Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

What? Gretzky a "Canadian-American"?

I was just reading the bio of Wayne Gretzky who was chosen to be the final torch bearer for the Olympic games in Vancouver. I see that Gretzky is called a Canadian-American. I think that this a great distortion of reality. Gretzky is a Canadian who has married an American girl and lives in America. Gretzky is as Canadian as any other Canadian who resides in a foreign country. When given the chance to play at the national level, Gretzky plays for the Canadian national team. In the Salt Lake City Olympics game between Canada and USA, Gretzky coached Canada, his native country. At points during the game, you could see the intensity of his emotion and his national pride singing the Canadian National Anthem. There is no question that Gretzky is emotionally Canadian and Canadian in ever way but resides in USA.

He has never coached any Canadian Olympic team. Gretzky was Executive Director of the Canadian men's hockey team in 2002 and 2006. The rest I agree with completly.

I think this reference was written by an American nationalist who may like the idea of Gretzky being an American, but it is not the truth. Matters of people's nationality should be taken seriously. The nationalism of writers should not be allowed to contaminate the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Lincoln (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that the Canadian-American thing bites at me as well, (I live in Gretzky's hometown) but he is a Dual Citizen of Canada and the US.. Thus, he is as much an American citizen as any other "immigrant" in the States as he is a naturally born Canadian. If I had my druthers, I would remove it as well, but it's a completely accurate statement. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He has held US citizenship for quite some time. While he certainly self identifies as a Canadian he lives and works in the US. If I did I would want to become a citizen too just to vote etc. The statement is factually correct. He is a dual citizen. There is no need to worry about it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd rather not get into the debate again, the confusion does exist because the expectation of that statement is nationality rather than citizenship. Gretzky is a Canadian expat with dual citizenship. To my view, a "Canadian-American" would be someone like Brandon Kozun, who has a Canadian and and American parent, and grew up in both nations. But, we've been through his all before. Reso lute 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Brett Hull is a Canadian-American. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guess its open to interpretation, because to me a Canadian American is an American citizen with Canadian ancestry, or was a Canadian at one point themself. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite right that it is open to interpretation, because to me, what you described would be an American Canadian, as opposed to a Canadian American... :) I guess I tend to think of it as the person's "birth/Ethnic" nationality first, and where they currently reside, further citizenship ETC second; as in African American. Of course, I suppose one could argue that if that were universal, we should call Quebeckers Canadian French rather than French Canadian.. (But then, there are Quebeckers that would identify that way! :S)Dphilp75 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said....Gretzky was born in Canada so Canadian first. And now lives in the US, so American last. Canadian American.-DJSasso (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a quick note of a useless point. You described it as an "American who was a Canadian at one point." I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not (And no offense meant here) but Gretzky has dual citizenship. He is no less a Canadian Citizen now, then he was when he was born.

I only mention it because of the slight difference in our interpretations of "Canadian-American". When you say "American who was a Canadian at one point." & "or was a Canadian at one point themselves", it just sounds (to me) like someone who had given up one Citizenship in favour of an American citizenship. No big deal or anything, just a point of clarifying where I was coming from! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No I just mean that they had Canadian heritage or Canadian citizenship at some point in time. Be it currently or in the past. And since you don't lose heritage it will always be Canadian-American. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed Canadian-American to Canadian and put his American citizenship in the last sentence of the leading paragraph. The reason is that he was a Canadian player, and became famous as Canadian. He was not an American player, so it is good to be distinguished in new sentence. Good example about this is the article about Bobby Fischer. He was American, and Icelandic, rennouncing his US citizenship, but never was an Icelandic chess player, so he was an American player.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He actually spent most of his professional career in the US. So that argument isn't all that strong, that being said I don't mind the solution you used.-DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not same. He played in the United States, but actually it is not an argument about sportspeople. Nowadays, most of the sportspeople play abroad, and many of them are abble to adopt new citizenship. It would be suspiciously, if you equal the new one with the first citizenship. The NHL is a typical example for globalization in sport. I would agree with Canadian-American, if he played just one international game for the United States, but in his career he played only for Canada, although he lived in the United States. My point is that he was not an American player, and Canadian-American player would not be appropriate. Maybe, another change in the lead paragraph would gratify your wish: 'He resides in the United States, and obtained citizenship of the United States.' --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with him being listed purely as Canadian. I am just pointing out that Canadian-American is not wrong, because he is an american citizen who has canadian heritage. Which is what Canadian-American typically means. Since he was a Canadian-American playing hockey, he was a Canadian-American hockey player. Like I said way up at the top its all a matter of interpretation, you are interpretting it differently that I was in this particular example. That sentence has nothing to do with who he played for intenationally, its meant to describe his citizenship/nationality. Down below in the article is where his international playing experience is described. But as I said, I don't actually care what the sentence was, I was just pointing out the original was not incorrect as was implied by the original poster. -DJSasso (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand you. It's ok, but not for all. For some readers, Canadian-American player means representing both countries. This is not the only example on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, the objections to this come a great deal more from amour propre than anything legitimate. I very much doubt many on Wikipedia would believe becoming a citizen of one nation was anything other than a declaration of the nationality to which the subject claims identification. Ravenswing 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to American citizenship. Gretzky said in an interview with Peter Mansbridge which just aired that he does not hold any other citizenship and explicitly said he does NOT hold dual citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.163.135 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! That was getting frustrating. People really shouldn't post information without any sort of proof to back it up. Go Canada! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.141 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did this rumour begin? He has said explicitly in two recent interviews with Peter Mansbridge on Mansbridge One on One and Matt Lauer on The Today Show that he does not have dual citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.163.135 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's because he married an American. He doesn't have full citizenship, but he has a lower level which I forget the name of at the moment. Landed Imigrant maybe? I forget. -DJSasso (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone stated above that since he was born in Canada, Canadian- goes first. Not true. For Americans, "American" NEVER goes first when describing nationality. You are "Polish-American," not "American-Polish," no matter which country you were born in. Same goes for "Chinese-American," or "Japanese-American," etc. I think that is true for most contries. Like, if an American goes to Canada, he is an American-Canadian. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Urrr? "Canadian-" going first is precisely the common American usage. I'm an Irish-American; an American citizen of Irish heritage. Gretzky is an American citizen of Canadian heritage. (Let's just say I discount allegations from anon IPs about Some Interview They Saw Somewhere.) Ravenswing 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections to speak of, I will revert it back to Canadian American in 7 days. It is the most factually correct answer, as he is a naturalized citizen of the United States along with having citizenship of Canada. You will also see that on people like Alex Trebek, Brett Hull, and Michael J. Fox. Senior Trend 04:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniortrend (talk • contribs)

I support that. Echoedmyron (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Should have been reverted months ago. Ravenswing 06:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, just because he has some lower level American citizenship standard, doesn't mean it should be in the lede. A lot of players have multiple citizenships but are only known for one . He's known as a Canadian, and sure, legally he's American but to describe him as a "Canadian American" is a misnomer, almost implies he's no longer Canadian (as any hyphenated American, like an Irish-American, is not a citizen of Ireland but rather only American, the prefix denoting heritage).--Львівське (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. It says exactly what it means - he was Canadian first, and is now American, also. In that order. End of story. Echoedmyron (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The current phrasing implies that he is no longer Canadian, that it is his 'descent' and not his primary citizenship.--Львівське (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to explain to us where you get the concept of "lower level American citizenship standard," and to what you're referring? We don't have different grades of citizenship here, thanks: either you are an American citizen or you are not. Gretzky is one. You're certainly not alone in so far as that fact sticks in your craw, but whether we personally like it or not has nothing to do with the facts . Ravenswing 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article on 'Canadian Americans' itself would lead one to believe that he is no longer Canadian, when in reality he is hardly American in any way shape or form. If he is primarily American (which is the root of his lede), then why is he not listed under the category of 'American ice hockey players'? Obviously that would misleading - just as the current lede is--Львівське (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship and Nationality are two very different things. By the logic applied here Anthony Hopkins would be a Welsh-American and Johnny Depp would be American-French and John Lennon if he had lived just a little longer (as hes application was in) would be an English-American?. This labels cause nothing but problems and should be drooped altogether Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 30#Ethnic over-classification.Moxy (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those examples you give are quite accurate, thanks. Ravenswing 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

sigh*. Why not just say he is a Canadian athlete with dual American citizenship? Perfectly factual, and short circuits the continual debate. Reso lute 18:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Again i mention that this is one of the big problem we have here on Wiki - that is people are not aware of what the difference between citizenship, nationality and ethnicity I think Reso's idea in the most educated answer i have seen here. We talk about when he obtained the citizenship in the body of the article. Do we need to confuses people of the bat in the lead? I actually believe that nationality should not be in the led ...hes not famous for hes nationality. We need to bring this sports articles inline with other major bios - like Christopher Columbus and Alexander Graham Bell - Side note did Bobby Orr ever get his American citizenship?Moxy (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Reso'. And Moxy, yeah, it is confusing in the lede the way it is. The guy is a Canadian athlete and that's what he's notable for, hes a national symbol and Canadian national team player, he has an Order of Canada....but he has American dual citizenship now so in the lede he's a Hyphenated American? Obviously the content should be mentioned in the article itself. We're not talking about ethnicity here (like "Irish-American") but citizenship, as per the MOS; but when a person is known for one and things get muddied legally later on, it confuses the bio to relegate his nationality and primary citizenship the way it currently stands.--Львівське (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

per the MOS WP:OPENPARA: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.
Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

He wasn't an American when he became notable, and it is not relevant to his notability in any way.--Львівське (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As i mentioned above - hes famous for being a Hockey player...not for his place of birth nor his current residents. I agree should be removed from lead. All articles should comply with the communities policies on this especially our FA articles. I say removal post-haste.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this; he is famous for being Canadian. If one were to list the top ten Canadian icons, Gretzky would be right up there. It would be like saying Justin Bieber or Celine Dion isn't famous for being Canadian, and therefore their nationality shouldn't be in the lead! I definitely think Gretzky's Canadian nationality is important enough for the opening sentence. Mlm42 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by Gretzky has a lower-level citizenship??? Senior Trend (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationality removed from lead

Notification of this talk have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey Moxy (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Endless edit war for months and months. I have simply removed the nationality from the lead altogether. I realy think per the MOS there is no need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - plus sounds odd hes a retired Canadian? We cant keep edit Waring over this silly point.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He is Canadian-American. But until it's settled, deleting his nationality is the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reassurance - i firmly believe that the talk page is were this conflict should take place - NOT in the article (thus in the public eye) - We need to settle this here on the talk page not in main space for all to see ever day. Since there is no consensus either way - i removed it.Moxy (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Views

Firstly (my vote if you want to call it that) i dont think we need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - as per the MOS - hes famous for being a hockey player first and for most. However if there is such a "need" and/or "desire" to mention this - I see him refer-to as a Canadian 100% of the time in publications and news/tv broadcasts (that we can all easily reference a multitude of times). In hopes we can solve this.Moxy (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He was born a Canadian citizen & is now an American citizen - thus Canadian-American. However, I'll abide by whatever's decided. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Success has many fathers! But saying he's "Canadian-American" in the opening sentence is misleading - not a good way to start an article. He may now be any American citizen, but to say "Canadian-American" in the opening sentence gives undue weight to his American citizenship - in a way that is not consistent with reliable sources. Basically, it violates WP:NPOV. Mlm42 (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the position that nationality does not belong in the lead - mostly. A case could be made I would think that since he played internationally for Canada, that it might be relevant. However, I'm willing to defer to consensus regarding the inclusion of citizenship in the lead. That said - if it is decided that it belongs in the lead, then it can only be "Canadian-American". Echoedmyron (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the trouble. Given Gretzky has represented Canada numerous times as both a player and an executive, his being Canadian is rather important to his person. The "Canadian-American" angle is pure nonsense. He's a Canadian with dual American citizenship, and if we are going to reflect the American citizenship in the lead, it should be reflected accurately. "Canadian-American" implies he is American with Canadian ancestry, which isn't accurate in any way. Reso lute 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That he is Canadian should be included in the lead - see WP:OPENPARA. The Manual of Style is very clear about this. The mention of his American citizenship is currently the last sentence of the lead - I think that's probably the amount of weight it should be given in the lead, according to WP:UNDUE. Mlm42 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I can't imagine any situation where someone who has lived in a country for two decades and has become a citizen of that country would be laden with "undue weight" in freaking mentioning that country, short of outright chauvinism. I agree that Moxy's fix of removing all mention of nationality from the lead is likely the least fraught way of proceeding, however. While we're quoting OPENPARA - which states "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national" - I'm also at a loss to see where that green lights "Canadian" and disallows "American." Ravenswing 01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be only Canadian, and that it SHOULD be in the lede. First off, I've explained above, the 'American' suffix gives undue weight and is misleading - the article itself on CA's says that they are Americans of Canadian descent in a way, but in Wayne's case, he's a Canadian who also holds dual citizenship - so saying "Canadian-American" in of itself is misleading - the main citizenship, the one he held, is a national of, and is relevant to his notoriety should be the one used and the dual-citizenship info somewhere else in the article. As for it being removed, I think that is senseless. It is obviously very important to his bio. He's a Team Canada icon, he's been awarded the Order of Canada (which is in the lede), he opened the Vancouver Olympics....obviously without a doubt him being 'Canadian' is incredibly important to how he should be described in the lede. More so than almost any other Canadian athlete. --Львівське (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're challenging my claim that calling him "Canadian-American" in the lead gives his American citizenship undue weight. The only way to refute this claim is to discuss the sources. Where are the sources that call him "Canadian-American"? How do they compare to sources that call him "Canadian"? Mlm42 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As Львівське mentioned alot of the "Canadian associations" are in the lead - looks very obvious to me hes Canadian - we have his Order of Canada, we say hes "Born and raised in Brantford, Ontario" we then we say" He became Executive Director for the Canadian national men's hockey team during the 2002 Winter Olympics, in which the team won a gold medal" - y do we need to say hes Canadian ans/or American - we mention his US citizenship at the end of the lead.Moxy (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the reason we have the guideline WP:OPENPARA; to unsure the reader doesn't have to deduce basic facts, such as nationality. It's important to explicitly state these things. Mlm42 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with this guideline, should both nationalities be listed then? Or should just the nationality held "when the person became notable" be listed? isaacl (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm remembering these discussions more. Is Gretzky an American? yes he is. He's eligiable to serve as a US representative & a US senator. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please point to a reliable source that calls him a "Canadian-American"? Surely this discussion should be about sources, not editor speculation. (again, reread WP:UNDUE) Mlm42 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source coolspotters. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a higher calibre of ref is needed here (well in fact on Wikipedia). I will look over the books at Wayne Gretzky#Further reading see if there is any reference to this term.Moxy (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I highly doubt "coolspotters.com" qualifies as a reliable source, and especially not for a biography of a living person. Mlm42 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

These discussions are always a minefield. Typically, we rely on the straight and simple facts about a subject's nationality(ies), rather than getting tied up in subjective discussions about the subject's identity and the weight of his/her links to each country (so, for example, Frank Gehry is identified as a Canadian-American, even though he moved to the U.S. as a teenager, lives and practices in California, and is largely known as an American architect - the simple fact is he qualifies for two passports, and we don't try to interpret the facts beyond that).

Sports figures are somewhat different, in that they will often compete for a specific country (in a way that architects and actors, for example, do not), and as such are also perceived as being draped in the national flag of that country. In the past, I have often seen dual citizen hockey players identified in the leads of their respective articles as being of one particular nationality. Last week when I was sorting images of Canadian Slovaks on the Commons, I noticed that Paul Stastny is identified in the lead of his article as an American professional ice hockey centre, although the article also mentions he is a dual citizen. Presumably he is identified as American because he lives in the U.S. and plays for Team USA. To me, that approach makes a lot of sense (although I would have also mentioned his dual citizen status later in the lead, rather than leaving it to later in the text).

Using Google searches to try and determine whether a player is most often referred to as Canadian, or American, or Canadian-American, or Swedish, etc., as the case may be, is never going to provide a full answer. Most of the time, the results won't be definitive (Gretzky is an unusual case). Regardless of what is decided here, there should be some sort of rule of thumb for this sort of thing, at least at the level of the Ice Hockey Wikiproject. There shouldn't be one approach for Gretzky, another for Paul Stastny. I'm not sure it's an answer to delete the information from the lead - the information seems pretty basic, and deleting it would run counter to usual Wikipedia practice. Isn't the solution to identify the player in the lead as being of the nationality that he plays for internationally, but to also mention later in the lead that the player is a dual citizen? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Setting a guideline that matches the hockey project's flag icon guideline seems most sensible: list a player's sporting nationality first, then follow it with more details on the player's citizenship. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We must remember that these are WP:BIOs & WP:BLPs first & Ice hockey player Bios second. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Isaac has suggested is inconsistent with that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky is famously Canadian. That he acquired citizenship elsewhere too doesn't undermine that. Someone born in England to English parents, raised in England, and who lived in England for 40 years doesn't suddenly become "English-Icelandic" because he moves there and applies for citizenship to make living there easier. Zola Budd is still South African, even though the Brits rushed through a passport for her so she could compete for them in the 1984 Olympics. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains, however, that both Gretzky and Budd are respectively citizens of two countries. The issue at hand is that some have argued that it is inaccurate to only refer to one nationality in the lead, and on one level they have a point. The statement that Gretzky is "famously Canadian" is undoutedly true, but doesn't respond to the issue at hand, which is how best to balance the facts with popular perceptions in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it does address the issue. People can acquire many different citizenships, but that doesn't make them English-Canadian-American-South African-Swiss. We should use common sense. Call him Canadian in the first sentence, and add the two citizenships to the infobox. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well no, that doesn't address the issue I raised - you are simply restating what you think his nationality is. As editors, it is not up to us to figure out whether someone is American, Canadian or Swiss (to use some of your examples). If they are citizens of those three countries, then it is not incorrect to call them American, Canadian or Swiss, or all three. Given that both Canada and the United States are countries where people from around the world are recognized as becoming Canadians or Americans (as the case may be) upon obtaining citizenship, it seems odd that we would treat Gretzky differently. Gretzky is a citizen of both Canada and the United States. That's the fact. It is an exercise in WP:OR to start interpreting what either citizenship means, to argue that in some cases citizenship ≠ nationality ≠ identity, or to gauge the individual's links to one country versus another. It would be a pandora's box for Wikipedia to do otherwise. The reason we rely on the facts (i.e. citizenship), rather than our personal views of and spin on those facts, is that what is "common sense" to one reasonable person is misleading to another reasonable person. It is not up to us to analyze whether Gretzky, or anyone else, is more Canadian than American. We need to figure out a way to convey both the fact that he represents Canada, as well as his dual-citizenship, in the lead. I'm not sure relegating some information to the infobox addresses the concerns that have bene raised. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "Canadian-American" but I am persuaded that just "Canadian" gets to the essence of the matter sufficiently. By all means, mention his dual-citizenship in the lead, but for the first sentence, "Canadian-American" is misleading. Powers ^T 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He's eligiable to serve as a member of either the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate. That seems a good argument for him 'also' being American. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think we all agree that technically he is American as well as Canadian. His American citizenship is already mentioned in the lead. The disagreement is whether or not his American/Canadian citizenship should be given roughly equal weight. I personally think this is a no-brainer; but regardless of what I think, the sources clearly emphasize his Canadian nationality, and so should we. Mlm42 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, except that I think "Canadian-American" implies that the "American" aspect is more vital than the "Canadian" one, and so does not even give each country roughly equal weight. We should follow the sources and describe him as Canadian first and foremost. --Avenue (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. This is what it said in the version that passed the FA review, and I'm assuming in the FA version too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any conccesus to add anything back?? So back to the start?Moxy (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of this discussion is that GoodDay is the only one who is really against calling Gretzky a "Canadian" in the opening sentence; is that right? As SlimVirgin pointed out, this was the format endorsed at the FA review. The arguments for either not mentioning his nationality, or using "Canadian-American", don't really hold much water.. Mlm42 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I too would have to agree with that move. While its true that he gained citizenship there, its not the same as nationality and I think it would be a bit too much undue weight to add the second citizenship to the lead. That being said I think the one for which he is quite notable does belong in the lead. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Um -- why not say "dual citizenship - Canada-US" which would be accurate? Is that too difficult? Collect (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it's true he has dual citizenship, to say this in the opening sentence gives undue weight to his American citizenship (as discussed above). Mlm42 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In what way? It is succinct and accurate, and backed by a multitude of sources should you ask. Nor do I see any convincing evidence that noting it as "dual citizenship" would confuse anyone, while "Canadian-American" might imply that he was only of Canadian ancestry. In short, the "weight argument" fails. Collect (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I must confess, I don't understand the resistance to using American. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has provided a reliable source that calls him "Canadian-American" (but feel free to jump in a provide one, if you like).. even if there were such a source, it would be outweighed by the wide variety of sources that call him "Canadian". The reason for not calling him "Canadian-American" is simple: reliable sources don't do it. Mlm42 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean "Wayne Douglas Gretzky is a retired dual citizenship - Canada-US professional ice hockey player..."? You want to put that in a featured article? Powers ^T 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Try using the "dual citizenship - Canada-US" in the infobox, and saying "Wayne Douglas Gretzky is a retired professional ice hockey player. He holds both Canadian and American citizenship." Seems quite simple, in fact. Accurate as well. And would put an end to counting angels on the head of a pin. Collect (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox currently lists his national team as Canada, which is correct and seems much more relevant than his dual citizenship. I don't object to mentioning his dual citizenship somewhere in the lead section, but the second sentence would be far too prominent. The current version (with "Canadian" in the first sentence, and US citizenship mentioned at the end) is a much better reflection of how he is generally described in reliable sources. --Avenue (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I wonder what the debate would be like if Gretzky's second citizenship was say, Ukrainian. I think much of the resistance to including "American" in the article has to do with the sense that Gretzky, as an icon, "belongs" to Canada, and as such patriotic Canadians don't relish "sharing" him with the U.S. I'm not calling anyone out here - but I do suspect that when anon IPs have been removing the Canada-US combo from the lead that that's what that stems from. It does appear that there's a lack of reliable sources to back up the dual citizenship claim from what I can see, but even if the majority of sources only reference the Canadian, as long as there's a couple of reliable sources for US, it warrants mentioning. I agree with the proposal to introduce him as Canadian, but mention the dual status later in the opening paragraph. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] is not pay-walled. Did not find any photos of him becoming a citizen however. Any other views? Collect (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gretzky's dual citizenship is currently mentioned in the lead section, as the last sentence (which does give it a certain prominence). isaacl (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As it relates to his importance, I think it could be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead as, "He represented Canada in international play and was voted one of six players to the International Ice Hockey Federation's (IIHF) Centennial All-Star Team in a poll conducted by a group of 56 experts from 16 countries." If needed, the note about dual citizenship could remain at the end of the lead, or be removed. Canada Hky (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal is contrary to WP policy AFAICT - as long as the fact is sourced, and is notable with regard to the BLP subject. Would you argue that it is either not sourced or not relevant as a biographical fact? Collect (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so much removal, as reorganization. The information is still in the lead with my suggestion. He played internationally for Canada, which is an easily citable fact. He has dual citizenship, which is also easily citable. The phrasing required to put it in the first sentence is problematic, in meaning and interpretation (as evidenced by this year-long discussion) and making his dual citizenship the second sentence in the lead gives undue weight to a minor part of his life and career. Canada Hky (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "first sentence" does not need fot be all-encompassing, so that argument is weak. Most people have their nationality in the first or second sentence at the latest, so delaying it to the end of the tenth paragraph :) would seem a bit outre at best. Can you find any BLP where the nationality is thus delayed? Brett Hull holds dual citizenship - but not on page five. Try "Canadian-born" in sentence one - then add "He holds both Canadian and American citizenship" in sentence two. Thus reinforcing the need for Canadian primacy in the article, and being factual. Fair? Collect (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think that is fair. The comparison to Brett Hull is inappropriate, since his mother was American, and his father Canadian; Brett was born in Canada, but he played international hockey for the USA. Clearly a case can be made that both his Canadian and American citizenships should be given roughly equal weight in his article. Not so for Gretzky. Mlm42 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a fairer comparison would be with Michael J. Fox. He was born in Canada so is a Canadian, grew up in Canada, but move to the United States and became a naturalized American citizen. It's not complicated, on top of that he married an American and he has had very little to do with Canada since moving to Los Angeles in 1991. You cannot deny the fact that he is just as American as he is Canadian. Yes, it may be painful for some Canadians to stomach that, but that's the truth. Senior Trend (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the situation is different. Firstly, Michael J. Fox's notability comes from his activities in America (being an actor). Also, Fox has very publically called himself American. And actually I don't believe Gretzky is "as American as he is Canadian". But don't listen to me - look at the sources and the evidence. For example, even though he's living in the states, he's been consistently involved with the Canadian national team (see Wayne_Gretzky#Winter_Olympics). The only evidence brought forward by any editors here to support the claim that Gretzky's Canadian and American nationalities should be given roughly equal weight, is that he holds both citizenships, and he has lived and worked in both countries. Gretzky is notable for being a hockey player and coach; and when given the choice of which national hockey team he'll be associated with, he chooses Canada. It seems clear to me that his Canadian nationality should be given more weight, and is important enough to be in the opening sentence (like most biographical articles). Mlm42 (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're talking analogies, maybe William Shatner is more appropriate? Mlm42 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because Gretzky is an American citizen, he has sworn to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen, and upport and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and William Shatner has not, and I cannot find any resources that support that William Shatner ever became a US Citizen. The more important question is, if Gretzky decided to coach the US Olympic team, would it change anything? The answer is no of course, questions of nationality are not surrounded by what national team they coached for (look at Ernie Whitt for instance, which interestingly in his Wikipedia article has no nationality attached. Senior Trend (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One must also remember that nationality and citizenship are two distinct and separate things. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And it may be splitting hairs, but according to this, it would appear that Gretzky has not renounced a thing. Just to muddy it up a little more. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; no evidence has been presented that Gretzky has renounced the Queen.. Mlm42 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is accurate to say that Gretzky is a Canadian national who resides in the United States and holds dual Canadian-American citizenship. Onthegogo (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as you have to read the Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States). I was just trying to point out that he's not some guy who just went over and there is an American claim to him because he holds a green card. He CHOSE to be a naturalized American citizen, just like Michael J. Fox, and that's what is important. Senior Trend (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Onthegogo is right; He has dual citizenship, but is a Canadian national who resides in the United States. The question is how do we present this in the opening sentence, as per WP:OPENPARA. Mlm42 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For better, or worse, I've started an RfC, to try to get a clear consensus on what should be done with the opening sentence. Mlm42 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gretzky's ownership role in Phoenix

It was and continues to be widely quoted in the press (and subsequently cited) that Gretzky had a 10% ownership interest in the Coyotes. However, the bankruptcy filings state that he holds 1 Class "a" unit, with the notation that this represents 1.49% of the Hockey Club.

Thought it was worth mentioning, but I note that the article is locked. Perhaps whoever holds the key can edit. Please feel free to claim authorship.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.222.42 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Canadian, Canadian-American, or neither?

Should the opening sentence describe Gretzky as "Canadian", "Canadian-American", or neither? Mlm42 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Canadian. Mentioning his American citizenship in the opening sentence gives it undue weight. But we should be mentioning his Canadian nationality, as per WP:OPENPARA. Mlm42 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Canadian-born with second nationality noted shortly thereafter. I fail to see how stating a clear fact becomes "UNDUE" when it is a very neutral sort of thing entirely. WP:LAME here we come. Collect (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- So you think the opening sentence should be, something like, "Wayne Gretzky is a retired Canadian-born professional ice hockey player and former ice hockey coach."? Mlm42 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Canadian-born with US noted afterwards. I agree with Collect's position; seems the most reasonable, and it would be nice to put this to bed. "Undue" would be if the US was noted first. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm saying that "Canadian-American" in the opening sentence gives his American citizenship undue weight, because it gives the impression that they have roughly equal importance. Mlm42 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Canadian born with note on US citizenship after that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Canadian as "nationality" with mention of lesser relevant American "citizenship" were appropriate.Moxy (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Canadian" as his nationality in the opening sentence, with reference to his acquired American citizenship later on in another sentence in the lede. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Canadian born hockey player who became a US citizen (then date or age of naturalization to US citizenship).--Vampyrecat (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you would prefer if this was all in the opening sentence? While nobody doubts the truth of his US citizenship, the point of this RfC is to determine if it is significant enough to include in the opening sentence. Mlm42 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- After reading more below, I think it should indicate Canadian-born hockey player who later became a United States Citizen in the lead paragraph or sentence. --Vampyrecat (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I note that in the Citizenship in the United States article it states that "It is possible for a United States citizen to have dual citizenship, for example by birth in the United States to a parent who is a citizen of a foreign country. Anyone who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen is required to renounce any prior citizenship during the naturalization ceremony; however, this renunciation may not necessarily be considered effective by the country of prior citizenship." This suggests that as far as the US is concerned dual citizenship is only available to people who are US citizens by birthright (because naturalised citizens are required to renounce other citizenships). On the assumption that Gretzky is a naturalised citizen, I presume that he must have renounced Canadian citizenship during the naturalisation ceremony and so should be described as a "Canadian-born naturalised US citizen". Of course, it's possible he qualified for citizenship through a grandparent (did they become US citizens during their migration?) in which case it's a different story. I'm a Thai born British citizen so have no axe to grind!! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 08:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- This option gives the impression that he's Canadian born, but no longer a Canadian citizen. He has dual citizenship, and hence is still a Canadian citizen. Mlm42 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it's all by inference. When it is stated that he has "dual citizenship" - who says so? What does Gretzky say? If he's a naturalised US citizen then we could have the strange situation whereby Gretzky renounced his Canadian citizenship (a required part of the naturalisation process) but the Canadian government (and indeed, every Canadian) still considers him to be a Canadian citizen! It would seem to me to be Gretzky's choice and no-one else's. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 22:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The "renouncing" phrase notwithstanding, it doesn't actually have any teeth, and merely taking that oath does not, in law, change one's citizenship elsewhere. See here. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  - I guess I assume that if someone takes an oath to renounce citizenship, then they mean it. Does he still have a current Canadian passport? If no, then it can be assumed he kept his word and let it lapse (so not a dual citizen); if yes, then he didn't keep his word, is a dual citizen but is not to be trusted (steady, that's a joke)! It is understandable that many / all proud Canadians wish to describe him as a Canadian but surely, a poll of such people is not how this sort of thing is resolved...how does he describe himself? The fact that the Canadian government may say he still qualifies to be a citizen doesn't necessarily mean he wants / chooses to be one, and surely it is for the individual to choose, not the government or, indeed, vox pop. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Never renounced anything only a Canadian citizen may obtain the Order of Canada - As a Canadian he can have both at the same time - As seen in Wayne Gretzky#Winter Olympics and Wayne Gretzky#Heritage Classic he has actually represent Canada in an official capacity. Moxy (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephen, this RfC is not questioning whether or not he is, or wants to be, a Canadian citizen (Let's put it this way: when the USA plays Canada in hockey, Gretzky cheers for Canada - there's video evidence of this).. the RfC is about how important his American citizenship is. Reliable sources don't appear to give his American citizenship very much weight - if they mention it at all. Mlm42 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess this isn't going anywhere so here's my last word: I understand the RfC is about the "importance" of his US citizenship; I was just making the point that if Gretzky elected to become a US citizen, if as part of this process he was required to renounce any other citizenships then his US citizenship is of some consequence, no matter who he cheers for. I suggest his nationality not be mentioned in the opening sentence but a separate sentence be added to the effect "Born and raised in Canada Gretzky spent the last twelve of his 20 seasons as a professional ice hockey player working in the US, settling there with an American wife and submitting naturalization papers to take US citizenship." Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 09:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the Citizenship process in the USA - Citizenship in the United States#. I my self have Dual citizenship am i cn tell you i would never travel with the American passport as Canadians are much more respected in the world.Moxy (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I said it was my last word but I have to respond to this. You are correct. My understanding is based solely on the Citizenship in the United States# article which I had already discovered before you kindly pointed it out to me. What that article tells me is that if you are a US citizen there is no impediment to dual citizenship as far as the US is concerned. But it also says that if you are not a US citizen by birthright and choose to take US citizenship through naturalisation then you are required under oath to renounce other citizenships. If this is incorrect, then the article should be changed. I humbly suggest that POV descriptions of personal experiences of the relative respect that the two passports attract around the world is neither relevant or helpful; what are required are some solid references / citations which go beyond POV statements by Canadians saying he's still Canadian (I spotted that flag on your homepage Moxy!) - which he may well be, it's just that no-one has provided formal evidence to support this. So how to resolve this? Addressing the RfC, there seems to be a thread of opinion on this page implying that his taking US citizenship was an unimportant technicality; I'm sure that would not reflect the views of the United States authorities. Citizenship is a serious matter both in terms of individual's rights and obligations. I cannot therefore see how Gretzky's acquiring US citizenship can be seen as anything but "important" in the context of this RfC and should therefore be mentioned. Not wishing to take this business of dual nationality, renunciation etc any further might I suggest, going back to my suggested wording in my previous edit, perhaps changing "take US citizenship" (which could be read to mean a change of citizenship) to "acquire US citizenship" (which implies nothing one way or the other regarding ongoing Canadian citizenship)? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your response to the RfC question is simply "neither", correct? The question isn't asking about content beyond the first sentence. Mlm42 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. neither. Canadian American implies he is an American of Canadian origin - a clearly non-consensus view, while mentioning one citizenship only in the opening sentence implies a POV that the other citizenship is second class. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is second class - he cant run for us President now can he - But he can become the Prime Minister of Canada. There is clearly a distinction between his nationally and his American citizenship. Moxy (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither. He belongs to the world. I wouldn't emphasize his nationality in the first sentence or two. Partly to avoid this contention, and partly because "Canadian" is not exactly accurate anymore but "Canadian-American" doesn't really capture the essence of his situation. Herostratus (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Changed my mind, see directly below.
Canadian, although neither would also be acceptable. Per Mlm42's comment below re what a reliable source said. I also came across another article that go me to thinking - Alexander Kerensky. Well, Kerensky lived the last 30 years of his life in the United States (except for a couple years in Australia). Would I describe Kerensky as a "Russian-American politician"? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't describe Solzhenitsyn (sp?) as Russian-American or John Lennon as Anglo-American either. If you're born and brought up in X, and you live in X well into your adulthood, and the values and culture and traditions and history of X is what informs your persona, and you're most comfortable speaking the X language, and the main part or high points of your career is in X, then you're an Xer. And nothing can scrub that away, really. Technical paperwork of citizenship is a minor point. I would also accept North American and think that that would be cool solution. And neither is OK and has the advantage of avoiding contention so we can move on (and it's not inaccurate to say nothing). But in no way is "Canadian-American" acceptable. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Last year the BBC called him "Canadian". So when you say "Canadian" is not accurate, do you just mean he holds citizenship in both countries? Because that doesn't mean his nationality has changed (indeed, the BBC doesn't seem to think it has). Mlm42 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  - You make a good point, and based partly on your comment re reliable sources and something else I came across, I'm striking my comment and adding a new one.
Canadian-American: This is pretty much the same practice as with any other player in this situation. The lead of Stan Mikita's article doesn't reject his Slovak heritage or his Canadian citizenship, Sweeney Schriner's lead doesn't reject his Russian birth or his Canadian citizenship, Tommy Dunderdale's lead doesn't omit his Australian birth or his Canadian citizenship, just to name a few Hall of Famers born elsewhere from Canada. No one would be saying "Boo" if this was the Joe Schlobotnik article, and from the start, the notion that giving prominence to a subject's freely and deliberately chosen citizenship represents "undue" weight has struck me as coming from "We own Gretzky" partisans, as opposed to any legitimate interpretation of the rules. Ravenswing 11:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mikita and Schriner moved to Canada when they were young children, so this is not an analogous situation. Dunderdale moved to Canada when he was 17, but the lead doesn't claim he is "Australian-Canadian" - the lead sentence doesn't mention his nationality at all. The main point I'm making about Gretzky's case, is that reliable sources which label him by his nationality (links below), call Gretzky "Canadian". Nobody on this talk page has presented a reliable source which calls him "Canadian-American". Rather than claiming that other editors here are not legitimately interpreting the rules, perhaps we should be focusing on evidence (in the form of reliable sources) to back up our arguments. Mlm42 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Canadian-American as he's got dual citizenship. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you read further down the page you will find Gretzky himself says he does not. -DJSasso (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Canadian, since Gretzky himself denies being a dual ciitizen. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Canadian Peter Šťastný's article doesn't list him as being Czechoslovakian-Canadian in the first sentence, and he actually has dual citizenship. (It list him as Slovakian, which isn't technically correct as he was born in Czechoslovakia, not Slovakia, but that is a different issue) 99.255.58.85 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as far as Stasny goes, Slovak would be more correct, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is an ethnic designation, as is Czech; Czechoslovakian as an ethnic designation wouldn't work (unless he has parents of both heritage). Secondly, the nation of Czechoslovakia no longer exists as such, and similarly citizenship of said nation would no longer apply. We wouldn't call someone who was born in Moscow in 1980 "Soviet", we would call them Russian. (For example, see Nik Antropov, born in 1980 in Kazahkstan, which was then part of the USSR - he is listed as Kazahkstani.) Which all has nothing to do with Gretzky, of course. But agreed, if Gretzky did turn out to be dual - and it appears he is not - but if he did, yes, Canadian should be in the opening sentence, and the other status follows later. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian surely!!! AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Edit request from HBConsulting, 17 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

On June 26, 2007, Gretzky announced the launch of Wayne Gretzky Estates Winery. Teaming up with winemakers Rob Power and Craig McDonald of Creekside, Gretzky aims to celebrate Canadian winemaking, while creating resources for the Wayne Gretzky Foundation. Since its inception, Wayne Gretzky Estate Wines have achieved critical acclaim and won numerous national awards.

HBConsulting (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to advertise, and is just one of probably many businesses he owns or has a stake in. Not really notable enough to be in his bio. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

citations

I am working on the citations. There are two areas that need to be improved: consistent style and correctness. I am updating as much as possible to use the sfn template to get the style right. Secondly, there are some citations to Raymond, but I don't know if there is a book by someone last-named Raymond on Gretzky. It could be either Redmond's or Taylor's books which is being quoted. I will resolve this in the next few days, and I would discourage anyone from asking for a review of its Feature Article status, as it is actively being worked on, and there is nothing in dispute from these citations. If anyone else wishes to work on these points, go ahead. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone would ask for a review since it just passed a review very recently. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't seem to mark that up top in the box, could have sworn one was done in the last year. Maybe it wasn't an official one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Time is just slipping away on you ... :-) I don't recall anything recently. I worked on the 2008 one. I figure this citation work is just 'regular maintenance', but I'd like to avoid a review. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship

He is a dual citizen of both the United States of America and Canada. And your reliable source is here [2]. It should be added back, as it is with Michael J Fox, Alex Trebek, David Frum... 23haveblue (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is actually an interview farther up the page where he himself says he does not have both citizenships. He is a more reliable source and its more recent. If I recall correctly he mentions its a common mistake people make assuming he has both. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In a February 2010 interview, Gretzky said the following: "I am Canadian, and I tell people constantly that I am Canadian. I am not any other citizenship, I don't have dual citizenship." Unfortunately, for a while, Wikipedia was guilty of perpetuating the dual-citizenship myth. Mlm42 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

His opposition to fighting in hockey

I'd like to propose adding the following short section to the article, perhaps as a subsection under, "Off the Ice."

Hockey violence is a matter of great interest in the sport, both now and in the past, and Gretzky has often spoken out against it. This has been noted in the press (see ref to major newspaper saying that Gretzky passionately opposed fighting), and is also discussed for three full pages in his autobiography. Because his views on this subject have been prominently mentioned in this way, would it not be appropriate to make somewhat prominent mention of it in the article?

Proposed content: Heading: Opposition to fighting in hockey While an NHL player, Wayne Gretzky passionately opposed fighting in hockey. (see: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/getting-rid-of-hockeys-goons/article2152822/?service=mobile Title: "Getting rid of the goons in hockey" Quote: "Once upon a time, Wayne Gretzky opposed fighting in hockey as passionately as Sinden, suggesting soon after he arrived in Los Angeles that hockey would never be a mainstream sport as long as fighting was condoned the way it was. Ultimately, as Gretzky’s voice was ignored for years and years, he stopped contributing to the conversation. People can only be shouted down for so long before they figure it’s somebody else’s turn to carry the torch.

“Hockey is the only team sport in the world that that actually encourages fighting. I have no idea why we let it go on. The game itself is so fast, so exciting, so much fun to watch, why do we have to turn the ice red so often?”

“Figure this one out: You can accidentally high-stick a guy and get thrown out of a game, but two guys can stand there and beat each other dizzy and not be thrown out of the game. What sense does that make. In fact, they can stand there and beat each other to a pulp twice in a game and not be thrown out."

He disagrees with those who say that attendance at hockey games would drop if fighting were stopped. “I know fights bring some people into the building. Fights probably bring a lot of people into the building. But how many people do they keep out of the building? I’ve met people in L.A. who say, ‘Well, we don’t go to the games because it’s too violent.’ To me, that’s just sad.”

“Have you ever noticed that during the playoffs the number of fights goes down to about zero? And that’s when our best hockey is played. If that isn’t proof that we don’t need fighting, I don’t know what is.”

“But in the archaic world of the NHL, the fighting rolls on.”--Gretzky, an autobiography, with Rick Reilly, 1990, p. 209-211

Comments? Early morning person (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, I suspect this (as a shorter mention) is better suited to Ice hockey than to the BLP, especially since it seems it should be of far greater weight there than here. Collect (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bluntly, building an entire section out of a couple pages of a book published 20 years ago is beyond excessive. Gretzky may well have stated an opposition to fighting at times, but he was never a "champion for the cause" and his views on fighting have been pretty much publicized for most of his career. I really don't see the value in this article. However, his quote from 1990 would be very useful in the Fighting in ice hockey article, as a note of opposition going back over 20 years now from one of the games biggest names. Again though, not a whole section. Reso lute 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

honorary degree

I did edit his page to add a LLD (hc) (http://www.ualbertacentennial.ca/achievements/degrees/2000.html) after the CC a while back however I see it is not there. Ive seen other athletes and prominent peoples honorary degrees listed. What objections do people have with listing this.--Mrebus (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just read the wiki rule on using those degrees in biographies, and I don't think it is allowed under here under the rule. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Academic_titles Canoe1967 (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Gambling allegations

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on allegations for public figures, is the gambling controversy (deleted in this edit) sufficiently notable to warrant some level of inclusion in this article? isaacl (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It did get considerable media coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Allegations, per se, and rumours do not belong in any WP:BLP compliant article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper at all, and thus "allegations" of any scurrilous nature do not belong here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was covered by sources that were hardly tabloids. He was, if memory serves, exonerated. This of course would be made clear in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see - there were rumours. Some mainstream papers listed the rumours. Amazingly enough - they remained rumours. BLPs are not the place for rumours and unsubstantiated allegations.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

Appears to apply here. We must avoid being a gossipmonger - absent any arrests or convictions, the allegations are pretty much worthless. Collect (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A quote from WP:BLP (in the section I linked to):

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

There is a continuum from idle gossip to accusation that forms a substantial aspect of a subject's history. I'm not quite sure where this falls on that spectrum, but I think some aspects of the event are more than just idle gossip. Perhaps it does not warrant a separate section, but a line or two may be appropriate within the "Post-retirement" section. isaacl (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable? Not in this case. Relevant? A one-off allegation hardly reaches relevance. Well-documented? Rumours which are shown to be unfounded are not exactly "well-documented" at all. Sorry - still would be a WP:BLP violation. Collect (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it was covered by major media outlets. Might I ask then, for comparison, does this [3] belong in the article about Andrei Kostitsyn? Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are occassions where unproved claims against people should be mentioned in their articles. The challenge though is to present it in a neutral way which I do not believe this section did. It does not even explain btw why placing bets was considered "wrong-doing". The story has now long faded and it is borderline whether it deserves mention and if so how much. It might be helpful to find a recent biography of Gretzky, written after the full facts of the story were fully known, as a guide. TFD (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)