Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andy Murray (tennis) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Tennis This article about a living person is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis Please keep the policy for biography of living people in mind when editing the article.
B Quality: B
Mid Importance: mid

Article Grading:
WikiProject Scotland
 Andy Murray (tennis) is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

Archives:

  • /Archive 1: June 2005 → July 2006 (external links, football controversy, birthplace, article length)

Contents

[edit] "Natural Talent"

Is it really necessary to say that Murray is noted for his "natural talent" in the introduction? I think you would be hard pushed to find a tennis player who isn't.

[edit] Brad Gilbert

At many points in the match against Nadal at the australian open 2007 murray did some threatening gestures to brad. at one point he made the "we're finished", theres a video in youtube showing he actually said 'you fking twat'. now why on earth are they still together?What happened after this incident

[edit] Controversy Section

The 'Controversy' section is pretty poorly written. I tried improving it but it would be better if someone with more experience could rewrite or at least edit it. Veesicle 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Open 2004

The info box at the side says he got to the 3rd round at the US open in 2004. This was a suprise to me as I thought he only played in the junior competition in that year. Also, I can see no furhter mention of this in the article, which, if true should be mentioned as it's a major achievment. Can anyone confirm that this is ture or not. Evil Eye 11:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not. He won the Junior's that year, but did not play in the Seniors: ATP activity - 2004

His only entry was last year, when he went out in the second round (R64) ATP activity - 2005 I'll change the article. RobbieC 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links again

Previous discussion: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#External links (and the section directly above)

Someone added the link to the activeboard website again and also put MurraysWorld to the bottom... again. As we came to an agreement over this and currently it does not allow for any more links to be added, I have removed the link. If someone would leave the user a message about this (I don't know how) then that would be great. Mark7144 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We must do what User:Wangi told us all we had to do (in a section now unfortunately archived): no stupid external links at all, except his official one. It is the only way to stop the buggers, and as Wangi pointed out, it is actually supported by policy. --Mais oui! 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I should also remind you, with all due respect to him, that Wangi is JUST a user and should not be considered as a person of authority. A consensus was reached even with wangi's acceptance and MurraysWorld was allowed to be added to this site. Potential inclusion of other fan sites were also addressed but it was decided upon not to add anymore links at this time. Removing MurraysWorld or adding a site without discussing it here first is now considered vandalism. Read the FULL archive to confirm this - thank you. Mark7144 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you're not a person of authority here either. I have added the Andy Murray message board back as it was the first ever Murray fansite setup in July 2003 long, long, long before Murraysworld had even before thought of and before you'd even heard of Andy Murray. It seems a bit stupid not to have that site aswell if MW is included. {Uns-ip|86.17.154.196}}

That's right, I'm not a person of authority - I represent an individual of a group of people that acted as an authority to solve this situation. Therefore all I am doing is my bit for the Wiki community and helping this page stick to the consensus.
I'm pretty confident that you haven't actually read the archived discussion as you think your personal like to a website is enough reason for it to be added. When the website launched is irrelevant we all decided that fan sites were to be judged by their Alexa ranking and MurraysWorld was the only third party Murray site that had an acceptable rank.
I advise you to bring up a new topic with your request for the inclusion of the activeboard site you posted - until then you should follow the agreement and wait until we have discussed it. I will be leaving wangi and Rob a message about your breach of the agreement and you may have to be reported to an admin if you keep ignoring the consensus that was made after extensive talks on this page.
I just want to add that I am infact in favour for your link to be added (not in the way you did by knocking down MW though) but it now needs to be done the proper way. Discussion > Agreement > Inclusion. Mark7144 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the archive discussion which all seemed a bit petty and stupid and I don't know why people just didn't leave it as it was. I've added the activeboard site back, you have no authority to remove it and I'll keep adding it until a person of authority arrives here. Stuff the Wiki community thing, this is a news resource not a community, and the activeboard site link is a useful resource as it provides many things which other sites don't have. Explain what you mean by Alexa ranking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.154.196 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .

I do actually have the authority to remove your link as does any user if it is enforcing the rules here. See it as a civil arrest. I won't remove your link because you will keep adding it - we will just have to wait for the others guys to come over here and see if things can be resolved. I personally agree that nothing should of been changed but the majority have decided that the links needed to be reduced and call it petty or whatever you want - it was agreed on.
Anyway here is some Alexa information - read the second section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet

Wangi removed the link and although wangi is no admin he does have a ridiculous number of admin acquittances so it may now be a good idea to follow procedure outlined in the archive. Mark7144 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if User:86.17.154.196 feels they want to put in the (considerable) effort that woudl be involved in getting consensus for the addition of the link. If they do, I'd certainly support their cause, but I don't want to see this turn into a repeat of the edit war we had before: unfortunately, now that this has become an issue, the link will keep getting removed unless such a consensus is reached. Gaining the consensus will be a lot of work too, as I think most editors have found the edit wars and discussions pretty tedious, and would want to stick with the status quo. RobbieC 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First off the archive of the last "round" of this discussion can be accessed here: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#External links (and the section directly above). It's a shame User:86.17.154.196 did not join in with the discussion which led to the current consensus - it was open to them to do so. They should stop adding the link to the article and instead add it to the talk page along with reasoning for its inclusion. This is the course of action favoured by WP:EL - also note that it's very much a "bad thing"TM to add a link to your own site...
User:86.17.154.196, please work with us - however if you continue to blindy add the link to the article then I will add the appropriate warning to your user page which may result in your account being banned for a period of time. So please, give the old discussion a good read through and give reasons for this link. Thanks/wangi 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AMMB Inclusion Request

Several points to make, [a] it's not my site, I'm just a member there [b] I've read the discussion on the archive, was without internet connection while it was taking place. Just basing sites on alexa ranking seems a bit stupid to me. It's the longest running Murray fansite, was started in 2003. Mark claims his site is the longest running but that's very much erroneous as his site started in 2005. The Andy Murray message board should be included because:

  1. It provides live commentary on a lot of Andy's matches and this is often not available anywhere else - this is planned for the Moya match tonight aswell as the Murray matches in Cincinatti next week. As a non-Sky subscriber I find this very useful.
  2. There's detailed information on other British players male and female plus reports and up-to-date results on a lot of tournaments they take part in. There's only a couple of other sites which do this - rusedski.co.uk and BTZ
  3. It provides latest calculations of Andy's ranking, this section is updated daily and isn't available anywhere else.
  4. It's one of the main places people go to for information on Andy Murray, AM.com and MW are the only other two.
  5. It's had over 20 million clicks, I'm told.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.115.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .
Thanks 62.253.115.67, that's exactly what we need. I'd add the fact that the site collates details of Andy's schedule, and other information about it that's usually more up to date than his own (damn fine) site, and (also damn fine, Mark :-))MurraysWorld, although by definition less well presented than could be achieved by a website ratehr than a board. As a result, it compliments AM.com & MW very well. Fyi, the Alexa ranking wasn't seen as the only way of deciding the issue: it's just one that's nice and objective. Unfortunately the AMMB isn't broken out of the total Activeboard traffic on Alexa, so we don't know how it compares.
It would really help us if you could get yourself a username. I've been leaving messages on the talk page for your old email address: User talk:86.17.154.196, and I'm assuming you've not seen them? Do please come and join us in wiki land!
Now, how to achieve consensus? We could probably shortcut the process if Wangi & Mais Oui were in agreement. They are the two most active in defence of keeping the page clean, and adhering to as strict a version of WP:EL as possible. But as they are both highly principled individuals, we may well not achieve this without more reasoned argument and a significant number of other editors supporting us. To do this, I suggest you go to the "history" page for the main "Andy Murray" article, and leave a message on the talk pages of everyone who's contributed recently, along with those who took part in the discussion last time around. If enough of us are in favour, then we'll hopefully bring the dissenters around.RobbieC 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't buy the reasoning... Remembering the key point that this is an encyclopedia, taking each of 62.253.115.67's points in turn:
  1. Wikipedia is not really about current affairs (be that sport or whatever) - we should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete and it makes little sense to link to a website purely because it's got plenty of fresh news.
  2. On an article purely about a single tennis player it is of no consequence that a site has content about other players.
  3. That's not a unique resource - this page already contains rankings, as do other websites.
  4. That might be true, but it's not a reliable resource (more on that below)
  5. Neither here nor there...
Consider this guideline in WP:EL about what should be linked to: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article", and another on what should not be linked to: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard". However the real clincher is this: "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline)" - that's basically given on a message board - gossip, rumours and unverified material! Thanks/wangi 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


If that's the case Wangi, why on earth is Wikipedia linking to MW then ?

Also, there's no gossip, rumours or unverified material on that message board, check it thoroughly if you want. Plenty of that on MW to tell the truth. Your definition says "However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard". This IS the case with the Andy Murray message board ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.115.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .

Hi 62.253.115.67. You must understand that wangi only agreed to have MW on the page as a concession to create consensus, if it were up to wangi, there's be only the official site on the links list: a perfectly reasonable point of view.
On the other hand, there's a very good argument that says that Wikipedia is a valuable resource for its users, who expect to be directed to the most appropriate other sources for their research.
  1. That a link will only become obsolete if the site it points to is not updated. The fact that the site contains current affairs information is irrelevent, if that information continues to be updated.
  2. That quite a few users who are looking up Andy Murray are very likely to be trying to find exactly that sort of info/site. (that's how I found the message board in the first place).
  3. Regarding rankings, no other site that I know of provides the current, mid-week ranking, only the final ranking achieved at the end of the week. Some sad tennis fans (such as I) really do care that Andy is currently in a position to be world number 25 on Monday, if he loses to Niemenem today and Xavier Malisse doesn't make it to the final....
  4. That the reliability of the source is an empirical thing - an editor has to use her experience of how accurate the source has been up to now: the BBC announced that Henman had a wildcard intro the Canadian Masters - he didn't, a fact that quickly became apparent on the board. However, I'd never accuse the BBC of being unreliable. Besides, if the link is clearly maked as being both a fansite and a messageboard, the user can exercise the appropriate discretion.
  5. That archived live scoring of matches is another unique resource. Again some sad tennis fans find it valuable, if they've missed a tournament to be able to read an "as it happened" point by point report of a match in the early rounds.
  6. That, above all, the Wikipedia policies are framed in such a way as to allow us to exercise our judgement as editors, and if we can create a consensus among the regular editors here that, on balance, the site should be included, then it can be.


62.253.115.67, I think it's unlikely that you'll persuade wangi that adding the link will be of value to the page (although wangi, do please check the board out - it's incredibly civilised!). However he (she?) has in the past honorably shown himself to be prepared to work with the majority of editors if they don't share his view of what's best for the page. So I'd suggest you canvas the other regular editors here for their support, and that hopefully the points we have presented here will persuade them to our cause.RobbieC 07:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought AMMB was originally about British tennis and then came Andy Murray who then took more of the focus? So sometime before 2005 it was not really an Murray message board? (sorry if this is not the case)
1. This did use to be the case with Murray playing low profile tournaments but now the commentary can be found on other fansites as the tournaments are frequently televised.
3. Other sites also have his latest rankings. Ranking speculation would be against what Wiki like to link to as mentioned above however I do think it's very interesting.
5. If you are going to use stats to back up your argument please give the average of page impressions and unique visits you get per month otherwise it's pretty much an empty statement.
Regarding the schedule: It probably is indeed more useful than that on AM.com but no more accurate or update-to-date than MW - probably about the same on that.
If that's the case Wangi, why on earth is Wikipedia linking to MW then ?
Because MurraysWorld is linked to as a fansite not a messageboard. Everything non-messageboard related on MW is accurate and considering the forum isn't directly linked to, what goes on in there is pretty much irrelevant. However in your case the message board is the actual fansite.


I'm really sorry but based on what a website should be for inclusion on Wiki I have changed my mind. Out of respect to the site for its long dedication to Murray I do think it deserves to be added but unfortunately that is not meant to come under consideration based on Wiki guidelines. I'm afriad I genuinly don't think AMMB provides anything more than MurraysWorld does in regards to Andy Murray but does provide good information about other British tennis players.
I think the site should be included for reasons that don't count towards anything but based on the arguments and how we are meant to judge the site and value to Wiki, I don't think it deserves to be added. Therefore at this time I will not support its inclusion. Mark7144 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I am so glad that AMMB is no included on this wiki-page, it is a British player site now, not an Andy Murray site, by the administrator's own admission. MW and the official site are now linked and even have a shared moderator.

[edit] Urgh

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that Cincinatti is a different tourny than Rogers Masters deleted the entire Rogers Masters section, and then someone else, most probably accidentally removed the second half of Murray's year. Could someone who knows how to fix this (revert to earlier revision or something) please do?--Flute138 10:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] grand slam performance

rather than just a bit under his bar, how about the chart to show grand slam performance see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Performance_timeline for an example

[edit] Tournament Descriptions

I'm not a regular contributor to this article, but upon finding it I was sticken by the descriptions of every senior tournament Andy has ever played in. It's not the length that is a problem as such, but it is out of stpe with other tennis articles- for example Roger Federer#Career is a free-flowing description of Federer's achievements, whereas Andy's career section is much more jerky, and full of unsourced statements, for example, "After the match Murray criticized the British media for expecting too much from him at such an early age." in Andy Murray (tennis player)#Australian Open. I think that a description containing only notable tournemants (those that he performed exceptionally well in, such as where he won, was a finalist, or had a notable victory with the exception of his earliest tournaments) would not only be easier to source, but would also be much more quickly informative. When Andy did not perform well, statements such as 'Murray failed to reach past the quarter finals of his next X tournaments' could easily summarise his performance and prevent the article becoming an indiscriminate repository on information.

I'm not an expert on murray's career, and while you have had a minor discussion at Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#Length of article, this has been archived and Ithe article still needs changing. If necessary, a separate article could be created for tournament results as suggested. In any case, I disagree with this discussion saying that 'more recent matches will get added pretty much as they happen'becuase there isn't any need to do thsi unless, as suggested before, they are notable.

To round this off, I think that users with more knowledge of Murray's career should reduce or move to a separate article the current results section, and instead create a more brief summary, mcuh like that on other tennis player articles, containing only notable tournaments. Thanks. OSmeone 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The sections covering the tournament results were starting to look like a long blog entry so I reformatted and shortened the 2005 section. Maybe a tournament table would be more appropriate.I already forgot 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change the 2005 and 2006 entries into forms much like the Andre Agassi article, where each year is written in a paragraph form, detailing the players various achievements and performances, rather than a tournament-to-tournament kind of format...what say you guys to this? The current form, IMO, looks rather unprofessional, and unencylopaedic...--Flute138 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British or Scottish

So, we know that Murray is Scottish, but he plays for Great Britain. I think his infobox should have the British flag (as it does now), and his opening paragraph should just mention that he is Scottish, but considered British for ATP purposes. Anyone disagree? --Flute138 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Andy Murray does play for Great Britain in the Davis Cup, but has stated his nationality to be Scottish on more than one occasion.AlenWatters 11:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And no-ones denying that as far as I know, he does however represent Great Britain in tennis tournaments, in Davis Cup and in singles it says Andrew Murray "GBR". So it shouldn't be changed Jamandell (d69) 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this article about Andrew Murray or his game of tennis? Great Britain is ambiguous, Scotland is not.I already forgot 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing very little about the motives behind labeling a person as scottish or british, I researched the wiki articles on Famous Scots and found the overwhelming majority of articles describe famous scots as scottish and not british. In fact, andrew murray is the only sports player I found being labeled as british.I already forgot 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But, as mentioned above, for all intents and purposes, Andy Murray is playing for Great Britain, not Scotland. So I think we should find some way to word this effectively--"Andy Murray is a Scottish Player currently playing under the British flag, known for his great outbursts of passion...", or something to that effect.

There is an absolute wealth of excellent reference material attesting to the fact that Murray is Scottish, per WP:CITE.

"Scottish" implies "British", but the reverse is not true. By replacing Scottish with British the anonymous IP addresses are removing information from Wikipedia, not adding to knowledge.

Please note that the Severiano Ballesteros article says that he is "Spanish", not "European", despite the fact that he regularly represented Europe in the Ryder Cup. The same for all the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh rugby stars who have played for the British and Irish Lions.

To help to cut down on the frequent IP revert wars on this article I have added five references, and there are an awful lot more available:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not Scottish, I do feel that at least we should make sure that the Scottish Saltire is displayed as the same size as the Union Jack in the infobox. aLii 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about that. The Scottish flag just looks smaller because it is shown at the correct ratio of 3:5 - whereas the Union Flag has a correct ratio of 1:2. --Mais oui! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Its funy how Tim Henman, Greg Rusedski and Alex Bogdanovic all have just the GB flag. Is it just scottish people obsessing because the want him to be known just as Scottish Mr. mister 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In his capacity as a tennis player, Andy Murray is British and represents Great Britain. This is confirmed by the ATP [1] website. In the Davis Cup he represents Great Britain, and enters every ATP tournament as Andy Murray [GBR]. That he represented Scotland in the Aberdeen Cup is irrelevant as this was a one-off event and not a recognised ATP event. It has been mentioned elsewhere on the page that Murray is irritated when people refer to him as English. Please do not vandalise the page by continually changing his nationality to Scottish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.22.129 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 September 2006.
The article isn't about his capacity as a tennis player. Its about a person who is Scottish and is notable for his accomplishments as a tennis player. If he primarily played for Canada (for whatever reason), would he no longer be Scottish? I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. He's Scottish and plays tennis for Britain. Simple as that. I also don't understand how calling him Scottish equates to calling him English as you mentioned. --I already forgot 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stated that Murray is British. I have cited evidence from very reliable sources. Please do not vandalise this page by deleting this information and these sources. To say that "Andy Murray is a British tennis player" makes sense. To say that "Andy Murray is a Scottish tennis player who plays for both Scotland and great Britain" does not. Murray played for Scotland in a one-off non-ATP tournament towards the end of last year. To say he plays for Scotland is factually incorrect -'plays' is present tense and suggests that he regularly plays for Scotland which we know is not true. You are also violating Wiki's biographical rules relating to the subject of nationality.

Deleting factually correct information ands citations is considered to be vandalism, and will not be tolerated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.22.129 (talk • contribs).

Although I have just banned the above user for breaking the WP:3RR rule and reverted the article to the current consensus, I personally think the Scottish flag should not be in the infobox since Murray plays for Britain, and only very occasionally for "Scotland". However I would not agree with the other changes made by 84.12.22.129 in those edits/reverts. Thanks/wangi 05:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 84.12.22.129 that it makes more sense to say that Murray is British rather than that he plays for Scotland. Murray receives support from millions every year at Wimbledon not because he is Scottish but because he is British. The BBC and other major news organisations frequently refer to Murray as Britain's number-1, and Murray has said on many occasions that Tim Henman was his idol because he was Britain's major hope. Also, the sources in the article by 84.12.22.129 are far more reliable than in the revert by wangi, where THREE references are made to the one-off and seemingly unimportant Aberdeen Cup. In summary, I think it is both incorrect and offensive to fail to describe Murray as British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.183.136.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29T12:29:45 (UTC)

The source you cite alongside "British" makes no claim of the sort. Thanks/wangi 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see what this is all about. This is a fan issue and not an encyclopedic one. How is a person who is Scottish not British? If a person is British, how do I know they are not English (as some people call Andrew)? Seems that calling him a Scottish tennis player is accurate and less ambiguous for encyclopedic reason than calling him British. --I already forgot 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my question: What's wrong with the way he's being described currently? Is it really that hard to simply say that he is Scottish (in terms of nationality), but considered British for all international competitions (ATP and ITF--he was playing for GBR even as a junior)? --Flute138 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to his Scottishness throughout the article, including on the opening paragraph. So there is no ambiguity in describing him as British in the opening line. Indeed, Welsh and Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen who primarily represent Britain on an international level are referred to as British, whereas those who represent Wales or Scotland at football, for example, are referred to as Welsh or Scottish. It is FACTUALLY incorrect, as has been stated, to say that "Murray plays for Scotland." Note that other British tennis players are described as British, which is the way it should be.

Why is it when I look up List of British people I'm directed to List of Scots to find all sports figures listed as scottish? Once the changes are made to make A.M. british, he is then the only one listed as such. --I already forgot 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think The GB flag should be above the Scotland flag as Andy plays for GB more often. This is what Wikipedia is for...facts. User:Tommy23 1853, 21 January 2007

British is what english people call succesfull scottish people. Andy Murray is Scottish, that is his country, Britain is not a country.

  • But the United Kingdom is a country and a citizen of the United Kingdom is described as British!!! So deal with it Jamandell (d69) 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He's British whether he likes it or not. This is not a fan site and as such we are dealing only with facts. Scottish is NOT the nationality of someone from Scotland, British is. In fact Scottish as a "nationality" hasnt existed for probably three hundred years...along with Welsh and Engliish. As a Scot myself, when I look at my passport it says i'm of British nationality.Nothing about Scotland. The Scottish flag should be removed from the article and the UK flag left. His personal views on the matter can be left to the articles contents. Snowbound 22:38, 25 January 2007

I'm here neutral, so I have a question. Scotland is not listed as a county on ATP site, so why a Scottish flag ? I think that correct sentence would be: "Andy Murray is a Scottish professional tennis player from Great Britain" or somethnig similar, because he can't represent Scotland in world tennis, because Scotland is not a county on ATP or WTA. --Göran Smith 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a Scottish flag because the man is Scottish. I have no problem with the introduction, so long as it remains unambiguous. He is Scottish, but represents Great Britain, more than likely out of necessity, but he represents Britain nonetheless. It should also be noted that Andy's objection to being called "English" is in no way meant to disparage England. Had the media referred to Tim Henman as Scottish, Tim would be just as quick to correct them. Would this even be an issue if Andy was ranked 200th in the world, with no prospect for improvement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clydey (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Andy Murray is a British tennis player who has represented both Great Britain and Scotland in tennis matches. This is how it should be written. Those who want to delete the fact that he is British clearly have a political agenda (SNP activists perhaps?). People should ask themselves what official nationality is he and what nationality is on the front of his passport? It is BRITISH, not SCOTTISH. Therefore he is a British tennis player who has represented both Great Britain and Scotland in tennis matches. I have changed the intro to represent this. RRJ 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are going against the consensus. Murray is a Scotsman who has played for Britain and Scotland, just as Hmenan is an Englishman who has represented England and Britain. 82.40.19.192 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly to the anon IP address you get on alot better if you actually signed up for an account. You seem to know alot about consensus for someone who can't even be bothered to sign up.

Secondly in certain sport competitors represent the UK, others they represent the seperate nations. Tennis, like athletics and F1 the competitors represent the UK. This British Scottish debate only seems to come around when the said person is a Scot. For example: Lewis Hamilton, Tim Henman, Jason Gardener, Jamie Baulch, Iwan Thomas, Greg Rusedski, Christian Malcolm are all English or Welsh and are refered to as British yet David Coulthard, Liz McColgan, Andy Murray, Jamie Murray are refered to as Scots. Now all these people compete in sports I have mentioned before, so clearly the consensus is more to calling them British rather than Scotish, Enlgish or Welsh. JimmyMac82 11:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JimmyMac82. Choose a standard for such articles, and stick to it. No-one should undermine Scottish nationalism, but is this the correct venue? There are hundreds of examples where the fact that someone is from Scotland is proposed as being more important than their nationality (which in law is British). Of note, the most prominent Scotsman of the moment, the UK prime minister does not have a mention of his "nationality", only what constituency he represents, and his origins. In the case of sportsman, I believe the same tact should be taken. i.e. In this case Andy Murray represents Great Britain on the ATP. I also propose, there also be a section for olympic, inter-union and other events where he represents Scotland. 76.20.84.128 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of 2006 section

This is completely unencyclopedic now, having grown up as a list of tournaments as they happened. I suggest compressing them into the following, and will do so unless anyone objects Chrislintott 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Murray began the 2006 season with second round exits in two tournaments, followed by a first round loss to Juan Ignacio Chela in his first Australian Open appearance. The SAP open which followed brought him his first ATP title, as Murray beat two former world number 1's in the form of Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt. He reached the quarter-finals in his next tournament, in Memphis, but was unable to continue his good form. He lost in the first round of six of the next nine tournaments he played in, including first round exits at the French Open and at Queen's Club. During this run, Murray unsuccessfully partnered Greg Rusedski in Great Britain's Davis Cup tie, after missing the singles through injury. Wimbledon saw a dramatic return to form, as Murray reached the fourth round of a Grand Slam for the first time, only to lose in straight sets to Marcos Baghdatis. Further success followed, as he reached the semi-finals and final of the next two tournaments he entered (the Hall of Fame Championships in Newport and the Legg Mason Classic in Washington, respectively). In between, he won a singles match against Andy Ram in the Davis Cup tie with Israel, the first time that Murray had successfully fought back to win a five-set match.

Murray's improved form continued into the autumn. He reached the semi-final of the Toronto Masters, losing to Richard Gasquet after surviving several close shaves which led to the questioning of his ability to close out games. In the next tournament, the Cincinnati Masters, his loss to Andy Roddick in the quarter-finals was overshadowed by his earlier defeat of world number 1, [[Roger Federer]. Murray was one of only two players to beat Federer in 2006, the other being Rafa Nadal. The final grand slam of the year, the US Open, saw Murray once again reach the fourth round, only to lose to the seeded Nikolay Davydenko in four sets. This was followed by his final Davis Cup appearance for the year, in which he won both singles rubbers in straight sets and lost the doubles en route to a British victory over the Ukraine, which ensured the team's continued presence in group 1 of the Europe/Africa zone for 2007.

The final set of tournaments in 2006 led to mixed results. The disappointment of losing to Tim Henman in the first round of the Thailand Open (where he had reached the final the year before) was alleviated somewhat by reaching the final of the doubles, partnered by his brother. At the Madrid Masters an impressive defeat of number 3 seed Ivan Ljubičić was followed by a loss to Novak Djokovic in the round of 16. In his final tournament of the year, the Paris Masters, Murray beat Chela, but lost in the next round to Dominik Hrbaty. At the end of the year, Murray was ranked 17th in the world, and was looking to break into the top 10 in 2007.

[edit] Infobox

Infobox contains data for Andy Murray as a tennis player on ATP tour, and there is no mention of Scotland as a country. I think people would know that Andy is Scottish, and not English from the first sentence: "Andrew "Andy" Murray (born 15 May 1987 in Glasgow), is a Scottish[4] tennis player, who has represented both Scotland[5] and Great Britain[6] in past matches. He has been noted for his frequent outbursts of passion and his natural talent." --Göran Smith 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

I have placed 'United Kingdom' above 'Scotland', just like 'United Kingdom' is placed above 'England' in Tim Henman's article. I think that is fair. Also, does the fact that Andy Murray is Scottish really need a citation? Hera52 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you edit... Really because you were removing a reference. From a purely hierarchical pov it makes sense to have SCO then UK, but in the end it's just dicking around. If a ref is required that he plays for the UK, then why not for Scotland - that's what those refs are showing - especially given that him playing for the UK is the standard assumption... Thanks/wangi 22:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Scotland needs a reference because in tennis in the UK players represent the UK not the seperate nations, so to clain Murray has represented Scotland looks abit weird, almost like claiming an American was representing his State rather than Country. For this reason UK should be above Scotland. JimmyMac82 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] In Auckland

In the article about Andy Murrays contreversy it was said that he played a Heineken open in Australia. Living in Auckland i know that the Heineken open is a New Zealand tournament and according to Atp.com Murray played there in 2006 as specified in the Article.

[edit] British

Andy Murray should be described as "British," as should all people who come from Great Britain.

Unfortunately, many people who come from Britain are usually described as "English," mainly by the people of the USA. Describing everyone as British would reduce this.

Furthermore, being Scottish automatically makes you British. In fact, describing someone as British is far better than calling them Scottish, as a Scottish person's home state is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Within that state, they live in Scotland. The same goes for English and Welsh people. In this way everything can be made clearer. Dewarw 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I explained to you earlier, your entire argument is the very reason why Andy Murray should not be described as "British", because if he is from Scotland it is self-evident that he is also "British". Many, many people assume "English" when they see "British". The two terms are often used interchangeably, so I will continue to edit it until you do the same to every personality listed as "English", starting with Tim Henman. I find it curious that you did not even give Henman a second look. 82.40.19.192 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not threaten to start an edit war. You will be blocked from using Wikipedia if you do. Your comments are also ambiguous, I have never been on the Tim Henman page in my life! Please do not make claims like this. you mentioned English people. As I said before, I fully believe that players labelled English should be re labelled British, although I would need some help to do this. This would reduce people assuming English when they saw British. if you agree with me on this proposal, then please say. Thanks, Dewarw 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now changed both Henman and Murray to British. Please note that Scotland is mentioned both in the text and in the side box (He plays for both Great Britain and Scotland. I hope that this is a fair compromise. If you continue to revert, then you will be given a blocking warning. Thank you, Dewarw 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, what authority do you have to decide what the facts are? You have not attempted to discuss this matter, rather just thrown your weight around. If you are in some way enpowered on this site what you are doing is an abuse of that power. Your job is to monitor pages, not push your own opinion, one that is not based on the facts.
Your opinion is not supported by facts and you have not answered one of the points I put to you. It takes two to conduct an edit war and you, sir, have no right to settle personal grievances with your own authority on this site. Point of fact, Andy Murray representing Scotland in the Aberdeen Cup is a viable citation. He represented Scotland because he is Scottish, and Tim Henman represented England because he is English. Furthermore, a "British" label is inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia. Simply editing Tim Henman is not enough to bolster your own argument.
There needs to be a much broader change, as Scotland is a nationality. That is why Scottish independence is an issue. Comparisons with individual American states is inaccurate. Michigan, for example, could not, would not, attempt to break off from the United States. Scotland has its own football team, its own rugby team. You are confusing British citizenship with ethnicity, not to mention ignoring Andy Murray's own wish to be referred to as Scottish. Should you give me a warning, all you are doing is highlighting your own lack of responsibility. 82.40.19.192 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Wrawed 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I am not participating in an edit war. It is dewarw who is going not only against the general consensus, but is being inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. I would like to you explain to me why I am being warned. Lay out to me why dewarw is right to incessantly edit and I am not. Should you fail to make a good argument, you should do the decent thing and go along with the general consensus.
What you are doing amounts to abuse of your own power. If I find a citation where Andy Murray explicitly refers to himself as "Scottish" will you accept that? 82.40.19.192 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Wrawed is an anagram of Dewarw. Are you using two different accounts to warn me? 82.40.19.192 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He has no more authority in wiki than you or I and it looks if is he is a sock. I would suggest though, that you give yourself a bit more authority by editing under a user name. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 08:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I normally do, actually. I occasionally forget and only realise I have edited without signing in after I've done the editing. My regular username is "Clydey". I thought the same about him as you, Bill. He managed to slap a warning on my account somehow, though. It appears to have since been rescinded, but I can't be sure, so I'm a touch paranoid about editing Andy Murray's page again. 82.40.19.192 09:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed Dewarw as a suspected sockpupeteer Lurker (said · done) 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>Thank g*d I don't get involved in British vs Scottish stuff since I have my hands full as it is, BUT , I would refer all parties to wp:mosbio. What is his nationality? That, imho, is waht we should use. Also, what do reliable sources refer to him as?? Good luck :) --Tom 13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"being Scottish automatically makes you British." - no it doesn't. One or two Scots are citizens of other countries for various reasons, some because they object to being classified as British. --MacRusgail 12:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up of color commentary

The color commentary is very poetic and charming but really over the top. Sticking to the facts does this man and his article more of a servie. Who ever wrote this stuff is quite good with words but its not really needed here. There is a still alot of more to copy edit but I tried to hit the highlights. As far as nationality goes, I'll let you guys "hit" that one around :) Cheers! --Tom 15:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper consensus needed over nationality

Okay, this is getting out of hand. We need a proper vote, or debate to decide whether we refer to Murray as British or Scottish. This debate could also extend to other persons on Wikipedia.

A vote/debate is needed, because it keeps changing between the two. I have changed it in the past, but have now stopped because I do not believe in edit wars. Please, lets not have an edit war, lets have a proper discussion.

I for one think it should be British, so that all Great British people can just be referred to as one. This also reflects the way in which England, Scotland and Wales are united. Please do not use Welsh/Scottish Independence arguments, as they are off the topic. This debate is not about whether there should be a United England, Wales and Scotland or not. This is about clarifying Wikipedia and making it a better place for everyone.

Thanks, Dewarw 11:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

There is/was a debate on the issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). The original proposal, that people from UK nations be referred to a "British" was rejected, due to a lack of consensus. Lurker (said · done) 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I have come up with a compromise on the page for the time being.

I have included both British and Scottish until a formal decision is made.

Please do not change from one to the other until the decision is made.

Thanks, Dewarw 11:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

This "compromise" frankly looks silly. There already is a compromise- the article says he represents both the UK and Scotland. Other sources, such as newspapers, tend not to refer to people as "British (Scottish)", they use one or the other. Lurker (said · done) 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not a compromise, it's a simple statement of fact. --Breadandcheese 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This might be a loaded question and why there is an edit war, but WHAT IS MURRAY'S NATIONAILTY? Or can't that be answered so easily? It seems that per wp:mosbio we should use his nationality. Anyways, there does not seem to be any consensus either way currently. How do other bios treat this? I mainly work with US bios. TIA --Tom 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest not discussing his nationality in the introduction and mentioning both Scottish and British within the main body of the article. The fact that he represents Great Britain and Scotland alongside his place of birth really says enough on that front for an intro. --Breadandcheese 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bio articles tend to have nationality in them. I suggest saying he is "from scotland" and "the UK number one" in the first line- avoiding the contentious words "British" and "Scottish" althogether without sacrificing meaning. Lurker (said · done) 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention his nationality? We do it for all bios per wp:mosbio and its appropriate. I have tried the old "xyz-born ABC" :) Also, I removed the scotsman reference as POV. --Tom 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've edited it so that it contains both "British" and "Scottish", without looking like a clumsy compromise. That should satisfy, unless people want to war over the order the terms appear. BTW, The Scotsman is a newspaper, so is a reliable source, not POV. Lurker (said · done) 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I also, used the term "scottish-born", to avoid another edit war. Lurker (said · done) 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>I was refering to the scotsman as a non neutral source when it comes to how one refers to this person. Anyways, its too bad that certain editors are very militant when it comes to ethnicity and nationality issues. I still haven't seen an anwser to my question. What is this man's nationality? Can that be answered/determined or not? --Tom 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why a respected newspaper should be subject on this issue simply because it is Scottish. As for Murray's nationality, as has been mentioned before, there is precedent for using both. Media sources (I've seen an article in The Times describe him as a Scot- if I can find it I'll add it to the article as a ref), and common usage, tend to use both terms. Lurker (said · done) 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi lurker, thanks for the response. I am asking not to make a point but out of ignorance unfortunately. I am not really slamming the scotsman, itsmore that they have an article about famous Scots and mention Murray, but I am not sure what that really accomplishes. He is Scottish, I got that. What I am trying to do is conform to wp:mosbio which says that the person's nationality should be mentioned in the lead sentence. He is not English, got that. Is he British? I think so. Is British a nationality? If so, I would go for Scotish-born British xyzer. Anyways, --Tom 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Scottish is also regarded as a nationality, which is why I have incuded both Lurker (said · done) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case, then he should be called Scottish since he was born in Scotland. Sorry for beating this issue but I thought I could help since I don't have a preference either way accept to try to conform to wp:mosbio. Anyways, --Tom 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would probably describe myself as British, but if I had to choose between English and Scottish, I would almost certainly go for English, despite being born in Scotland. I have English parents and grandparents, and only lived in Scotland for 18 months after I was born. Where you were born is not always your nationality. Richard B 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Totally agreed. We have many bios of folks born in other countries(non US), who then move to the US, become citizens and we refer to them either as xzy-born American whatevers or just as plain American whatevers. Again, WHAT IS THIS MAN'S nationality? Can you be a citizen of Scotland and carry a Scottish passport(is there such a thing)? I have a feeling that you don't and that is the reason for this symantical tiff. Anyways,--Tom 14:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Lets take Rusedski for example. He was born in Canada, so therefore by this reckoning he is Canadian, but he is a British tennis player, he represented them in the sport. He's not a Canadian tennis player is he? No. Never has been, but he's still Canadian. So as his article states Gregory "Greg" Rusedski (born September 6, 1973, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) is a former British tennis player. Similarly Andy Murray should read. Andy Murray (born May 15, 1987, in Glasgow, Scotland) is a British tennis player. This is what the bio policy means. It doesn't mean including Scotland in the main prose of the intro. It means including Scotland as his birthplace like it is above. Someone cannot not be described as a Scottish tennis player, just the same as someone cannot be described as a British footballer. You could put Scottish born British tennis player but this implies Scotland is separate to Britain, so the least clumsy way is as above. All this infers rubbish is also wrong. Please remember if you going to quote Wiki policy don't forget the one that says you should assume ignorance on all levels. People reading this article may not know Scotland is in Britain. They also may think reading the words Scottish tennis player that is possible to play tennis for Scotland, which it is not. As you can only represent GB, it must be described as such.
Also on a side note have you noticed all the people arguing Scottish inclusion are members of a Wikipedia Scotland project. I have been told it is insulting to claim that someone’s nationality would effect their editing, but it is clear this is the case. One of the editor and I won't name names had two discussion on his talk page. One to do with this, the other to do with Alexander Graham Bell and his Scottish ness. I see a theme. I fully understand people are proud to be Scot, and a lot of Scots want independence but for now it is still very much part of Britain. I myself am proud to be English, but I have not tried to change Henman’s article to say English, even though I have seen the discussion. Why? Because it is as it should be. And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. The same would go for Lewis Hamilton. I saw a case on the death page the other day. Jane Tomlinson was marked as British, whilst someone else who name escapes me was called Scottish. Surely it's one or the other. These only seem to come around for Scottish people you don't see many Welsh people doing this. JimmyMac82 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I did not mean to cause such an uproar! However, now a sensible compromise has been found, why don't we stop "warring" over this, and spread this example to other British persons, who are Wiki, starting with (of course) Tim henman. Dewarw 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

do what you want with the Henman article, as long as it is constructive. But please discuss the Henman article on the appropriate talk page, not on this one Lurker (said · done) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He should be described as "British," because that is the proper way of saying it. Saying he is Scottish is silly when British will do. All British people should be described as British- how hard is this to see? It also is better for foreign people looking at the page (namely, people from the USA- they will not assume English!). Therefore it should say British. End of story! 81.153.107.190 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

People do assume English. "Scottish" infers "British" to people who know better. To those who don't know any better, it is made clear that he is Scottish. What is so hard to grasp about Scottish inferring British? 77.102.8.117 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article now says both "Scottish" and "British" without making any political statement about his nationality. Is there any need to change this? Lurker (said · done) 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The current revision looks fine to me. I have a feeling someone might end up fiddling with it, though. 77.102.8.117 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self identification

What does Murray identify himself as? Scottish, or British? Why not just use that and be done with it? • Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter what he identifies himself as. This is an encylopedia not a Murray fansite. He could say he was Mongolian, he would still be a British tennis player. JimmyMac82 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer the original question, he identifies as both. Media sources also use both. So both should be included, and I've carefully worded things to make this happen without sounding clumsy. Hopefully, the article will be protected soon. Although the request for protection was used by one participant in an edit war to attack another, which is not a good idea, that doesn't remove the need for this protection. Lurker (said · done) 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Using both seems best, then. • Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, OK! I was just asking, as it seemed if there was a dispute with valid sources on either end, and he said he favors one, that this should receive extra weighting. • Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he favours neither- as an interview cited in the "national identity" section states. BTW, if this article changes again, I will have to report both Clydey and JimmyMac82 for 3RR. Lurker (said · done) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
They just did. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bugger Lurker (said · done) 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Report me, Lurker? I am changing it to *your* edit. How dare you? That is your edit that I am supporting. Where do you get off on threatening me for reverting to your edit, what I consider a fair compromise? Clydey 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And for your information, he favours Scottish more than British. That is why he stated explicitly at Wimbledon 2005 that he is Scottish, that is why he repesented Scotland at the Aberdeen Cup, and that is why he wears a saltire wristband. That enough for you, Lawrence? Clydey 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no stake in this, I just stumbled into this landmine from a recent changes edit I had done, which led to several people commenting on my talk page about it. I have no interest nor care whether the fellow is Scottish, British, French, or Chinese. • Lawrence Cohen 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why would you warn me without checking your facts? You ignored the fact that I was following the consensus and that I adhered to a fair compromise. You ignored JimmyMac82 and the fact that he violated policy. Please, explain to me why I was singled out when I followed consensus? This whole thing makes me a bit sick. Is this what happens when you try to adhere to a conensus that has already been reached? Clydey 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest or singling anyone out, and you'll notice I never even touched this page before... I just saw edit warring. If someone is editing contrary to consensus, my understanding is that does not give you (or any other person) the right to violate 3rr. • Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection requested

See here. • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr reports

I filed the 3rr reports here. Sorry... • Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed that after I filed mine. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Care to respond to me, Lurker? I am upholding your edits and you report me. I wasn't even aware of a 3 edit policy until mentiond today. Not only that, but I just cannot get over the fact that you have it in you to report someone who is using *your* edits. Clydey 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected that page. Work out your disagreements here by discussion. If reverting resumes after the protection expires, I will block individuals. Tom Harrison Talk 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is little chance of us forming a consensus on our own, I'm going to suggest RfC. Any objections? Lurker (said · done) 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem here. Again, does this fellow have a passport? What does it say? Does that equate to nationality? Is Scottish a nationality? Someboby above insinuated that it was, so I was like case closed, but now it seems that this is not the case?? IMHO we should defer to wp:mosbio and use his nationality in the LEAD along with his birthplace and go from there. Anyways, I will now step out and go back to less contentious articles relating to the Middle East, religion and politics :) Cheers and good luck to all! --Tom 15:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Scotland is a nationality. British is also a nationality. People believe that they can't both be. The fact is that Scotland existed as a nationality long before Great Britain. English is also a nationality, although people don't need so much convincing about that one, given that many believe Scotland is just a part of England. It's nonsense and we shouldn't seek to perpetuate that myth. Mentioning both Scotland and Britain is the fairest way to sort this matter. Clydey 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

There is much debate about how to describe this person's nationality. Currently there seem to be two options favoured by parties in this dispute- describe him as British, or describe him as both Scottish and British. How should we describe Murray's nationality? Lurker (said · done) 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear cut case: Murray is a Scot (and as per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY we have the references to prove it). In common with all citizens of the United Kingdom he is entitled to play for both his national team - Scotland - and for the UK team (which in the case of most sports is actually called "Great Britain", for rather complicated reasons mainly to do with Northern Ireland). Murray has been fortunate enough to represent both the Scotland and the GB teams.
This is an encyclopaedia. We are here to disseminate knowledge, not obscure it. English/Northern Irish/Scottish or Welsh implies British; however the reverse is not true!
All other Scots are called Scots here at Wikipedia. You do not suddenly stop being a Scot the moment you pick up a tennis racket. --Mais oui! 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with that. What makes one a "Scot"? Somebody pointed out that being born there does not necessarily make one Scottish. Do Scottish folks have their own passports? Anyways, if reliable sources refer to him as Scottish and he self identifies as a Scott, that would work for me. Is there really some type of Wikipedia standardization for this issue? Maybe the lead should include: Where he was born; What nationality he identifies himself as; and what National teams he has represented. Anyways, good luck :) --Tom 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"What makes one a "Scot"?" - Most sports have very similar rules regarding nationality. You are allowed to represent your national team if you fulfil certain criteria (usually to do with birthplace, residence and/or parents/grandparents). An example of such nationality criteria is explained at the England national cricket team article. Murray obviously fulfills the criteria set by the national governing body Tennis Scotland, otherwise he would not be selected to represent the country. --Mais oui! 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Further link: Tennis Scotland's official website: www.tennisscotland.org. --Mais oui! 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should certainly avoid using the term 'Scot' as synonymous with 'Scottish (person)' as it carries more ethnic connotations and can occasionally be considered pejorative. --Breadandcheese 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray calls himself a Scot, has lived most of his life in Scotland, and has Scottish parents. That's good enough for me. --MacRusgail 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He clearly views himself as both and that is verifiable. Ergo, both should feature or none at all. I very much disagree with Mais oui! that Scottish identity automatically implies British identity, in fact in 25% of cases it does not, apparently. --Breadandcheese 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible to be Scottish and not be British? It's not possible unless we're talking in terms of ethnicity. Also, 'Scot' is not a derogatory term. Clydey 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite simple - some people are offended by notions of Britishness, particularly its imperialist associations. In a few cases, a Scot may take non-British citizenship to avoid travelling on a British passport for example. --MacRusgail 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The chief way, it seems, that Wikipedia analyses identity is on the basis of self-identification. Therefore someone who identifies with being Scottish, but not British, is the former. As my poll cited above suggests, it's not an enormously uncommon belief. --Breadandcheese 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
For a moment I thought this might be a sensible discussion. Perhaps, Breadandcheese, you may wish to take the phrase, "we should certainly avoid using the term 'English' " to, for example the David Beckham talk page? When such a discussion reaches consensus that the use of this word "can occasionally be considered pejorative" and should be avoided, I for one would be happy to take your suggestions seriously. For now however, I am struggling to find a category to place this notion in that would also imply that I find your ideas intentionally helpful. As to the main question, the existing version seems fine to me. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but all the same in some contexts I've seen it considered a prejorative term. The same does not apply to 'Scottish' or 'English' - in the same way that 'Paki' is not conflated with 'Pakistani'. We wouldn't go around labeling British people as 'Brits' for similar reasons. --Breadandcheese 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm reposting this down here as I posted it up there day ago but seems the discussion has moved on to here.
Lets take Rusedski for example. He was born in Canada, so therefore by this reckoning he is Canadian, but he is a British tennis player, he represented them in the sport. He's not a Canadian tennis player is he? No. Never has been, but he's still Canadian. So as his article states Gregory "Greg" Rusedski (born September 6, 1973, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) is a former British tennis player. Similarly Andy Murray should read. Andy Murray (born May 15, 1987, in Glasgow, Scotland) is a British tennis player. This is what the bio policy means. It doesn't mean including Scotland in the main prose of the intro. It means including Scotland as his birthplace like it is above. Someone cannot not be described as a Scottish tennis player, just the same as someone cannot be described as a British footballer. You could put Scottish born British tennis player but this implies Scotland is separate to Britain, so the least clumsy way is as above. All this infers rubbish is also wrong. Please remember if you going to quote Wiki policy don't forget the one that says you should assume ignorance on all levels. People reading this article may not know Scotland is in Britain. They also may think reading the words Scottish tennis player that is possible to play tennis for Scotland, which it is not. As you can only represent GB, it must be described as such.

Also on a side note have you noticed all the people arguing Scottish inclusion are members of a Wikipedia Scotland project. I have been told it is insulting to claim that someone’s nationality would affect their editing, but it is clear this is the case. One of the editor and I won't name names had two discussion on his talk page. One to do with this, the other to do with Alexander Graham Bell and his Scottish ness. I see a theme. I fully understand people are proud to be Scot, and a lot of Scots want independence but for now it is still very much part of Britain. I myself am proud to be English, but I have not tried to change Henman’s article to say English, even though I have seen the discussion. Why? Because it is as it should be. And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. The same would go for Lewis Hamilton. I saw a case on the death page the other day. Jane Tomlinson was marked as British, whilst someone else who name escapes me was called Scottish. Surely it's one or the other. These only seem to come around for Scottish people you don't see many Welsh people doing this. JimmyMac82 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not a part of project Scotland. And even if I was, it would be in no way relevant to my motives. I am also not a supporter of Scottish independence. You appear to put the SNP on a par with the BNP for whatever reason. I'm a firm believer that the separate nations can keep their own identity whilst still being of benefit to one another. I veered off topic a little, but your incessant sniping is becoming tiresome. Clydey 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And surely, if I had an agenda I would want to change it to English in order to claim Britain’s most successful tennis player in 70 years as our own. Please don't make out that you are being accused of having an agenda. You've given up the right to say that be your constant snide insinuations that any editor who disagrees with you has a political, nationalist agenda. Lurker (said · done) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On many occasion Clydey has accused me of having an agenda, on both talk pages and in edit summaries. And if anything you are the one accusing me of wanting to do away with all Scottish references. Also I give up no right. England still has free speech, I'm guessing Scotland being the same country is the same. Now if both of you would like to attempt to answer the first part of that post rather than snipe at the second part, we might get somewhere. JimmyMac82 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also not part of project Scotland or any other Scottish agenda... My opinion from the previous discussion still stands. British_or_Scottish. Sticking with the old not all brits are scots but all scots are brits idea. Scottish people have been around for a few hundred years, how can anyone argue that a Scottish nationality/ethnicity doesn't exist? --I already forgot 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for disclaimers like "I'm not part of a Scottish project". Doing this dignifies the slur that Scottish editors are somehow biased. Lurker (said · done) 10:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The statement was adding in response to Scottish editors being wrongly accused of bias. Doesn't matter, we should stick to the topic at hand and not comment on the editor or non-controversial edits made to the talk page. --I already forgot 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page being edited to suggest Andy Murray is English? Is there any justification for this?--Breadandcheese 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like simple vandalism to me. I don't think there is any purpose other than having a laugh. Lurker (said · done) 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish is not a nationality. It's like starting Roddick's article with "Andy Roddick is a Texan professional tennis player..." 62.131.85.211 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the very first line of that "Scottish" wikilink you're using. Perhaps you'll learn something. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Murray is British whether he likes it or not. He payes taxes to the UK, holds a UK passport, is a citizen of the UK etc etc. Not to mention the fact that he represents Great Britian at tennis? Are the Scottish really that petty and small time to refuse to have him known as British? You're all a bunch of idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.40.90 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Master Cup

When did Murray take a Tennis Master Cup? I never hear that. 125.212.157.54 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fansite Controversy

This has been recently added and appears to be a minor legal copyright spat between the official andymurray.com & fansite murraysworld.com. It is unlikely to directly involve Murray himself. As such I think it should be removed. Thoughts? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to dissect what is wrong with the original contribution;
a fan site about Andy Murray received a legal request by his lawyers
The letter refers to www.andymurray.com as the lawyers' client. This is not necessarily Murray himself.
to cease and desist all use of photographs and images of Andy Murray
The letter specifically refers to photographs and images from their website that they own copyright on. It's incorrect to claim that they say all photographs and images of Murray. That would be ridiculous and legally unenforceable.
or risk "serious consequences"
The letter specifically says that the "serious consequences" would be a result of not responding to the letter, i.e. ignoring it.
the fan site claimed that the legal threats were attempts to "suppress a website because it is often critical and in some cases damaging to Murray's image due to its journalistic principles".
This claim comes from a moderator on a forum post in the website. Is this a representative of the website? Maybe. But it's open to question, which is why forum posts are generally not acceptable cites on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The letter actually refers to all images that the website does not have copyright over regardless of whether the official website owns it or not.

I have included a statement from the fan site - although it appears the comment is simply from a moderator, if you go into the user's profile you will see that the user is in fact the administrator of the website. I included the statement because if you look at the Wikipedia page of Prince and the Prince vs Fansite controversy section, they also decided to do this.

You're right about the whole Murray lawyer inaccuracy, I have now reworded it to "Onside Law, the legal firm representing Andy Muray, made an official legal request" which is 100% accurate.

I also agree with the rest of your edits and hope you agree with mine as well. 81.99.127.149 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The bit that refers to 'all' is being lifted out of context. Everything else on the letter makes it clear the "all" they're talking about is the material that they own copyright on. Any other request would be ridiculous as they have no authority, or concern, over copyright images owned by other parties. The lawyers are also representing the website, the letter explicitly say this. Bringing Murray into it implies his personal involvement in a matter that he may well have nothing to do with or interest in. Unless you can produce a cite that says he's involved, we can only go with what the letter says; which is the website. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is rediculous that the letter asks for ALL materials on Murray to be removed.
"We ask for your confirmation by return that you will immediately remove all photographs of Mr Murray that you do not own copyright in".
But at the end of the day, it is a legal document and has to be represented exactly how it was written. It is not our right as Wikipedia editors to make an edit based on our own interpretations of the situation however likely it is that we are correct. It's especially important as this particular part of the legal document is one of the main factors behind the fansite's argument of suppression and therefore would surely be wrong to ignore.
I concede to your argument regarding the legal representation, as technically the wording of the legal document shows you to be right even though the firm obviously works for Andy Murray. 81.99.127.149 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height

I think 190cm is actually about 6ft 2 and a quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.173 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)