Talk:Andy Murray

Ethnic categorisation

Andy Murray is not an 'Anglo-Scot', as defined by Wikipedia: ie, English people of Scottish descent. And once again, if we must have these ludicrous categories, then I suggest some stringent guidelines be introduced to maintain consistency in defining one's ethnic profile. And Murray is no more English than Princess Diana was Scottish ( in that both had a grandparent from England and Scotland respectively ) but the latter curiously enough, the so-called English Rose, is not included in the category 'English people of Scottish descent'; nor are her two sons who have both maternal and paternal great grandmothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.250.201 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your implication being that Scottish people with tenuous English ancestry routinely have their Englishness overstated by biased wikipedia editors, while English people have equal or more compelling claims to Scottish ancestry covered up and are presented as being purely English? If this is your belief, then it is the opposite of reality.Shiresman (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Never heard if the term "Anglo-Scot" before and there seems to be no clear definition of it. He may have English ancestry, but that doesn't make him Anglo-Scottish indeed. Perhaps remove it if one wishes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.108.233 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay is described as British and not Scottish and Wiki Nazis state that this must not be changed as Scotland has no sovereignty. Strange how the rules change from article to article. There is no rhyme or reason to this joke of a site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.127.211 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So you pick one example of a Scot being described as British and use that to justify changing English to British on certain articles? Last time I checked just about every single Scottish person on this wiki was described as Scottish. You pick ONE example and cry about it. Just stop your silly crusade, it's pathetic. Let me be very clear that I would defend any article against British Neo-imperialistic arguments such as "Scotland/England/NI/Wales aren't countries and therefor English/Scottish/NI/Welsh nationality doesn't exist", but you utterly disgraced your argument with your edit on Ellie Goulding which has now been reverted. The people who want to change everything to British on this wiki also want to do it to everyone English, but you just have double-standards. (Sorry, one of these edits was my IP, funny that) --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Princess Diana wasn't English or Scottish, she was British. Likewise, Andy Murray is British. There is no such nationality as Scottish or English, unless and until independence. I tried to neutralise this completely by using "a professional tennis player from Scotland" rather than "a Scottish professional tennis player" but even this was immediately changed back to insist on his Scottish nationality. #thoughtpolice #1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcw182 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article, not a passport. It describes people in the way that is most informative and clearest to the reader. So your opinions about what is, and isn't, a nationality make absolutely no difference. I've already asked you to read WP:UKNATIONALS, which discusses this difficult issue and there has been extensive debate about this over the years on this very page. Consensus has been to list him as British in the info box (as this is the country he represents in tennis) and Scottish in the lead, noting also his British ranking. This also ties in neatly with his own self identification discussed later in the article.

This consensus may not please you, or everyone, but consensuses are sometimes about making compromises. Repeatedly sticking your personal preference into the lead after it has been reverted will not get the article to change. Only discussion might do that. I would, however, plead with you to read at least some of the exhaustive discussion about this in the talk archives. It would save everyone a great deal of time if you didn't just repeat the arguments that have been had a dozen times before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationality: Scottish, Country: Great Britain. Is everyone OK with this glaring inconsistency? I have to say it is an inconsistency very consistently applied across wikipedia's pages, and for some reason the world is comfortable with it. No, there is no Scottish nationality, no country Scotland. To say there is is to ignore the last 400 years of history, the union of crowns and parliaments, the shared blood and heritage of the British people and the modern political reality. To do so is fantasy, which anyone is entitled to (even Andy Murray), but for wikipedia to roundly enforce the fantasy on the world, is shameful.

The info box is a tennis player's info box. The countries in tennis player info boxes are the country the player represents in tennis competitions, in this case the Great Britain Davis Cup team. The descriptions in the lead are the agreed consensus that best informs the reader where he is from, and best reflects what Murray has said himself. If you wish to decide that is a declaration of "nationality" then that's up to you, but it is not an attempt to declare anything beyond describing Murray. So no, there is no inconsistency. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"agreed consensus" of whom? Not me. If the player plays for Great Britain in Davis Cup and Olympics it ought to logically follow that his country is Great Britain. But I can see logic and truth are secondary on wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Consensus. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see extensive debate on the archives of this page. If you believe you have anything new to add then please raise it here. Again, this article is not defining his country or his nationality. It is describing him. See manual of style guidelines regarding this issue. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote "This is a Wikipedia article, not a passport. It describes people in the way that is most informative and clearest to the reader. " Hahaha. Why let small facts like reality and official passport nationalities get in the way? It's not like this is an encyclopaedia is it? No, let's base Andy's nationality on what he "self defines", as you say. As Andy was quoted as saying during his winner's speech, "British champion". So, based on his actual nationality (British), his self declared nationality (British), his Davis Cup team (Britain), his OBE title (Order of the BRITISH Empire) and for the sake of consistency, let's call him British. Or do we throw out the facts and go with the "consensus" (of whom exactly?). I will give it 10 mins before some SNP hack makes him "Scottish" again! #VforVendetta #1984 #freedomofspeechdead

This is Wikipedia. It works by consensus. Please don't edit war in attempt to change things. It won't work and will only result in you being blocked. This article is not defining his nationality. Why don't you actually go and read what Murray has said about his nationality? (And this is not Twitter, your hashtags don't do anything.) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "edit warring", I'm correcting. Whose "consensus" are you going by? You, yourself and you? Did you watch Andy's winning speech today?

That is quite enough of the incivility, please. I am not Scottish, I have no strong feeling on this and to be frank, I don't really care all too much. To argue however that "Scottish is not a nationality" is a deeply flawed argument - Scottish may not be a nationality in terms of what is granted by citizenship, it is however a national identity. Just think of how ridiculous it would sound describing Sean Connery or Alex Salmond (two very different examples) as a British anything. It would just be blatantly bias and one-dimensional to do so. Andy Murray's personal identification is described in more detail in the main body of the article, it is clear he identifies as Scottish and British - he is described as Scottish in the lead. Being described as Scottish does not mean he isn't British, it is neither enforcing or claiming that to be fact. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And to refer to the consensus that was reached: Take a look at the archives. I refer to my original edit summary: If you feel strongly about this, see WP:RFC. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED, the wider scope is used, not just concensus on this article. It needs to be fully locked IMO, until either the larger consensus changes or the edit warring stops. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, after all these conflicting arguments, two simple questions need to be asked: 1) What country does Andy Murray come from? Answer: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2) What are people who live in this country called? Answer: They are called the "British" people. --Lordmarmont (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And anyone else could legitimately answer the same questions; 1) Scotland. 2) Scottish. So these "simple" questions are anything but simple, and don't really resolve anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so let's edit, say, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's biography. He was born in Scotland and still maintains his home in Scotland. Yet, it says he is a "British Labour Party politician...". How come it doesn't say "Scottish Labour Party politician..." or "Scottish politician and a member of the British Labour Party..."? Is there a double standard here? If say, one comes from Glasgow, why not have one's wiki bio say "Glaswegian so and so..."? If, say, one lives in Glasgow, it would go like this: Glasgow-->Scotland-->Great Britain; therefore, Glaswegian-->Scottish-->British. --Lordmarmont (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to this essay on the subject. There is no standard, double or otherwise. Each article reaches a consensus that best suits. If you have any difficulty with Gordon Brown's article please take it up there. I imagine it reached a consensus best suited to it, just like here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Murray seems himself as Scot is irrelevant because he is still a British subject. In this world of polarization and contrast he sets an immature example of how nationhood plays itself out and given by the many supporters I can see how the world becomes further divided and partitioned, by force, into unmanagable pieces. What Murray should consider, as a tennis player, to take a close look at Nadal - who Catalan by birthplace and upbringing - does not feel reduced in size by Spanish citizenship. So please, lets not split hairs and just accept that yes, Murray is a Brit and that the sun never goes down on the Union Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.44.17 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy Murray is a Scot and my previous comment died in the Wiki concentration camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.44.17 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

He is also British, but not English. Clear? --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained numbers

What are the unexplained numbers after "Australian Open" in the section [[1]]. I'm guessing they refer to how many of that final he's been in, but in that case, why are there no similar numbers after "US Open", and in any case, why is it unexplained? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(2) and (3) means 2nd and 3rd time with that result (runner-up or winner) in that tournament. In the US Open he only has one runner-up and one winner so there are no numbers. The system is used in lots of articles. I don't see a good way to make an explanation without it being more distraction than it's worth. Most readers probably either know what it means, can easily guess it, or don't care much. It only gives information you can count on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating Performance Timeline and Infobox

Would people please refrain from updating Murray's infobox and performance timeline until his participation at the event in question is over? The aforementioned resources are used to display a player's final result at Grand Slam tournaments/Olympics/Tour Finals, and updating these every time Murray progresses is going to confuse a lot of people, as they may well assume that he is no longer playing at the event. For example, yes Murray is playing in the 2013 Wimbledon final, which equals his best result at the tournament, however the final has not yet been played, ergo the result is not known, so the information does not yet merit a place in the infobox or the GS performance timeline. --Thetradge (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, these resources are used to document "results", and if a match is not completed, then there is not yet a result to document. For example if a player reaches the fourth round, matching their previous result at a Slam tournament, and this is put in the infobox, then one would assume that they are no longer participating in the tournament in question, so I agree that the infobox and performance timeline should be used to document completed results only, and not have it constantly being updated whenever a player reaches the next stage of the tournament.

What's wrong with the Mail

Why has all the reliable references from the daily mail been removed and replaced with CN. Do us a favour and just put the mail link back in. Just look for the couple of K removed.

Edit request on 6 July 2013

The column on the right hand side of the page, under "Grand Slam Singles Results" should be ammended to include the 2008 US Open runner up. Currently only the 2012 final has been represented. Hubbacubba (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: in the infobox, only his best result for the Grand Slam is recorded. While he was runner-up in 2008, he won in 2012, i.e. 2012 was his best result and therefore the only one listed. NiciVampireHeart 10:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Made up "records"

I've removed more added "records" from the article. The problem with them was that they were trivial, essentially made up, recognised by no authority, and were not recorded in any way before Murray "achieved" them, and probably will never be challenged by anyone ever again. If you're specific enough, literally anything can become a unique "record". For something to be a record it helps if it is a measure of achievement before it was done by Murray. Otherwise we might as well start listing "records" such as;

• 10 - most aces served while facing south, in the northern hemisphere, on a Wednesday.
• First person to win a tournament on their brother's birthday - stands alone
• First person to come third, second, then first in successive tournaments, while wearing the exact same socks. - stands alone

Ok, I'm exaggerating, but you see my point. Trivial coincidences and unremarkable events, requiring specific detailing to become unique, are not "records". They might, possibly, bear mentioning in the article, but shouldn't be in a list as if they were particularly notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point well made! May I add:

• First ever player to always keep an old fella in his kitbag? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2013

change age to 27

67.180.42.89 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

He's 26, so no. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If he was born 15 May 1987, and he was, he is not 27. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 wimbledon win

Include that he won the 2012 wimbledon tournament playing against Novak Djokovic on the 7th July 2013.

You mean Wimbledon 2013, right? 86.178.15.6 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One would hope so. And yes, his win is recorded in the article now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe update the top picture with him holding the Wimbledon trophy? (current pic is from 2011)Mr Morden76 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If there's a free one available that would be ideal. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Murray has now won 28 titles requesting a change to the start of the article below where his photo and career statistics are. 81.103.16.136 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The infobox says 28 already. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 08:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Since Nadal was the only player to previously hold the Olympic Gold and Wimbledon, this record should now be added to Murray's "records" section, as he is now the simultaneous holder of both. It should also be noted that no other male singles player has been the consecutive holder of two Olympic Medals and two majors, the only other major champion to win olympic medals was Ivanisevic and he only won one major title. I'm not making these up before anybody goes accusing me of doing so, I have done my research and checked other multiple medal winners, none of them have held two majors and two olympic medals at once. --Thetradge (talk) 20:06, July 7 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Do you have a cite that says it though? As I explained above, I don't doubt what you are saying, the question is whether it's a record recognised by anyone. I don't mean to suggest that the facts are "made up", just that making them a record is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, the trouble is that I've tried searching for citations and it's proving exceptionally difficult. What I could do is add them to the list but put a wee note stating that a citation is required. --Thetradge (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

British - not Scottish

Up-to-date information concerning Murray's nationality -- TheAndyMurrayometer

Before reading this extremely long discussion, it may be worth checking this 2005 website: TheAndyMurrayometer FAQ An indispensable indicator as to whether the tennis player Andy Murray should be described in conversation as "British" or "Scottish". Quote: "If he's doing well, winning, and being happy, the rest of the country will embrace him as a fellow Brit. If he stuffs it all up, the Scots can keep him." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

MR Murray is British, not Scottish. And always, next to his name in championships, he has the letters (GBR) for great Britain. We wouldn't call Roddick Texan or wherever he's from, we call him American. The same applies on this article, Mr Murray is British and not Scottish. Johnxsmith (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not because you say so. How can he possibly NOT be Scottish? He is obviously BOTH. He chooses to identify as Scottish. End of story. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Texas isn't a country. Scotland is. First and foremost he describes himself as Scottish, that's what should be in the lead. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Country United Kingdom is simply incorrect, United Kingdom or Great Britain is not a country. Its Scotland. He is Scottish. The nationality of a person has nothing to do with the team he represents at a sports event. He is born in Scotland, therefor Scotland should be stated Eurocanna (talk)

LOL the United Kingdom is very much a sovereign state, aka a country, I'm afraid. The infobox which has Great Britain is for what Davis Cup team he plays for. This is so lame.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What's lame is how people turn up at these discussions and just demand it be the way they say. It's never "I think it should say X", but flat out "Murray IS British", "Macedonia IS Greek", or whatever. I wonder if they conduct conversations in their private lives in such an impolite and authoritarian way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotland is not a country. It is an administrative division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whoever said the UK isn't a country is a total idiot, I'm sorry but the UK (Great Britain or Britain as it's known) most definitely IS a country. I could self identify myself as American, it doesn't mean I am an American. Johnxsmith (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear.. "Scotland is not a country"... you clearly haven't read Wikipedia's entry on Scotland then. It may come as news to you but you can have countries within countries, eg the Basque country within Spain, or Tibet within China or, 20 years ago, Estonia within the Soviet Union. Borders and passports change but a country remains so. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then you must surely support the abolition of all these categories and change them all to British. If you start now, you might be finished by next year's Wimbledon.

Honestly, please do some basic research about why things are the way they are here, before just demanding changes. Read the thread at the top of this page ("Ethnic categorisation"), for starters. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotland was where he was born. He now lives in London and holds, like all subjects within the United Kingdom (a sovereign state, which Scotland is NOT) a British passport. Ergo, making him British. At the end of his Wimbledon win this afternoon, he identified himself as British. The source in the Article that says "he identifies himself as both British and Scottish" is incorrect. It says zilch about Scotland and puts the emphasis as British. It would seem that the only sources that identify him as Scottish are all from within Scotland. Which reeks of nationalistic propaganda. Oh and the country section of the info box says "Great Britain" which, by definition, its residents are British. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we leave it up to Andy Murray to decide if he's British or Scottish? http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/audio-andy-murray-im-a-british-champion/ So then...Narom (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To try and claim that Murray isn't Scottish is absurd. To claim that Scotland is not a country is false, and to claim Scottish is not a nationality is taking one-sided pro-Citizenship POV. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As a citizen or subject of the realm of great Britain (plus half Scottish by blood), Scotland is a kingdom in its own right and is part of a united kingdom of the British isles. This was draw under the act of the union, prior to this Scotland held the crown of both England & wales. Andy is Scottish by blood and is a subject of realm of the sovereign state GBR as indicated by his national rep. So either way he is both British and Scottish. Same applies Texan who is an American in living in USA. User: ixpnet

Difference being that "Texan" is not a nationality, while "Scottish" is. This is amply demonstrated by the teams at the Commonwealth Games, which include England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey - all different nationalities. This question is not about citizenship. Murray's citizenship is British, no argument there, but that is irrelevant here. Before 1949, all Australians were British subjects because there was no such thing as Australian citizenship - but does that mean that Australians born before 1949 were not Australian by nationality? Of course not! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to a few of the Texan's I've met...but agreed, it is a very different situation. Weak comparison at best. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you say it should be Scotland because he chooses to be identified as Scottish? If he wanted to be identified as Brazilian should Brazilian be in the lead? Plenty of people have British in their lead, why? Is that wrong, or is this wrong? I am also being objective despite my username! Eng66 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do people like to impose their political ideology onto Wikipedia and the edits? It makes for poor accuracy and reliability. All Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English are British people but not all British people are Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English. This has been the case for 300 years, I don't think having arguments on the internet will change anything. Better start changing the law first, because British nationhood is legally recognised. Erzan (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what nationality does it say on his passport? Guarantee, it is British. Ergo he is British. Granted, he may choose a locality to associate himself with, i.e. Scotland, just like people from Texas call themselves Texans, but internationally he is known as British. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that in the post match interview he identified it as a British victory. Which was him saying he was British. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source at 1:41 "everyone wanted to see a BRITISH winner" -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of ignorance in this discussion. The term country is poorly defined - it has multiple meanings. Nation is also poorly defined too. What we can say as fact is that Murray is a citizen of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He therefore has British (civic) nationality. Most people call sovereign states 'countries', although some don't use it for states that have been created from an amalgamation of previously existing states (eg UK, UAE). Murray's also from Scotland, which is commonly called a country and which the British government's website describes as a 'constituent country' of the UK, although this is not a constitutionally recognised designation. People from Scotland are 'Scottish' and many people (Murray it would seem included) would also refer to this as a nationality. From a sporting perspective, murray is registered with the LTA and represents Great Britain in competitions such as the Olympics and the Davis Cup, though he could also represent Scotland in other competitions (eg Commenwealth Games). Basically, Murray is Scottish and British. Exactly which is primary depends on how you define your terms - there's not a correct or incorrect way to describe this. Hence the compromise on this page: Murray is Scottish, but the British number one. It's a compromise - there is no right or wrong here (unless you want to claim that he's French :) ). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To Super Nintendo and MisterShiney: Nobody in their right mind would ever deny he is British. Anyone from Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland is ipso facto British. That and only that is his citizenship, as has been pointed out above. That's what it says on his passport. There's no such thing as a Scottish passport, although come the referendum next year there may well be, but that's for another day. Now, some people from the UK also choose "British" as the nationality they generally wish to be known as, and that is why we have Category:British people by occupation. That is their choice. Others choose to be generally known by the nationality of their home country, so we have Category:English people by occupation, Category:Welsh people by occupation, Category:Scottish people by occupation and Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation, and all their sub-categories. Murray generally prefers to be known as a "Scottish tennis player" rather than a "British tennis player". But that general preference does not mean he is permanently banned from ever calling himself "British", and there will be occasions when he does exactly that. Winning Wimbledon, which is an English tournament and therefore a British tournament, is a perfectly appropriate time to do so. That does not mean he has suddenly abandoned his desire to be generally known as a Scottish tennis player. It's that simple. Please do not confuse citizenship with nationality. The subjects of Wikipedia's biographical articles are identified by their nationality, and Andy Murray has made it very clear his nationality is Scottish. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Pffft! You are skirting the issue. If he was that bothered about being called Scottish then he would of called himself a Scottish there and then. But he didn't. Given the current controversy re Scotland, his words were quite deliberate and a clear indication of his intention to be British. It is a clear nationalistic agenda by some editors to push the "Scottish" angle without any sources what so ever to back it up. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any way. Meh. I for one am going to drop it. Has nothing everything to do with finding this article. But I think for all our sanity, given that it is always best to have controversial materiel removed, that perhaps his nationality shouldnt be mentioned at all in the Lead given the amount of controversy that repeatedly pops up. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And you accuse me of skirting the issue? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I am mearly pointing out Policy that says that poorly sourced and contentious material should be removed. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just exactly what issue is it that I'm allegedly skirting? Why does one (1) self-reference as "British" trump probably hundreds, maybe even thousands, as "Scottish"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I don't know...because he said it? But anyway. I for one am bowing out. Fed up with this nationalistic crap. As a member of the UK I am first and foremost British. Not English and feel that anyone who lives within the UK and holds a British Passport is by definition (it's right there on the passport) British. I might decide to say "I identify with the Colombian culture" doesn't make me Columbian. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected. This is all about you, and your inability to see things outside your own personal perspective, and your belief that anyone who argues for a different position is wrong. How many times will you need to hear that whatever it says on his passport does not tell us what his nationality is. A passport specifies the holder's citizenship only. They are different things. Would anyone except nutjobs ever deny that Barack Obama is American, and only American, by citizenship? No, so why do we refer to him in the very first sentence of his article as an "African American"? Why? Because that is his nationality, that's why. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you look at a British Passport, you will see quite clearly the category "Nationality". African-American is NOT a nationality. It is a "racial and ethnic minority in the United States", just like Chinese-American and Italian American etc. My personal feelings on the matter do not effect my editing in any way so please remember to assume good faith. I am here for the good and accuracy of the encyclopedia. As is evident in my fixing of the reference that said that Murray was both British and Scottish. So stop trolling and back off because that sort of comment is a borderline Personal Attack. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Me a troll? Hardly (I've just written my 1300th article/page). As for borderline personal attacks, I was simply reflecting back your own words: "As a member of the UK I am first and foremost British. Not English and feel that anyone who lives within the UK and holds a British Passport is by definition (it's right there on the passport) British." That is all about you and your decision to consider yourself British. Nothing to do with Andy Murray. But you are trying to make your decision about you apply to him, for no better reason than because you say so. You have yet to acknowledge all the other categories I listed above (high-handed dismissals such as "Pffft!" do not count as any sort of serious response). If there is no place for Category:Scottish male tennis players, why does such a category exist? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your edit count has to do with the conversation here. But meh. I see you ignored my point about African-Americans. I would also point out that you have no idea as to my intentions, but you should always assume good faith. Just because I post my personal opinion, does not mean that it gets in the way of me constructively editing and maintaining consensus despite me feeling it is wrong. So you can back off right now. You are now being argumentative and I feel trying to draw me back into arguments when I have already said that I am moving on two hour ago. But your repeated argumentative behaviour (despite being on the "Correct" side the debate) shows deliberate antagonistic and trolling behaviour. Which, I would expect an editor of your "experience" to know is not acceptable. Anyway, like I said, I am walking away because it is quite clear that no one is willing to accept that he is in fact British by birth and Scottish by ancestry. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you make it clear that you won't be happy until the rest of the world sees it your way and agrees that it alone is the one true way. Best of luck with human life on planet Earth, pal. When you acknowledge my earlier points, I'll respond to your later ones. To use a tennis analogy, the ball's in your court. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Murray is first and foremost Scottish. That also makes him British, but that would be understood. If a living person's page says he's Scottish, that ipso facto means he is British as well. Scotland is a country in the UK. I don't see what is the issue here. I guess because he finally won Wimbledon, everyone wants his page to say he's British? Enigma^msg 19:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of the problem, people subjectively come along and impose divisive statements like 'first and foremost'. When in fact, no one is first and foremost anything. On what authority have you to state someone is Scottish before British, or British before Scottish? you don't, I don't and no one does. Unless we resort to the law, or the media and academic consensus. The constant issue here is that people subjectively keep trying to rank identities in order and it upsets everyone and pleases no one. Rather than rank Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish before or after British. Why not be diplomatic and compromise. To be English or Scottish is to be British and they do not have to be before or after either one. Compromise, please. Erzan (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a compromise, that has been used on this article for sometime. As with other similar articles. But he won Wimbledon and apperently now that compromise isnt going to well. Murry1975 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the example of the problem are people attempting to change the article now after a suitable compromise has been in place for a long time. Murray is first and foremost Scottish. That's the country he was born in. Now Scotland also happens to be part of the UK, so that would get mentioned next. Enigma^msg 03:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh for F's sake. Murray's nationality depends on how you define your terms. It is as simple as that. There is no right answer to this question. The wilful ignorance of this in this discussion is depressing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Enigma once again please stop with your devise language, it's unhelpful and unnecessary. Legal, academic and public opinion is well documented, British nationality and the state has existed for hundreds of years. When you claim that Andy is Scottish first before British, you're making a subjective statement that is impossible to qualify and is simply of your own opinion, nothing more. The concept of country is ambivalent and does not grant Scotland anything more special within the UK, than does Texas in the USA. Andy Murray is also a British national, with British citizenship and his plays for Britain as well as Scotland. His not considered a foreigner when he visits other parts of the UK, why? because his considered a British national. His achievements should be within context of British history, even more so as he is the first British person to win the Wimbledon title now. He even acknowledged himself as a Brit when talking of his win during his interview after he won. Be inclusive, let him be part of British (no one loses, all gains) history and let's stop with the first or second nonsense. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What is devise language? What you are doing is unhelpful. The article acknowledges that he's British. The argument here is that people want to change the lead from Scottish to British. Did I say he is not British? Of course he is British. But he is Scottish first. That is his country. Enigma^msg 04:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever he is some sort of 'rule' should be decided upon as tennis players such as Tim Henman and Fred Perry are shown as English and not British.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The compromise used to date is that players are described by their 'Home nations' nationality in text in the first line, followed by references to Britain/British later on eg "Timothy Henry "Tim" Henman, OBE (born 6 September 1974) is a retired English professional tennis player... He was the first player from the United Kingdom since Roger Taylor... and was one of Britain's most successful"; "Fred Perry was a championship-winning English tennis and table tennis player... Prior to Andy Murray in 2013, Perry was the last British player"; "Andrew Barron "Andy" Murray, OBE (born 15 May 1987) is a Scottish professional tennis player, ranked World No. 2[2] and British No. 1.". There's a consistency here which works and doesn't need altering. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but that compromise is ludicrous. The opening should conform to the unity of the rest of the article. You can't go from describing him (and others) as one thing and then to something different in the space of a sentence. I should also point out that Murray does not play Tennis FOR Scotland because they don't (like England and Wales) have a Scottish Team. Oh and yes, I would argue for Tim Henman and Fred Perry to be classified as British. -- MisterShiney ✉ 07:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A Million Times

People. We have been through this discussion a million times before. Have a look at the archives to see it comes up, without fail, every single July. A rush of editors descend on the article, and a fair number of them are out to make a political point at the expense of Andy Murray. What's good for the article, and good for the uninformed reader, gets ignored.

The point of the current consensus description is that it is a compromise. Some people would prefer British, some would prefer Scottish. The compromise is about balancing all the mentions of him being Britain's #1 male tennis player, with his Scottish identity. Murray himself has carefully declined to jump either way, because he knows just how touchy a subject it can be, and he has repeatedly said in the past that he sees himself as Scottish and British. This is a perfectly valid position to take and completely his right to take.

No one cares about definitions of citizenship, nationality or passports. It's all been said a million times before. This article is not intending to define any of these. It's purpose is to describe Andy Murray in the best way possible, that isn't going to get changed every second day by someone with an axe to grind about issues that are totally irrelevant to Murray. Is it beyond Wikipedia to find, and stick to, a compromise, that achieves that?

I would also urge everyone to read the manual of style guidelines regarding exactly this situation. There is nothing new here, it's a discussion that has occurred countless times before on many other articles. Read what it says. Specifically;

• Don't edit war.
• Don't attempt to enforce uniformity, you won't manage it
• If there's no good reason for a change, then don't change.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is an ESSAY and strictly advice and opinions and is NOT Manual of Style. -- MisterShiney ✉ 07:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, if Wikipedia was my own personal fiefdom, I'd just call him British - I like the 'describe sports-people by their main sporting nationality' guideline. FWIW, there was a short-lived England v Scotland tennis tournament, and Murray could compete for Scotland at competitions such as the Commonwealth Games: normally I'd say that this was unlikely, but I do wonder if he'll be tempted to try and win gold for Scotland in Glasgow... Either way, the current wording is also absolutely acceptable. And while Escape Order was wrong to label that link the manual of style, it's a sensible essay, the content of which I'd completely endorse. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI Tennis won't be played in Glasgow.

Regardless of what it is, it's the collected wisdom of a hundreds of cases like this. Do you have any problem with what it says? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Enigma arguing that Andy Murry should be called Scottish, because his country is Scotland is a weak argument. Why? because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country as well. You then try to assert Scotland is his first country as if this enhances your claim. But this also raises the question. Who, with what authority, can claim that a UK born has to say Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland comes before the UK? To suggest so is a personal opinion. Andy Murray is both British and Scottish, and no one but himself can order his identity. He referenced himself as a Brit after he won the Wimbledon game. How do you know he doesn't personally see himself as a Brit first? You don't, that's the point of subjectivity. You can order your own identity, but you're not Andy Murray and you're not me. Are you going to then tell me I have to say I am English before British? Wait, do I have to say I am British before European? No. I personally acknowledge all three, but why do I have to order it? I don't and you have no authority over anyone else to impose a rank.

Scotland is a country, so? the UK is considered a country too. Scotland isn't a sovereign-state but the UK is a sovereign-state. But it's claimed Scotland comes first before the UK, on what grounds? Supreme authority rests with the UK, in London not the other way around and that's not just a personal opinion, but a legal and political reality. Everything points to treating the UK as the highest denominator. Otherwise why not just go further and mention the city or town they were born in first and foremost? They're not because they're not internationally recognised sovereign-states. Wikipedia admins will continue to appease the anti-union camp, fair enough it's required to prevent an edit war and I completely understand this. But let's not pander to personal opinion, because that doesn't improve Wikipedia entries and surrenders them to personal opinion. Stating Andy Murray is Scottish first and foremost, is just that. A personal opinion. Erzan (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a fact. You can ignore reality all you like, but that doesn't change it. Enigma^msg 05:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Supreme authority rests with the UK, in London not the other way around and that's not just a personal opinion, but a legal and political reality. Everything points to treating the UK as the highest denominator." No the highest legal and political entity in this case would be the EU. Murry1975 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the EU is an Economic and Political Union. Not a country. Or Nation. Erzan said it perfectly. Saying he is Scottish is personal opinion and I wouldn't be surprised to find a few users who are Pro listing him as Scottish are in fact themselves Scottish. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it hardly maintains a Neutral Point of View, especially when on Sunday Andy Murray quite clearly says "A British Victory". A deliberate choice of words given the vote happening next year. I should also point out that no sources have been provided to back up "He says he is Scottish" "fact" that editors keep throwing around. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Scotland not a country or nation? Tell you what get a train to Glasgow/Edinbrugh/Aberdeen tomorrow walk around shuting your "opinion" and see do you end up in A&E or a polis cell. Murry1975 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a Country or State. It misses on many points for that definition. I guess you could call it a Nation if your definition of nation is a division of a territory marked by boundaries. Scotland has been holding referendums on whether to leave the U.K. and become an independent country, but that hasn't happened yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_i-9.pdf The ISO say its a country, and the UK government too http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html. Top trumps dudes UK government saying Scotland is a country. Murry1975 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, slight off topic now. The sources you provide Murray all amusingly list Scotland UNDER the UK banner. Making any and all of it's subjects British first. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How is that amusing? They list it as a country, which you and others have claimed its not. Murry1975 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I have not said it's not a country. Secondly, it's amusing that you are fighting this "Scottish first" corner and yet the sources you provide put British first. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also because of ambiguities between UK and USA definition of the word "country." USA uses Country while UK often uses State. Scotland is having a referendum where they ask shall we become an independent country?. An article on the BBC] talks about the present (the country's food and drink industry), but also the future (Scotland can "more than afford" to be a successful independent country, its first minister has said). But this is an argument for wiki Scotland or the BBC. This article has placated all sides and been stable for a long while with the fact Murray is a player from Scotland whose international playing status is with Great Britain. Both are there for all to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside of the geographical term (referring to the island that includes England, Wales and Scotland but excludes Northern Ireland), there is no such internationally recognised entity as "Great Britain" except at the Olympics. Murray may be British, but his choice of countries is Scotland or the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Great Britain" in the infobox is ONLY for his international recognition in tennis. It is not for citizenship, residence, etc... In tennis (the reason he is notable at all), he is listed as representing Great Britain, whether Olympics, Davis Cup, Wimbledon, or any other tournament. It's why we use it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should leave it to the Scottish Wiki to decide!?--Egghead06 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Enigma no one can play tennis and represent Scotland, only Great Britain. But you're clearly wishing to ignore any facts. It's impossible to have a debate when the basic elements of understanding is this poor. Wikipedia deserves better. Erzan (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is very poor. Nowhere did I say Andy Murray represented Scotland in tennis. He is still Scottish. Nothing to do with what he represents in tennis. Wikipedia does deserve better than your continued refusal to comprehend any points made. I am not Scottish, despite what Shiney said. That would be obvious from my userpage. It is telling that people are making a big stink about this because Murray won Wimbledon. He is not any more British than he was in May. Enigma^msg 16:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Like the United Sates and the United Kingdom the term is very loose. Within the UK, each state is a sovereign kingdom (country) in its own right, including its own capital (hence Scotland trying for Independence). Originally the USA was made up 13 colonies and later united with its sister states overtime, so the term Texan originated in Spanish controlled Mexico Texian. Same applies to UK over History. So all that is happening in this topic is a social reference to the person we know, Andy is Scottish inside the UK. Similarly, if we knew someone locally (not internationally) for example, we would refer that person from their county or town. e.g: Man_of_Kent > Person A: "Where are you from?"; Person B: "I am from Canterbury in Kent"; Person A: "Oh I am from Kent, which side of the River Medway where you Born?"; Person B: "I was born on the eastern side"; Person A: "Ah... a Man of Kent then!"; Person B: "I take it you where born on the western side of Kent?"; Person B: "Yes, a Kentish Maid". (I have yet to find a joke for this). So to hopefully to give context to conversation, this topic is covering a social identity on an international level but looking at the minutia of person's "Sub" identity. JackofOz, where in Australia are you from and where does your heritage Scotland originate? ixpnet 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.135 (talk)

My understanding? Enigma you think you can rank a UK born identity for them. Do you even read what you type? You actually think you can tell British people that we should be English or Scottish before British. Your best reasoning for this because Scotland is a country, which as I explained earlier does not hold up as the UK is a country too. It is a subordinate region to the UK and will remain so until if and when it decides to succeed from the UK. There are no credible sources that back up your opinion. I invite you to link at least two. 86.177.11.132 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that this topic wouldn't even exist if Andy Murray hadn't won Wimbledon. A little tongue-in-cheek to lighten the mood :) I will say that although I no longer wish to get involved in this...argument, I will however, make one point: Blanketing people as British because Scotland/England/Wales "aren't countries" is a pot-holed argument. Just imagine how stupid and inaccurate it would be if WP described Sean Connery as "British" in the lead, or any other figure who have expressed publicly they are first and foremost either Scottish, English or Welsh for that matter (NI is a different situation and not worth bringing up here). To leave out Andy Murray's Scottishness from the lead would be a great shame and in my opinion a one-sided approach, including it would be factual and accurate. I'm not arguing against him being described as British, but the fact is - he is clearly both. WP does not just/always represent the side of citizenship when it comes to nationality. --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey IP, have you ever been to Scotland, or spoken to someone from Scotland, or even listened to someone from Scotland talk about this? Obviously not. Enigma^msg 14:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't exist if he hadn't won Wimbledon. Scotland is Andy Murray's country. It is in Great Britain so he is also British. I don't see how this is difficult to comprehend. Wimbledon brought people out of the woodwork who wish to erase Scotland. Enigma^msg 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI Comment from earlier: "Within the UK, each state is a sovereign kingdom (country) in its own right." Wrong Wales is a Principality hence why only the crosses of St Andrew (Scotland), George (England) and Patrick (Ireland) make up the flag and that Wales has always been part of England in terms on monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.91.161 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Enigma you make comments on my wall wishing for things to stop being personal. Then you, for whatever reason, fail to understand this. Scotland is a country and the UK is a country too AND it's an international recognised Sovereign-state AND Murray plays for the UK tennis AND his passport is UK AND his a British National AND he calls himself British too. You keep saying his country is Scotland. We get that, we're not ignorant. But his country is the UK too. That's just the facts, sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Wimbledon 'trying to erase Scotland'. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Erzan (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand very well. It is you that does not understand. I have made myself perfectly clear, and yet you persist in this. Murray self-identifies as Scottish. He has stated this many times in interviews. He is also British, and that is given the appropriate coverage in the article. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand here, but the issue is that people are trying to remove the 'Scottish' from the lead of this article, which does not make sense. Enigma^msg 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he says or who he identifies with. I could up roots and move to Hawaii. Could say I am American. Doesn't make it so unless I hold an American Passport. People can say he is Scottish as much as he they wants. Doesn't make it true because his passport is BRITISH! I should point out that the opposition to listing him as British have yet to find a reliable neutral non-nationalistic propaganda source for maintaining the Scottish listing. -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What about people who are overwhelming identified as Scottish in the media and reliable sources? Yep - there certainly should be no "clear rule" on how to describe UK nationals. Sadly, that's just an essay. A very old essay.--Somchai Sun (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"People can say he is Scottish as much as he they wants. Doesn't make it true..." Not sure how to respond to this. What about when he has described himself as Scottish? Was he lying? I suppose you believe he invented Scotland and that it doesn't even exist. Enigma^msg 22:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

...I didn't say they couldn't...I didn't provide much context so here's some: I was pointing out the fallacy of "labeling everyone British because of citizenship". I have made 2 points now: 1) People who identify as Scottish (and not British, or British second after Scottish) should have there personal choice respected regardless of their Citizenship (I consider not doing so a BLP violation) and 2) If someone is clearly identified as Scottish (to give one example, seems appropriate here) by most sources then it's best to describe them as such in the lead. Very clear points, that shouldn't be controversial, and are totally acceptable by WP standards. I stand by the "Murray is Scottish and British" - the lead only requires one identification and Scottish is perfectly adequate. I find it bizarre you thought I was suggesting people couldn't call him Scottish when I've been arguing for him to be described as Scottish from the start!!! And I have NO idea why I'm typing this at 2:25 AM, damn weather. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're replying to me, but I did one more indentation from the Mister guy to indicate my reply was to him. I quoted what he said. He posted "People can say he is Scottish as much as he they wants. Doesn't make it true..." so I directed my reply to that. He comments suggest that Andy Murray is not Scottish, which I find amusing. Enigma^msg 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't see you were quoting someone, maybe had something to do with it being 2:30-odd AM and searingingly hot. Still! My comment is er, you know - still applicable. But I feel I've stated it too many times now :( --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. My comment was under yours, but not indented, because I was replying to the same thing you were replying to. :) Enigma^msg 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on those Reliable sources that are "Overwhelming" in describing him as Scottish. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotes from you, on July 7: "Any way. Meh. I for one am going to drop it." "But anyway. I for one am bowing out. Fed up with this nationalistic crap." So much for that. Enigma^msg 17:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Enigmaman) Ahhhhh see in all this madness it's so easy to spot that kinda stuff! --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What can I say...I am still curious about these so called sources that in a week and half of discussion the pro Scottish listing have still yet to provide a Neutral and Reliable source to back it up. Its a core principle of Biographies of Living persons. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Another core principle of the encyclopedia is when you comment on something told "its been discussed umpteen times in the archives please read", is to read them then decide if you have anything new to change consensus with. But as you wish I will throw a recent one your way, from the BBC.

And to add a note on things here from the Guardian. But please read the archives. Murry1975 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Pro Scottish" listing, and your insistence on categorising things a Scottish/British choice illustrates the mindset you need to get away from in discussing this. He is both. The lead therefore is attempting to describe him as both. What you are saying is that he doesn't get that choice, you're going to decide for him, and there is no room for describing him as Scottish anywhere, despite what sources may frequently use. I also note that you are still, despite it being of little relevance, set defining UK nationalities. This is something that has frustrated the finest minds for centuries, but we're to fix it once and for all on the Andy Murray article. Please understand this; no-one cares what your thoughts on UK nationalities are. Your definitions are irrelevant, and this talk page is not the place to discuss them. Talk of BLP core principles doesn't change this one. And if you seriously believe you are going to make any headway in removing "Scottish" from the lead of all BLPs, then you are in for a very long and fruitless time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Convenience Break

I think that before adding to this discussion, people need to go and read British Isles terminology, country and sovereign state. The various uses of the term by people in this discussion - on both sides - rarely seem to fit in with the actual meanings of these words. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dunno what the British Isles should have to do with this...thought that was just a geographical term *smirks*. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Links to some past discussions on the subject: [2] [3] [4] [5] Enigma^msg 18:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of the above because I'm intrinsically lazy, so if someone else has made this point, then I apologise.

1. Like me, Andy Murray is Scottish--Tim Henman is English. The three of us are British because that is how our nationality is defined in our passports. I self-identify as Scottish but that doesn't change the basic fact that I'm a British citizen.
2. The nationality of British international sportsmen is not allocated in legalistic terms but along protocols that I personally find baffling but they exist none-the-less and the rest of the world seems to go along with it, apparently. For example:

• F1 motor racing - nationality British
• Football - nationality English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish
• Golf - nationality English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish
• Tennis - nationality British
• Boxing - nationality British

So, the current wording acknowledges his country of birth - Scotland, and that he competes on the world stage as British, while David Beckam, born in England and is correctly referred to as English. So let's leave Andy's article alone and allow the interested reader to get the facts and not opinions. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Boxing? lol Thats a can of worms, pro=British but amateur, is again any of the above :0 And as for trying to sort Northern Ireland boxers out, they at amateur are Ireland or can box for Northern Ireland in certain comps, and as they have boxed for Ireland at amateur they may (or may not) continue to do so if the apply for it, yes I edit those pages and its not fun. Murry1975 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, silly me. I thought this article was about a professional tennis player. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes Bill it is:) Murry1975 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

See? Madness! Look how these debates send people into MADNESS!!![6] So mad that they even start talking about boxing when this is a tennis-related article!!! I think a break is in order. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Birth place

86.0.227.177 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)fernando Schlindwein Was Andy Murray born in Glasgow or Dumblane? 86.0.227.177 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He was born in Glasgow, his hometown (which is how he personally feels) is Dunblane. (Also, did you mean to call it "Dumblane?")--Somchai Sun (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

His actual website says Dunblane, as birth place opposedto hometown. Murry1975 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no hospital in Dunblane. Unless his mother chose to have a home birth he won't have been born there. A previous blog post he wrote specifically said he was born in Glasgow. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Who says he had to have been born in a hospital? We should first and foremost go on what his website says...providing it has been confirmed that it is his. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OBE

Has he already been knighted? I would want a source for that.HotHat (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The mismatch between the header and the question makes working out what you want to know very unclear. FWIW, an OBE is not a knighthood. The O stands for Officer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering my question.HotHat (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the OBE stands for "Order of the British Empire" - but you can get different classes. The top two "Knight Grand Cross or Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE)" and "Knight Commander or Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE or DBE)" provide the recipient with Knighthoods. But Jack is correct, there is a class of the OBE as "Officer of the British Empire" In answer to your original question, no he has not been given a knighthood...yet. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Mister Shiney, OBE can stand for "Order of the British Empire", but it hardly ever does. When we read that someone was appointed an MBE, that means they were appointed a "Member of the Order of the British Empire". When we read that someone was appointed a CBE, that means they were appointed a "Commander of the Order of the British Empire". And when we read that someone was appointed an OBE, that means they were appointed an "Officer of the Order of the British Empire". It cannot reasonably be read as some unspecified level of the order, anywhere from BEM through to GBE, but specifically as the Officer level. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasant conversation]} 23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I too am VERY confused by the whole system of OBE CBE etc. Chances of him being Knighted within the next 5+ years? unlikely... --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Somchai Sun: There are various ways of becoming knighted. The most common one is Knight Bachelor. This entitles the holder to the title "Sir", and that's all. It is not part of any order of chivalry, and it does not carry any postnominal letters. Now, there are knighthoods as part of the structures of the Order of the British Empire, Order of the Bath, Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Royal Victorian Order, to name the main extant ones. These also entitle the holder to "Sir", but they also carry postnominal letters (KBE or GBE; KB; KG; KT; KCVO or GCVO, respectively). But being appointed to one of these orders does not necessarily mean appointment at the Knight/Dame level. There are far more Members, Officers, Commanders, Lieutenants etc of these orders than Knights or Dames. Andy Murray is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. He may one day be promoted to Commander (CBE), or to Knight Commander (KBE) or to Knight Grand Cross (GBE) of that order. Or he may be appointed to a separate order, such as Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO), which would give him two postnominals (CVO OBE). Or he may be made a Knight Bachelor, in which case he'd still have only the one: Sir Andrew Murray OBE. If he's promoted to knight within his current order, he'd be Sir Andrew Murray KBE. Does that help? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasant conversation]} 23:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013 - Murray vs. Djokovic rivalry content addition

I wish to add content to the "Murray vs. Djokovic" part of the "Rivalries" chapter on the Wikipedia page about tennis star Andy Murray.

Here is what I wish to add. "Murray and Djokovic, though they are rivals, are great friends - and have been so since the age of eleven, when they met at an under-twelves tennis tournament." I wish for my addition to be placed as the third and final paragraph in the "Murray vs. Djokovic" part of the "Rivalries" chapter.

I wish to also add content to the end of the second paragraph of the "Murray vs. Djokovic" part of the "Rivalries" chapter. Here is what I wish to add. "The two old friends played together in the final match of Wimbledon 2013, where Murray won after three sets. In the first set, Djokovic and Murray went 4-6. In the second set, they went 5-7. In the third and final set, they went 4-6. Murray was also the first British man to win the Wimbledon since Fred Perry in 1936 - 77 years prior to Murray."

I hope that you will accept my request to add said content to the "Murry vs. Djokovic" part of the "Rivalries" chapter on the Wikipedia page about tennis star Andy Murray.

Gaveroid (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: a) no sources provided. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. b) Information on the Wimbledon final is already listed in the rivalry section, and in the 2013 section, and scores should not be listed in prose per WP:TENSCR. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Final photos

Can somebody upload these CC SA images of the final?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Give me a min if others haven't started.

Virginia Wade.

I feel that something along the lines of "Murray was the first player representing Great Britain to win since Virginia Wade in 1977" should be in the article.[7] --Ft0rs505 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but where exactly? Between Perry and Mahoney? It's already a bit cluttered. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And what about the wins of Jeremy Bates, John Lloyd, Jo Durie, Jamie Murray, Jonathan Marray? The article is clear enough that Murray is the first British man to win the singles title since Fred Perry. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New Photo

I think someone should put a new photo of Andy Murray winning Wimbledon this year. Terriers1234 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has good photos already, but an additional one of him like that would be welcome, as long as it's free. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of the photos here (all are CC), none really came across as ideal. This one is a possibility, but would need some editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo and wondered if it was alright to use.

File:Andy Murray Wimbledon.jpg

Terriers1234 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the source? it looks rather like a press photo, and has no EXIF data.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(c) Andrew Couldridge/Action Images. I've nominated it for deletion as a copyright vio. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Murray celebrates after winning Wimbledon in 2013

This is an edited CC image from Flickr. It is passable, but it is a pity that he is not holding the trophy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pose is good, but it needs to be lightened up a bit. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I just uploaded this file and cropped it to just him. What do you all thing of the picture?HotHat (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy Murray is clutching the Wimbledon trophy.

It is not ideal from a technical or artistic viewpoint, but then neither are any of the other images. It does not show Murray's face clearly, and the crop is too tall and thin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic/Wimbledon record

There seems to be some validity about Andy Murray's record of holding a Wimbledon title and the Olympic Gold Medal simultaneously.

I believe Rafael Nadal holds this record solely, because:

• He won Wimbledon (6 July) and the Olympic Gold Medal (17 August) in the very same year, six weeks apart, in 2008. As well as this, there were no Major events in between.
• Andy Murray, yes he won the Olympic Gold Medal AND Wimbledon, but the three other Majors (2012 US Open, 2013 Australian Open and 2013 French Open) also fell in between his Gold Medal in 2012 and Wimbledon in 2013.
• He, though, is the only man to win the Olympic Gold Medal and the US Open simultaneously, with five weeks separating both achievements.

As well as this, Murray's Gold Medal in 2012 and Wimbledon title in 2013 were 48 weeks apart, and as has already been mentioned, three Major tournaments also occurred during this time period.

Thus, I believe Murray's record of "being the simultaneous holder of the Olympic Gold Medal AND Wimbledon" is invalid, as they both occurred in separate years (2012 and 2013 respectively), and both were achieved 48 weeks apart (very long time). As opposed to Nadal, who won both titles within six weeks of each other IN THE SAME YEAR.

What do you think? MasterMind5991 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If a player wins a title, they are the sole "holder" of that title until the next edition of the tournament in question comes around, and the next Olympics aren't until 2016, so Murray WILL be the holder of the Olympic Gold Medal until the next tournament. The same applies to the Slams, one is a holder of a GS title until the next chance to defend that title, so until the 7th of July, Federer was still the holder of the Wimbledon title because nobody else had won it yet. Hence, it is perfectly valid to state that Murray currently holds both titles. Might I add, there also exists a record on Nadal's page that he is "Simultaneous holder of the singles Gold and majors on clay, grass and hart courts", but didn't win his first hard court major til 2009, so by your flawed logic that also isn't a valid record. The bottom line is that the Olympic champion remains as such until the next Olympics, so Murray will still be the holder of Olympic Gold for another 3 years! --Thetradge (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

(First, it's sad but not surprising that this article about a great sportsman is locked for editing purposes - due in no small measure to misplaced politics and petty bigotry, one presumes.)

The second sentence in the second paragraph is awkward - why not simply combine it with the first sentence as follows: ...the first British man since 1936 and in the Open Era, to win a Grand Slam singles tournament...

In the third paragraph, "2012" preceding "men's singles" and "mixed doubles" is awkward (and redundant: the year is already given at the beginning of the paragraph). In both cases "2012" should be replaced (outside the visible hyperlinks) by "the".

Section "2005-2008":

4th par:

1st sentence: "stars" is missing an apostrophe.

5th sentence: "onto" is two words.

5th par:

7th sentence: Murray was 5-1 up when...

6th par:

Last-sentence rewrite: "At the Beijing Olympics, Murray suffered one of the worst defeats of his career, losing his first round singles match to world no. 77 Yen-hsun Lu of Taiwan in straight sets.[73]" [Conveniently, Murray's pithy post-mortem analysis appears in the reference's title. That abject defeat was still on his mind (in a BBC interview I heard) five years later - despite an intervening Olympic gold medal and a head-to-head win - when he met the same player (now ranked 75 in the world) in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 2013.]

7th par:

3rd sentence: de-capitalise "Hard".

Section "2010"

3rd par:

4th sentence: "ending"

last par:

2nd sentence: remove "down" from the last sub-clause.

Section "2012"

2nd-last par:

Rewrite the first two sentences as: "When Rafael Nadal pulled out of both the Paris Masters[144] and the Year-End Championships, Murray finished the year at no. 3 in the world, after four years at no. 4."

Section "2013"

1st par:

2nd sentence: "Trying to win his second major in a row, he began..."

2nd par:

4th sentence: "Murray briefly fell back to number 3 in the world, following a third round defeat to Stanislas Wawrinka in Monte-Carlo, but reclaimed the number 2 ranking..."

3rd par:

2nd sentence: "...citing a back injury."

Section "Playing style"

1st par:

Last sentence: "...Murray also has one of the best two-handed backhands on the tour, with "explosive and dynamic stroke execution".[177]

Section "Charitable work"

2nd par:

2nd sentence: "...after his best friend and fellow British tennis player Ross Hutchins was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma.[189] [Note: Murray called Hutchins his best friend in his speech to the crowd after winning the 2013 AEGON Championships, just before the charity match.]

Section "Grand slam performance timeline"

In the first sentence, replace "only updated once" with "updated only after".

Section "Awards and honours"

Laureus "World Breakthrough of the Year" Award: 2012 [Note: it was awarded in March 2013, for the previous year.]

Hope this helps, Gary 87.86.118.227 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am working on your suggestions now. Thanks, Enigma^msg 16:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Let me know of any mistakes. Enigma^msg 16:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to contribute to a fine article. :) Btw, on the Beijing Olympics the stuff I put in square brackets was meant as background but if you want to leave it in the article, you'll need to reword it to remove the first person ("I"), remove the brackets (both square and round), and move the [73] footnote to the end of the previous sentence. Likewise, the Section "2013" rewrite was meant to replace the subsequent sentence as well (mea culpa for not making that clear) but if it's to stay, it should be put in the past tense, i.e. "This was the first time Murray had finished the year higher than no. 4 in the world."

Here's to many more Murray triumphs for you to write about! Cheers, Gary. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PS I've now found the reference for the Beijing square-bracket stuff: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/23051015 Here's a suggested rewrite: "At the Beijing Olympics, Murray suffered one of the worst defeats of his career, losing his first round singles match to world no. 77 Yen-hsun Lu of Taiwan in straight sets.[73] That abject defeat was still on his mind in a BBC interview five years later - despite an intervening Olympic gold medal and a head-to-head win - when he met the same player (now ranked 75 in the world) in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 2013.[74]"

[74] Is the BBC interview, just found. Gary 87.86.118.227 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the first one, adding a sentence and a reference and removing the brackets. In 2013, can you clarify which sentence was supposed to be removed? Enigma^msg 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Good changes. Nice to see something productive going on here! :) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External link issue.

Witnessed a minor edit-war taking place just now, decided to open a topic to try and clear up what's going on: User:Mark7144 wants to add the unofficial fan-site [www.murraysworld.com] to the external links section. User:Themfromspace reverted him, citing it as spam. As far as I know, WP policy states fan-sites are a no-no when it comes to external links (of course there can be exceptions to most WP rules in certain cases). Mark7144 claims that consensus was reached in 2006/09 to include this fan-site in the external links directory. I've been doing some archive searching (which was annoying considering how much crap about his nationality I had to skip over!) and found consensus was possibly reached in 2006 here, and again so in 2009 here. I believe it was deemed on both occasions that the site was useful and not all trivia and gossip. So, any thoughts? Edit: Reading it further I can say that I'm taking a neutral side on this. Half-decade old archives are frustrating to make head to toe of sometimes. I also didn't see any formal voting. And people with a declared COI should not vote. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I both cases 06/09, from what I have read, there was no consensus reached, it was dead-ended. Remember consensus isnt by number its by reasoning and none was shown why this site should stay. It is actually Mark7144s website, which is why he wants it included, image the hits he gets from here? Or the amount of times it shows up on search engines that pick it up from here? I would want those clicks too. WP:COI which he admits, and a major spam link. Nope not needed. Murry1975 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mark7144 is a promotion-only account who has done nothing on Wikipedia but try to plug that link into this article. The discussions he cites took place years ago and the consensus he talks about is all in his head. Our external links guidelines are clear on the matter; they explain that we don't link to fansites as they are not encyclopedic resources. Readers who click there are not given any additional encyclopedic material. Given his admitted relationship with the website, he is the last one who should be linking there from our articles. ThemFromSpace 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have always declared myself as COI and I accept all my activities on Wikipedia in general is about this issue. So yes, I'm not a valued contributor like the rest of you but I hope you can understand why I feel strongly about defending the results of the consensus and why I feel the burden is on those removing the link than those adding it back in (probably just me). My perspective on this: The external link was originally on this article for many years before the first challenge in 2006 was made to remove it. There consensus was reached in favour to not remove it. In 2009 it at first glance is a little vague because we were discussing Twitter as well. When you exclude the votes explicitly against Twitter you will see that a clear consensus was also reached with 7 in favour and 4 against.

So I ask you all to keep things as they are rather than take the action of removing a link that has been part of this article for 7 years now. User:Mark7144

The burden, as it never reached consensus is on you to prove why your website should be left against guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me consensus was reached on both occasions but simply not unanimously. User:Mark7144 —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just like to point out Mark has altered his statement after my reply to change his meaning, which, again isnt on and agianst TP guidelines for flow of discussion. Again refusing to engage in why his link should stay against WP:EL, the explanation has been given in previous discussions and in the actual guideline. Murry1975 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the refactoring. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mark read and understand the following guidelines, WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:CONSENSUS. Murry1975 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have an unfortunate habit of posting before reading what I have typed and looking at my edits will confirm as much - they are trivial and innocent.

Back on topic. In regards to why I feel this link should remain included:

• We are allowed to not follow guidelines if doing so improves the encyclopedia
• Website in question houses a lot of information
• Website has been included in the external links for the majority of the time this Wikipedia article has existed.
• Website was the first dedicated to the topic, two years before the official website.
• Website is credible and has a relationship with Andy’s management and has been provided exclusive content as a consequence.
• Website has received consensus in its favour and never against.
• Website in question contains information that cannot be found in this article or the official website.
• Website and official site are on the ODP under Andy Murray.
• Website’s editorial practices are approved by the Google News's editorial team and therefore the website is a Google News publisher.

User:Mark7144 —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And point for point:

• We are allowed to not follow guidelines if doing so improves the encyclopedia an external link by definition, not improve the encyclopedia
• Website in question houses a lot of information that is available in reliable sources, such as those used in the article
• Website has been included in the external links for the majority of the time this Wikipedia article has existed. As shown consensus wasnt established for such
• Website was the first dedicated to the topic, two years before the official website. Not relivant
• Website is credible and has a relationship with Andy’s management and has been provided exclusive content as a consequence. Please see WP:COI
• Website has received consensus in its favour and never against. Nope, it hasnt, please understand consensus isnt voting
• Website in question contains information that cannot be found in this article or the official website. WP:RS
• Website and official site are on the ODP under Andy Murray On the what?
• Website’s editorial practices are approved by the Google News's editorial team and therefore the website is a Google News publisher But doesnt meet the guidelines to be kept under WP:EL which are approved by Wikipedia! Murry1975 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Anna Frodesiak

This has been going on a long time. I think others don't want to get involved because of all the reading. I didn't read much of it. But here's what I think from first glance:

• Visitors to the article will like the external link.
• I see no ads at the site, so it's not spammy.
• Fan sites are generally not a good idea and are a bad precedent to set.
• Because of Mark's obvious conflict of interest, we must assume that he seeks to add the link primarily to further his cause. So, at this point, he should step back and the community should seek consensus in or out.
• Until that happens, the link must stay out because it's disputed.
• Mark, please stop pitching and let the community decide.

Have your say

Neutral But I'm leaning toward out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will refrain from putting my argument forward as requested. Mark7144 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)