it looks like the lead should say Scottish. I'd add that he also considers himslef British, and obviously represents Britain in some team events, but I can't think of a concise way of doing this in the first sentence without cluttered and confusing wording --Escape Orbit 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has to only display the UK as it is the sovereign state he represents. Any other nationality thing he has going on can be written about elsewhere in the article. The infobox is purely about fact and Scotland is not the state that he represents. The intro can say Scottish but not the infobox.Pureditor 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually he's represented Scotland before too - in the Aberdeen Cup. Arg. For that reason I would accept leaving it as both - rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Aberdeen Cup is not an international competition. The guys passport is British thats who he represents! Any casual tournaments representing an area changing the infobox gives undue weight and is pov.Pureditor 17:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, but then that should direct the user to the Davis Cup team concerned (in this case GB), rather than the generic country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No other tennis player info box does this.--Escape Orbit 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should. What if a player is born in France, but represents Italy in Davis Cup? eg Greg Rusedski was born and raised in Canada, but represented Great Britain. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain isn't a country either.Pureditor 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain is a shorthand for United Kingdom in the Davis Cup. Before the partition of Ireland, the team was known as British Isles, even though it represented the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny whenever someone is described as English on Misplaced Pages it is revereted to British on the grounds that English is not a nationality. 92.8.227.191 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another example of what I was talking about. Player born in Czechoslovakia (in what is now Czech Republic); represented Germany. There is no infobox, but the article goes on about how Prinosil represented "his country" (Germany) in Davis Cup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but the infobox says "country", not "country which he represents in the Davis Cup". Is there anywhere in Misplaced Pages that states the exact purpose of this field? Right now it appear wide open to interpretation. Is it;

* Country of nationality?

* Country of citizenship?

* Country of identity?

* National team competitions Country?

As you say, there are individuals where these options may differ. We can cover all the bases in the text of the article itself, but it seems clear that the infobox should be concise and one and one only. But which one is it? --Escape Orbit 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

National team competitions Country. Given that there are also "Place of birth" and "Residence" fields, this seems pretty clear to me - rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He represents the UK internationally so by the above defintion then that is what should be shown.Pureditor 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is it said that this field in the info box should be "Country he represents"? I'm not saying you are wrong, but until this is defined rather than continually reverted we'll get no-where. And rather than just asserting it, can you cite it? Where and when has he represented "the UK"? The Davis Cup website lists the team as "Great Britain". Where has Murray represented the UK? --Escape Orbit 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like all of the time. Look at the Great Britain Davis Cup team wiki page which says The Great Britain Davis Cup team represents the United Kingdom in Davis Cup tennis.Pureditor 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A reference to another Misplaced Pages page is not a proper cite. Particularly when that page is also uncited.--Escape Orbit 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that really needs a citation: it's common knowledge that the team labled 'Great Britain' is representing the United Kingdom. Similarly, the fact that he'll be representing Team GB or Great Britain at the Olympics doesn't especially needs citing that this is in fact the UK (and indeed a few other places, such as the Isle of Man and Channel Islands). Indeed, the UK is almost always represented by teams called to as Great Britain in international sports contexts --Pretty Green (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with what people on here are saying is that, you speak as though the United Kingdom is a foriegn country to Scotland. You cant compare Greg Rusedski's situation to the Andy Murray problem because; the simple fact is that, if you are born within the national boundries of Great Britain, or Northern Ireland - you are British officialy. You can consider yourself Welsh, Scottish or even Cornish un-officialy, but unless the 2010 referendum says otherwise, you are a British citizen. The Davis cup or the Aberdeen cup should not come into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.35.211 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The issue at hand is the infobox, which is supposed to give a summary of the player concerned. It should show that Murray plays for Great Britain, because that is the only aspect in which his nationality is relevant. For the rest of the year it doesn't matter what nationality he or any other player is. The precise nature of Murray's (confused) identity can be explained in far more detail in the article, which it is. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports infoboxes reflect the country that an athlete represents in international competition, or is registered as a representative of. Basically, Jmorrison is probably right here. Pretty Green (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange Bowl

It states in this article that Murray won the Orange Bowl at age 12. I followed the link to the Orange Bowl tournament and there is no mention of him ever winning it. Is this really a true fact, and if it is, why is it not mentioned on the Orange Bowl page? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this information from the article because there is no sufficient evidence to back it up, and after visiting the official Orange Bowl website (http://www.jrorangebowl.com/Events-index-id-29-g_id-20.html), I am even more convinced that the information in the article was false. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You should not have removed that. Murray even states in his autobiography that he won it. Try doing more research next time, eh? You were looking at the wrong age group, Columbo. Here's a link. http://www.clgandjrtennis.com/JrOrange99.htm Clydey (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude to another user. All you have to do is replace the information with a valid link and leave it at that. Having looked at the previous link above there is no mention of an under 12 winner on their site at all, so it's hardly fair to blame anyone for being confused when even an official source won't cite it. 81.151.69.169 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't cite it because it was the wrong age category. All he had to do was type "Andy Murray" + "Orange Bowl" into google. I think an editor should spend more than 5 minutes researching befor removing something like that. Clydey (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an editor should always cite their sources (something which until a few minutes ago was not done), and then cases such as this would never occur in the first place. For two days the above editor waited for someone to either reply or put right the citation, and no one did. Technically, according to wikipedia rules, if a claim in an article is not cited then it is to be removed immediately without question. Two days was more than enough time for someone to take up the matter. Seeing as there is now a citation for the claim, then no one in the future will question it and there is no need to further this discussion. 81.151.69.169 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My point stands. He was searching for a reference and gave up as soon as he reached the under 14s page. He could have at least searched more thoroughly. Clydey (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From a quick search myself I couldn't find it on their website either. If you can find the page on the Official Orange Bowl website that mentions all the winners of the Boys Under 12's, or evne just Murray's name, then it would be the most suitable link as the citation on the article page. There is no better source than an official one, after all, and I think it would be more reliable than a page found through Google. I couldn't find it, you might have better luck. 81.151.69.169 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it either. I think the current citation is fine, personally. We all know he won it, as it's pretty much common knowledge. The source isn't as good as the official site, but it'll do. Clydey (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

statistics must be updated

hello, I updated the table with the cincinnaty 2008 master series win and added the entry on his career finals, but I'm not sure about updating the statistics of the global 2008 (the bottom part of the table), such as appareances this years, finals, etc. I don't know if anyone has already edited it or not so.. if anyone with knowledge could check it, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.70.253 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

order of sections: should we move the "nationality" section?

I think the nationality section has been well worked out, and gives a good balance, esp. trying to unknot Murray's capricious and low-flying sense of humour. However, I believe that this paragraph is placed too high in the article. I would suggest that it go after the reportage of his career. May I ask to see if anyone would support this move?

• Support Though good to have this tender issue cleared up, I think its relative notability warrants it being placed later in the article almost-instinct 23:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The debate of his nationality is overstated. I'm sure it is of minor importance to most readers. The section's position in the article indicates more about the history of the article on Misplaced Pages than about Murray himself. --Escape Orbit 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of a Costa Rican

After reading everything that was debated regarding as how to list Andy Murray (British or Scottish) I would like to share my point of view. I am from Costa Rica and I would like to give you my humble opinion on the matter. I think that when you come looking for imformation about a person on Misplaced Pages you want to know accurately everything about that person. Where he was born, his age, and more.

For example I want to know not if the person was born in the Caribbean or is in his forties, but his exact age and where on the Caribbean he was born. For that reason I'd rather see that those born in the United Kingdom are listed by their nationality, thus in this case Scotland. I could for example say that a man was born in the U.S. Virgin Islands or in the Caribbean but in the first case I would know where exactly in the Caribbean he was born. I hope this provides a glimpse as to how some of those outside your region view this matter.--Tiquiciasblog (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As I note further up the page, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are in agreement with your analysis. Namely; WP:UKNATIONALS (Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality.) and MOS:IDENTITY (Use specific terminology.) --Escape Orbit 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Andy Murray (tennis) → Andy Murray — Andy Murray has been set to redirect here for a while. The tennis Andy Murray is clearly the most notable Andy Murray. The only other Andy Murray is Andy Murray (ice hockey). There is already a hat tip to Andrew Murray here, but we can add a hat tip to the ice hockey coach, too, if that's consensus — rst20xx (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note I've proposed a similar move at Talk:Jamie Murray (tennis) if you want to vote there, too - rst20xx (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Do it there's no need for this to be at Andy Murray (tennis) given that Andy Murray redirects here anyway. Keep Andrew Murray as a disambig though. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Controversy?

To me the controversy section just seems like a bunch of trivia that contributes little to the article....and don't get me started on the national identity thing. Aren't Scottish people British by definition? It has nothing to do with his own personal belief.

Back to the controversy. I'm just wondering why it is controversial for a professional male tennis player to say they played "like women". Even if Murray meant they weren't playing very well by that, does anybody actually believe women are good (in comparison to the best men) at tennis? Surely it is merely a statement of fact...Even on a bad day a female tennis player will be no match for someone like Murray. Before people get angry, let me say that if you want to claim something as being controversial you should explain why, not just simply add a quotation.

Also, which grand slams did Sean Connery win again? Constan69 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• High-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles