Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

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 [] 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

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

  • Out The content guideline (WP:ELNO) states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" There also exists a declared CoI. The content guideline is clear about this: "[Y]ou should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." Although the guidelines seem to suggest that some latitude may be granted, with regard to BLP's the instruction is unequivocal: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline..." (all emphasis mine.) Keri (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Apologies, but I'd leave it out. I think the guidelines are pretty clear on this one, as referenced by Keri above. This isn't a judgement on the quality or value of the website in any way: it looks like a good but not exceptional fansite, but I don't see what it offers that adds significant value beyond the official website (perhaps Mark7144 might specify exactly what he thinks it does add). This wouldn't stop parts of the website being useful as a source for the article. In particular, the video resources could potentially be used in the 'playing style' section - or perhaps more productively in the various articles under the Tennis shots label. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Out I don't feel it is needed when we have the official site already.YoungDrac (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In - The site has been around for 8 years. It looks to have more information than the official site and is updated regularly. There is supposed to be some latitude in what we would have as an external link and I think that this may be one of those exceptions. We have facebook and twitter accounts listed regularly, and these are often run by single entities who make errors all the time so I think some leeway is needed here. Readers come here to be informed and they would look at links to see important websites about Andy Murray. I look at it as a rule of no fansites unless agreed to by a project that it is particularly worthy of inclusion because it would help our readers. I can't see ever having more than one personal page being listed in external links, but I think that some flexibility for this one may be required. As an example, in hockey, the Los Angeles Kings have an official NHL website. For years and years there were also fan sites, one of which was where tickets could be exchanged and booster club members would get exclusive interviews. This one was so good that the Kings have made it an "official fansite." It hasn't changed but the Kings made it official. There are plenty of musician official websites that go down all the time (for months and years) but a particular group of fans keep a separate website going that always has more info, current info, etc... Those are actually better and more helpful to our readers than any official site. Not being a big And Murray fan I can't be sure of how much more this site adds over the official site, but I would not dismiss it just because it is not official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - as fansites go it contains quality original content, and there is a degree of leeway about these things. I have argued previously on this basis for its inclusion. However, I think previous consensus was established when Murray was still up and coming, and good info and content about him was limited. This is hardly the case any more. So I can see arguments both ways. It wouldn't hurt the article to contain it, but guidelines would suggest there should be a better reason than that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Meh (neutral); (Well, I should vote as I sort of started this whole can-of-worms) Can't honestly say I'm overly disturbed or sufficiently thrilled enough to want this link excluded or included (haw-haw). Would excluding it result in the article missing out on something? Not really, no. Would including it genuinely benefit the article? Maybe - some might find it useful. Credit to Mark7144 though - his site seems competent and non-spammy. But due to WP policy I can't really go either way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In - Personally I see no problem in its inclusion the site is actually more informative than the official one I find the user interface much easier to navigate its shows information quickly and I regularly look at both of them as for it being un-encyclopedic well that's a non-starter IMHO it might be policy but thousands of official sites we link too are not encyclopedic in style and content at the end of the day its just a small link on a large article!--Navops47 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Going forward

I'm not well versed in Wiki rules but what happens now? Do we continue to leave the link in place like it has been for 7 years or does the latest 'in/out' discussion now reverse the 2009 equivalent discussion that came to 7-4 in favour? I apologise for my fairly simplistic perspective on this. Mark7144 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 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)

Yada, yada, yada. This has been discussed to death, people. --John (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You CAN NOT be serious. He is British. He has a British passport as a British Subject. If someone is found passed out in the African jungle with a British Passport it would be referred to the British Embassy as they tried to find out who the British Person is. The only person in the UK who is allowed to be anything other than British is the Queen who is English. As Queen she does not have a passport and is English as tradition dictates. I see that the article on Murray has been Wiki-vandalised but bullying does not work, Murray is 100% British and that is the end of the matter.

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? 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? Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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) The ISO say its a country, and the UK government too 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. Enigmamsg 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 (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. (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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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 (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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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. :) Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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: [1] [2] [3] [4] Enigmamsg 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!!![5] 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andy Murray is British and his Wikipedia page should not say that he is Scottish

Andy Murray is British, he was born in Scotland which is a part of Great Britain and also he plays tennis as a British tennis player and he is the British tennis Number 1 tennis player. Also Andy Murray has been knighted as an OBE which is an Order of the British Empire, due to this I believe that Andy Murray should have is a British tennis player and not is a Scottish tennis player. Also Andy Murray participates in the Olympics as part of team GB which is team Great Britain as he participates in the Olympics and in professional tennis as British not Scottish and therefore I think it is a disgrace that he has Scottish not British. Also both of the last two Prime Ministers of Great Britain Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were also both born in Scotland yet on their Wikipedia pages it says that they are British. Why is Andy Murray an exemption of being British of anyone when he represents Great Britain all over the world in the Olympics, professional tennis, the US Open, the French Open, the Australian Open and also Wimbledon which is also held in Wimbledon, England which is in Great Britain and is therefore British. Owenfighter1000 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem. He is generally acknowledged in the article as being British... his infobox says so and has the British flag. However he is Scottish and therefore is a Scottish tennis player also, just as Pancho Gonzales was a US and Californian tennis player. It really should be no big deal that it is at least mentioned. There are others who feel just as strongly as you the British should not be in there, so as a compromise to all we have both. British in the main infobox and pretty much throughout the article, and Scottish and British mentioned in the lead sentence. British gets the heavy lifting but Scottish is in the lead. Everyone should be able to live with this since nothing is censored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
And the beat goes on (see the closed thread above, and WP:UKNATIONALS).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Fyunck. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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 (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 (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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

As an American, I have waded through the argument above with difficulty. English? Scottish? Like there's a difference? All I know is that, if he were sitting opposite me on a train, having a conversation with a friend, I probably wouldn't understand one word out of three. (Lighten up! :>) Profhum (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To the above user, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. And no, I certainly don't need to lighten up - I find the nationality debate nonsense as tedious as the next, however this is an Encyclopedia and we have a duty as editors to make it as factual and accurate as possible. Factaul accuracy is key on BLP'S. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
English or Scottish? Thats something you Mexicans always get confused over. Murry1975 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As a Canadian, he should appreciate that talking in that funny way can lead to confusion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Jokes are banned from Wikipedia nationality arguments, you two foolish Welshmen! --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The first British Olympic champion in over 100 years

Just a thought - looking for your opinions: Quote from the page "At the 2012 Olympic Games, [...] becoming the first British champion in over 100 years." Two things - one is that golds were won by two British men and two women in 1920 (doubles) and the other is that there were no medals for what - 76 years out of that as for most of the time tennis wasn't a sport at the Olympics. According to the Olympics page "The 2012 Olympic tournament was the fourteenth edition of tennis at the Olympics [...], and the seventh since 1988" At the best he is the first British singles champion since 1908 this but really this misdirects? There were not 100 years worth of games. Should this be rephrased? Also - if it should I don't know a good way to rephrase it.Antiqueight (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of a daft request, just because the games weren't held between 1924 and 1988 doesn't mean the time period between 1908 and 2012 suddenly becomes shorter, there are still 104 years between Murray and Josiah Ritchie's Gold Medal winning performances. That's almost like saying it was actually 72 years since Britain's last Wimbledon men's singles champion, due to the Championships not having been held between 1940 and 1945 because of WW2! As far as your comment goes about there being British medallists in 1920, I think the fact that he was the first singles Gold Medallist in 100 years goes without saying, however if it isn't clear in the article then yes, this would be worth changing. thetradge (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS discussions

I thought I should mention the ongoing discussions going on at WP:TENNIS; we are discussing how career statistics list should be modelled, it would be nice if any of you would participate in it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Unfortunately whether you like it or not both England and Scotland ceased as countries in their own right over 300 years ago, so unless Andy Murray or any other person was born before 1707 then they are British. This seems to have become an issue of nationalism over factualism. Scotland, England and Wales are all regions of Britain and in no official manner as recognised by this government or any abroad is your birth is one of these three regions a differing factor in determining a persons nationality. The only region in UKoGBaNI where your place of birth can lead to a disputed nationality is NI due to historical arrangements and claims between the Republic of Ireland and UKoGBaNI. Also what Andy Murray describes himself as is no factor as nationality is not a variable that an individual can change unless via official channels which are open to them (there are currently none). This arrangement will not change unless, in the event of independence, Andy Murray opts to take Scottish, British or Dual Nationalities. --Mjninetyone (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not saying anything that hasn't been discussed dozens of times before. Please look at the archives for this page and refer to this essay regarding this issue. Wikipedia is not about defining a person's nationality. It is not a passport or record of citizenship. So how they self identify, and others identify them, are the primary factor. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The other complicating factor here is that he's a tennis player. If he were a football player, he'd almost certainly have his international caps for the Scottish national team, so we'd have no incongruity between the intro and the infobox. However, Murray's international "caps" in tennis are at the Olympics, so he competed for the team recognizing Great Britain. Accordingly, the infobox shows his national team affiliation (Great Britain) while the intro talks about his nationality/heritage (Scottish). —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well this is one of the reasons for the article having both, as it covers all areas of a complex topic that has no single, easy, right answer. The info box focuses on the Murray the tennis player, the lead focuses on Murray the person. It's a compromise that works, no matter its inconsistencies and how much some editors may not like it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I believe this article is of high enough quality to be nominated for Good Article status. I was planning on nominating it but I just wanted to see if anyone had any recommendations for changes that need to be made before I do so. Also, if anyone who has contributed significantly to the article would prefer to make the nomination instead of me (I've not really been active on Wikipedia long enough to make a substantial contribution, although I do feel I know enough about Murray to make the nomination) then feel free to do so.Username of a generic kind (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


If he comes from Great Britain, shouldn't he be British? He plays for Britain, why don't he play for Scotland if he's a Scottish player? Alex discussion 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

He's both, as the article explains. There is no Scottish tennis team. On the occasions he plays for a nationality, it's for the Great Britain Davis Cup team. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
He's recently come out saying he would play for Scotland if there was a team. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead is of course the tricky one. He made clear towards the end of the referendum debate which side of the fence he was on in that regard (Scottish), but on the other hand he is notable for Wikipedia as a result of his sporting career, and is without question best known for his Olympic gold and being the first British person to win Wimbledon in living memory. A difficult one to reconcile. Personally I'd go for something along the lines of the Muira McClair example at WP:UKNATIONALS, because with two strong, valid but opposing rationales I don't see how you can fail to mention either Britain or Scotland in the opening sentence. —WFCFL wishlist 04:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It says his nationality is British on his passport, hence he's British as Scotland didn't vote for independence. This should be changed.15percentfaster (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed from what? The infobox says his nationality is British. In the lead he is a Scottish tennis player that represents Great Britain. That is the long long standing compromise that works well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe he made anything clear during the referendum debate, although plenty of people inferred what they wanted to hear from a twitter post. He made no statement whatsoever on what nationality he personally identified with, so nothing changes from the current cited content.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To the editor who reverted his country from United Kingdom back to Great Britain again, I just want to let you know that you are absolutely wrong. His country is the United Kingdom. Great Britain is only part of a country. I don't intend to re-revert or discuss the matter any further, because over the last week or so I have come to the conclusion that most editors are not interested in accuracy. On this particular occasion, it is the first time that I have ever known of a case of a country's name being determined by what sports team one of its citizens plays for. (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No-one is determining a country's name. This article is about a tennis player, not a country. The field in the info box is labelled country, not nationality, for a reason. The info box is the one for tennis players and is used to show the country they plays tennis for. The team he plays tennis for is the Great Britain Davis Cup Team. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't the lead simply read: "Andy Murray is a British tennis player from Scotland". That way both of his nationalities are credited, which is consistent with what is referred to further down in the article? Tvx1 (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If simplicity is the goal, why not structure it like this to cover all the bases more clearly? "Andrew Barron "Andy" Murray OBE (born 15 May 1987) is a Scottish professional tennis player, ranked world No. 4. He started playing tennis in his home country of Scotland at the age of three.... Murray defeated Roger Federer at the 2012 Olympic Games in straight sets to win the a gold medal for Team Great Britain in the men's singles final...." That works Scottish and Great Britain into the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That does the exact opposite of what you say. It specifically removes the word "Scottish" and replaces it with the less simple and mealy-mouthed "his home country of Scotland". It just seems to be suggesting that maybe his home is different from his nationality and leaves the reader in confusion. The current lead was worked out after years of disputes about this, where any mentions of either nationality would regularly be switched. Having one in the lead, and the other in the info box was the best solution that has been successful and stable for a few years now. Why change it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
But the current version was worked out as a compromise after long bouts of edit wars. One version in the lead, and another in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We use the form Tvx1 describes on motorsport biographies without any problem. It hits both targets, and we've managed to avoid the stupid British/Scottish edit wars that often pop up. If you want to stop this argument coming up again and again (and you know it will...) I really suggest you make the change. QueenCake (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The situations are no comparable. In motorsport the nationality of the person is largely irrelevant, they do not compete in their sport for their country. In tennis where a person is from, and what country they represent, is not necessarily the same thing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
He is British I am British with Welsh ancestry I have British passport not Welsh passport I am a British citizen not a Welsh citizen I was born in England to an Irish mother and Welsh father but I do not have an English passport I am not English citizen the current British female No1 Heather Watson was born in Guernsey Channel Islands the lead in her article states she s British not a "Guernsey female tennis player" in fact nearly all of the women's top ten British female players state in the lead British with one exception do we therefore start calling Serena Williams is a Floridian female tennis player or Maria Sharpova is a Khanty-Mansi female tennis player I think not! therefore if its not changed to British all other British tennis player articles need changing to either English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Gibraltarian tennis player and so on Tony Robredo who is a Catalan born player states in his lead a Spanish tennis player not Catalonian even though there has been debate around Catalan independence from Spain do we change Canadian tennis players article lead's I'm thinking Eugenie Bouchard born in Quebec for example as there has been debate about independence from Canada there and as far as defining who is British its very clear here British nationality law Murray is classed as British under the law because the Scottish government is excluded in the area of responsibility for defining nationality as shown here Reserved_and_excepted_matters because you cannot have both ways--Navops47 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You are rehashing arguments that have been gone over at great length before. See past discussions in the archives here. Your estimation of his nationality, and the legal definitions of nationalities, are secondary to how he self identifies. What works for one article does not necessarily apply to another. UK nationalities cannot be resolved that easily. See WP:UKNATIONALS for good advice on this topic. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Escape Orbit The situations are exactly the same. In motorsport each competitor is licensed by a national governing body and has a sporting nationality which they compete under, which like tennis is not necessarily the same as their citizenship. Also motorsport, like tennis, works on an all-Britain basis, rather different home nation representatives. If you wish to keep the current version that's for the consensus to decide, but I'm just trying to give a friendly word of advice from another area that has successfully solved this issue. QueenCake (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Escape Orbit Yes coming in to the debate very late but I am sorry you are wrong I have 3 first cousins born in Scotland to a Scottish father my uncle and Irish/Welsh mother my aunt as a fellow Celt they also describe themselves as Scottish but fact they are actually half Scottish by ancestry yes its is Murray's right to describe himself how ever he wants but unfortunately it his not his choice his country chooses to define his nationality status through it's nationality law's like 45 million other British citizens he travel's abroad on a British passport not a Scottish one and as a passport in an international ratified and recognized document of your nationality worldwide it stands this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present correct fact's both the ATP and the Lawn Tennis Association both his individual respective sports governing bodies do not mention in his profile that he is a Scottish national, citizen or tennis player first or show the saltire flag of Scotland to define that nationality in his own official website here it mentions British/Great Britain five times also you conveniently ignored the examples I have provided and as I said wikipedia's role is to presents fact's you can't have an article about a states nationality law's then completely ignore that when there is no provision for Scottish nationality/citizenship separate from those law's in order to justify your point unlike a provision in law which does exist for an American citizen who are also a citizen's of their respective state's therefore we can legally describe Serena Williams as a Floridian player first and American second if one wanted to present the facts on the grounds of his nationality status and nothing less I also read guidelines WP:UKNATIONALS the section that cover's Murray states the following:

"Sportspeople, their nationality is usually described by the national team that they qualify to represent or, in individual sports, the national sports association or federation with which they are registered" therefore the British LTA and ATP, class him as British therefore it should be changed.--Navops47 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And above that is says "Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality." And below it it says "Consider why the existing nationality was chosen." and "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged." As I said, there is no easy answer. This Wikipedia article is not an legal statement of his nationality or citizenship, it is a statement about how the reader may best recognise and understand him. So reference to general law or his passport does not trump all other concerns. This is why what is there currently is a delicate balance that possibly doesn't best please everyone, but it is the best compromise. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andy Murray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Should have this completed within a couple of days. Given the size of the article I will have to make a full review, which would take a little longer. Jaguar 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

  • The lead is slightly too long for an article this size and could be cut back a little. On top of this, the lead could definitely be better organised. For example, the second paragraph is only two sentences long and could be merged into another one. The first paragraph needs to talk about his basic information, who is etc, then the second about his history and the third or fourth about his tennis career (so it's chronological). The lead has to be restructured properly before this can meet the GA criteria
  • Also, the lead has too much WP:JARGON such as too many dates and long names of championships. This definitely needs to contain more of his personal life and a more prose orientated
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information
  • I've cut down some of the information in the lead, will add some more personal details once I've expanded the personal life section. I've cut out most of the dates but I've left the names of the championships as I'm not really sure how those could be taken out without removing key information. I've not removed the citations yet but I will once I've checked that it's referenced elsewhere in the article.Username of a generic kind (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trimming the lead, it's looking a lot better now that jargon-y stuff has been removed. A little on his personal life in the opening paragraph would be great, if you can find anything Jaguar 19:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Personal life section is a little disorganised. The second paragraph opens when he attended school "Murray later attended Dunblane High School" and later at the age of 15, and the third opens with "Murray was born with a bipartite patella" and his early childhood. It needs to be chronological.
  • The latter half of the Personal Life section could be merged into one paragraph to create a better flow
  • Should the Junior Slam results be here?
  • Yes, the top players all have their junior slam results listed in the junior career section.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In November, Murray won at Valencia, but bowed out in round two of the Paris Masters" - bowed out?
  • Bow out is an idiom which in the context means he lost. As far as I'm aware it's usage is common enough in the English language.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't see any instances where this isn't the case but if you see anything I've missed then let me know.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In December 2014, Murray signed a 4-year partnership with athletic apparel company Under Armour" - could merge into the sentence above
  • Another thing I noticed, per WP:MOS (headings), I would avoid using special characters in them.
  • Do you just want the '&' replaced with 'and' in the career sub-headings or is there anything else? Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes please, I've never seen a '&' in a GA header before, so I've changed it myself. If anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it Jaguar 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There was one more you missed which I've now done as well. Looks better, guess it was something I glossed over since I was so used to seeing it on the page. Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Scot however managed to up his level of play" - I hear this a lot on the news, it really makes me cringe! It's more encyclopaedic if all instances of "The Scot" were to be changed to Murray
  • "However, Mayer had to pull out due to injury, giving the Scot a walkover into round three" - again, maybe it's better if it were just "Murray", and by the way, what does walkover mean here?
  • If a player pulls out before a match is played then it is awarded as a walkover and doesn't count in the head-to-head between the players. Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Try splitting the Awards and honours section into two columns
  • The end of the first paragraph in Charitable work is unsourced (ie Rally for Relief)
  • The infobox image caption, "Murray at the Rogers Cup in 2010", am I right for assuming that he was holding the Rogers Cup? If so it would be great to reword that


  • Ref 3 works fine for me, goes to this page [7]. If you're still not happy with it then I suppose I could remove it as his height is referenced elsewhere. 154, 158 and 244 were all a case of a minor typo in the URL - they have been fixed. 146 was the only issue so I've replaced that. Username of a generic kind (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing them! The toolserver says that they're all fine now, and now this part meets the GA criteria Jaguar 18:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On hold

The major concern here is the lead section which contains too much jargon and could be better re-organised. Also some referencing problems and a couple of prose questions. However, much of the article's prose does look good other than the first half. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days but please let me know if you need more time. Jaguar 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: - I'm surprised the review is this short. I have checked the lead and the first section, and everything does appear to be factually accurate and verifiable (I had no idea he was at school at the time of the Dunblane Massacre but it's all properly sourced not violating WP:BLP), so maybe this has had a lot of group work to be GA in all but name. One thing I would bring up is stability; there is a {{round in circles}} template on the talk page which would be an immediate discussion point, and 51K of prose is on the limits of what's acceptable for a BLP before it starts to become unfocused and possibly require a spinout article, which would be worth bringing up. There's a whole area of unsourced content regarding Wimbledon 2013, which could be cut down and definitely needs to be sourced before this can pass GA. Conversely, Ivan Lendl, who I've read has been a key figure in getting Murray to where is today, is glossed over a bit, and something on his training methods could be included. The Rally for Relief bit is unsourced. Anyway, those are just a few things I spotted, but I dare say there's more. I would say to do this article justice, you probably want something closer to Talk:Alabama (band)/GA1 that I knocked up this evening, although I'll admit that this article is in a much better shape to start with (though that one's not too bad either). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I realise that the review is looking a little on the short side here and that being said in some cases with my reviews, some are usually triple this length even if they are not in that bad shape. I think that the initial comments I left down carry more magnitude than leaving down a lot of bullet points - but I understand what you mean as I did check the latter half of the article, and must admit that the prose is much better than the first half. The serious concerns at the moment is the disorganisation and glaring MoS issues which could be addressed. With reviews, my primary focus are prose issues (a reader expects an article to be easy to read) and I then check the sources and verifiability later. I didn't find many issues with the sourcing, but with your concern I will leave some more initial comments on anything else I can find. Thanks, Jaguar 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Respone from nominator

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I hadn't been on Wikipedia for the past fortnight so have only seen it now. I'll get started on making the changes suggested but will probably need a bit more time. Hopefully should have it done within a week but will need to see how things go.Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to this, I was not aware that you was on a break but now you're back I think this GAN can be salvaged. I'll put this on hold for whenever is best for you Jaguar 19:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Username of a generic kind, thanks for your work. It appears that this review is half done, just wondering if you're able to continue? Jaguar 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar: yeah, I'm just working through it bit by bit. I'll let you know when I feel I've sorted everything. Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I've dealt with all your initial comments and I've added citations for the Wimbledon 2013 which the other editor was concerned about. How do you think the article looks now? Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

It truly is impressive when an article in its previous form gets transformed into a fully GA-ready article. Thanks to your efforts over the two weeks, this article has definitely improved, the prose now meets 1.a of the criteria (well written) and now all the references are up to a GA standard. It is also broad and well referenced, let alone there are no dead links. Well done on all the work, this now has its well-deserved GA status Good article Jaguar 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

British number one

why are some people on here so opposed to the article stating he is British number one in the first sentence next to where it says he is world number 4? Is obvious some on here hate the fact he is British and plays for Britain so are not letting British number one be in the first sentence. pathetic. BritishScotland (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking why, or have you already decided? His national ranking is not nearly as important as his international. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Second best result

Just a question: why are there no second best results when a player (not just Murray) reaches the Final. After all, you do get a reward for reaching the final, so if a player has won a tournament and also has come second (ex. Murray won in 2013 but 2012 second place isn't mentioned in infobox), why aren't occasions when they have come second also noted in the infobox? Ujkrieger (talk)

Well this is covered in the article (see the Grand Slam tournament finals section for example). The Infobox is a trimmed down summary - it's not meant to cover everything. The title of the section could be clearer though - perhaps 'Grand Slam Bests' or some such. The place to raise this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the link. Ujkrieger (talk)

Davis Cup

Over the last months a user has been gradually adding more and more detailed reports of all of Andy's Davis Cup apparitions throughout his career to the Davis Cup section. These often contain detailed analysis' of the Team GB's tactics for the Ties and sometimes, contains incorrect information or is duplicated from the career section. I'm really wondering whether we're not giving to much information and whether much of this information is actually relevant to Murray himself. After all, this is not Team GB' Davis Cup article. Any thoughts? Tvx1 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


What happened to the "Records" section of this page? It's much more decimated and is missing quite a few important records such as Queen's club titles and Davis Cup live rubbers won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetradge (talkcontribs) 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone challenged and removed it in this edit. You may restore notable records with proper sources. (The 8 live Davis Cup wins record was sourced.) Gap9551 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed a lot of unsourced stuff. If I went too far, feel to restore with some cites please. Like a few other Tennis articles, this article was starting to suffer from made-up records, where trivial "stands alone" achievements were being constructed out of nothing and added without any source to indicate that it was a "record" recognised by anyone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Your edit was fine. There were in fact many cherry picked edits. You did indeed remove achievements which are not clearly notable, let alone officially recognized records. Tvx1 21:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You also removed his single tournament (titles won record) which is listed in this article here Tennis tournament records and statistics is cited here:, here: here:, and here: and official acknowledgement from the club itself here: Historic 5th Title for Murray at 130 Years Old Queens Club plus umteen other sources that can be found instead of just removing records spend some constructive time finding sources I found five in under a few minutes I'd call that cherry picking what you deem notable or not notable for its inclusion.-- (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Have restored two notable records recognized my multiple sources so the claim "without any source to indicate that it was a "record" recognized by anyone" is not exactly true as shown above and that's just sources for Queens.--Navops47 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

ANdy Murray is now world no. 1 and Novak Djokovic is No. 2.

Amanchaudhary1994 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Murray is No. 2. He will become No. 1 on Monday if he doesn't voluntarily withdraw from the rankings before then. Gap9551 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The only official source for ATP tennis rankings.—J. M. (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I can see him withdrawing from the rankings:), Also from The only official source on that site now big red banner video congratulations Andy World No. 1.-- (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The only official source for the ATP rankings are the ATP rankings themselves (for Murray specifically, his official ATP profile is a valid source, too). Andy Murray is currently the world No. 2. The fact that people in a video congratulate him for becoming the world No. 1 on Monday does not change the fact that on 5 November 2016, he is verifiably the world No. 2. He will become No. 1 on 7 November (unless something unexpected happens—not only his withdrawal, he may be banned from the ATP World Tour, the ranking update may be delayed for some reason, the ATP might go bankrupt, the world may collapse in a natural hazard or whatever). Saying that he is currently the world No. 1 is simply a lie. Until it happens, it has not happened yet. There is a difference between the expressions "is currently" and "will become". The article already mentions he will be the world No. 1. And that is enough for now. It cannot say he is. Mixing these two expressions on Wikipedia is not allowed.—J. M. (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer Murray will become world no 1". I find the "expected to become no 1" wording a little awkward. Sure Murray may spontaneously combust before Monday but is it likely? DanielJCooper (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's quote Andy himself ([8]): "If I get defaulted in the match tomorrow, I don't think I get the points from this week. So I need to make sure I'm on my best behavior". Surely, it was a tongue-in-cheek reply, but xXXx happens. He may not get the points from Paris after all. Is it likely to happen? No. Highly unlikely. But still, I would try to find something different, neutral, like "is projected to" or something like that (yes, preferably less awkward).—J. M. (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Current World Ranking: 1 (11/05/2016) Highest Ranking: 1

Sgkamal (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done See above. Ranking are only updated on mondays. He is still no.2 today. Tvx1 00:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2016

Murray officially gained the no. 1 ranking (his highest ranking overall) as of today, 7 November 2016


ApprenticeFan work 01:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He is now showing as #1 on the official ATP rankings.[9] The objections over the weekend were that the listings are updated on a Monday and some technicality might have prevented him from taking the slot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

References from tabloid newspapers aren't generally considered as good enough references because newspapers aren't always 100% reliable. Hope this helps.

ILikeCycling (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy and Jamie

With Andy now ascending to no. 1 in the singles rankings and his brother Jamie having held that same position in the doubles rankings, I started wondering? Have there been any other brother pairs in tennis who have held the top spots in singles and doubles rankings respectively? Tvx1 14:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well there's a pair of sisters who've both been number one in singles and doubles ;), Marat Safin and Dinara Safina who've been number one in singles, the Bryans of course who've both been at number one in doubles - but none who've done this particular double, no! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll add to that Byron and Cara Black who have both held the top spots in doubles and Emilio and Arantxa Sanchez both of whom have been number one in doubles with the latter also having held the to spot in singles.Tvx1 22:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andy Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)