Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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 Wikipedia 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)

I can't believe what a waste of time this debate is. He is British. Period. Its not a question of debtate, that is what he is. Correct the article or leave it as its is; wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.56.223 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately Wikipedia guidelines place more reliance on self identification and consensus than the single opinion of random editors. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:40, 23 November 2008 (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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, with the same problems/solutions/wars in common. — Komusou ^talk @ 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 ^(Talk) 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, whilst Scotland is not an independent country, it has quite significant autonomy – its own legal system, its own education system, its own legislature and privileges and rights which relate to Scottish citizenship (as opposed to English, Welsh or Northern-Irish – the rules on fees at university, benefits for higher education and various licensing systems, for instance). Aside from this there is the cultural identity which transcends any political issues. 87.194.158.94 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2009 (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)