Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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. ([1] and [2]) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia page is not a proper cite. Particularly when that page is also uncited.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia than about Murray himself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia'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:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

I think the controversy section should be worked into the main text. Then it would not stand out so much, which seems to me to currently give it undue weight - rst20xx (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to do this. Most of the "controversies" relate to behaviour and fitness issues in his first two years on the tour, so fit better into the main body. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept some of those opinions about the controversies. The national identity issue is quite important in relation to Murray. If you listen to any discussion about him on BBC radio, you still get members of the public contacting the station to say they don't like him allegedly because of the anyone but England comments re the World Cup. Murray has deliberately made a point of playing up his "Englishness" to try and get the Wimbledon crowd on his side since then. The quote about women, even though strictly true, is still sexist. Sean Connery hasn't won any tennis tournaments, but he was present at that match, and the BBC coverage of the match routinely focused on his reaction to various points and interviewed him after the match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment about women was not sexist. It was a direct reference to the number of breaks of serve that occur in women's matches. It had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of women's tennis. This is precisely why much of the British public dislikes Murray. They make assumptions or don't bother to get all the facts. Instead, Andy is painted as an anti-English misogynist. It's pathetic. 92.235.56.88 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'd removed 50% of these "controversies". The website one is utter trivia of no interest to anyone and scarcely involved Murray anyway. The "playing like woman" one was a storm about nothing. As for the Sean Connery quote; why is his opinion notable? The TV media's love of "famous faces in the crowd" and filling cheap airtime with actors' willingness to offer an opinion on anything and everything doesn't make his analysis significant or insightful. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I think this was discussed above, but the National Identity section should be above the Career Statistics section, not below it. It should possibly also be a subsection of "Career" - rst20xx (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)