Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Career biography split

There is a split suggestion tag for this section which I strongly disagree with, seeing as his biography is nowhere near as lengthy or detailed enough to warrant this. It's summarised rather well unlike the Nadal/Federer articles which had a stronger case. Unless anyone disagrees with this I think we should remove the tag. Feudonym (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you; it works well in its current summarised forum. There is no need for it to be split into a new article. Nottmlad (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nickname?

Why is Mount Murray not even mentioned in the article one bit, when it is very popular and even at Wimbledon they call the hill that as well! I am curious.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit of a fad. It has been called Murray Mound, Mount Murray, Murray Mount, Murray Mountain and even Murrayfield. The relevent material is at Henman Hill#Other names. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Long sentances

Really annoying. But when you edit, read it back and split the sentances. Especially, if you are adding detail. For example: At the BNP Paribas Open Masters 1000 event held in Indian Wells, USA, he defeated Andreas Seppi, Michael Russell and an early finish against Nicolas Almagro who retired at the end of the 1st set, to enter his second straight quarter final.

This is an example of someone's edit where they added 'Masters 1000 event held in Indian Wells, USA' Here there should have been a full stop and a new sentance instead of a comma, creating a really long sentance, which runs out of natural at the end of USA. So a new sentance of He defeated and then carrying on is better English. But I have already edited this, just for future notice. KnowIG (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's difficult to keep the article structured and not monotonous, while still getting a lot of similarly repetitive facts across in prose. Edits that make mistakes with the syntax can easily be missed and cause confusion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

H2H what's the point?

It just makes the article longer, if we have every player who appeared in the top ten listed. Plus it's what the ATP site is used for. Particually as Murray is very likely to be around for the next decade. I say we remove it, as it is not on other players articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Birth Place and Residence query

Just a little comment. How can Andy Murray be born in Dunblane, SCOTLAND but be living in London, UNITED KINGDOM. Surely he has to be born in Dunblane, Scotland and be living in London, England OR he has to have been born in Dunblane, UNITED KINGDOM and had be currently living in London, UNITED KINGDOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrychown (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's far too inconsistent, as is the fact that Murray is described as being Scottish rather than British whilst Tim Henman is described as being British rather than English on his page. Nottmlad (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't born in Dunblane. He was born in Glasgow. See the cite. What Tim Henman is described as is a matter for the Tim Henman article. As guidelines suggest, we shouldn't try to impose uniformity over this complicated issue. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original point. London is generally listed as London, United Kingdom as it is the UK's capital city. All other cities, towns etc. are identified by their individual countries, rather than the sovereign state.David T Tokyo (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be consistency here whatever. It looks silly to have his place of birth in the current version of the article as Glasgow, Scotland, while giving his place of residence as London, United Kingdom. There has been far too much edit warring and debate over this, but I am passing on this one as any edits would probably lead to more enthusiastic reverting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because it "looks silly" doesn't mean it's incorrect. For example, here is a page that lists London's address as "UK" and all other cities by their country. As I said in my previous point, the fact that London is the sovereign state capital makes a difference.David T Tokyo (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As argued before it should be consistent. Saying London, UK and Glasgow, Scotland is the norm is OR. It should be consistent in showing the United Kingdom as that is the nation he represents. The edit has been stable up until the Aussie Open and I don't any reason on this talk page to change that.194.179.120.4 (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does OR mean? If you're saying it's wrong please provide a reference that clearly shows it, otherwise it's just your POV. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could the article be left as it is for the time being? I know this is Wikipedia where everything has to be debated to the nth degree, but the current consensus is to give the United Kingdom for both cities. Citing "other stuff exists" arguments on both sides is unlikely to be very enlightening here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have investigated the issue myself, and now three months on from your request, I see that there is no WP guideline that dictates that London be paired permanently with UK and not England. See these examples among many: The Clash, Status Quo, Steve Jones (musician). All are given as London, England. I accept that the UK forms have been requested by user:Ianmacm but that does not constitute a concensus as claimed by a disruptive IP who keeps restoring UK. My personal preference is to use the term United Kingdom, but there is far too much inconsistency across Wikipedia itself and the idea that the constituent countries should be equal to all external sovereign states carries more weight across the board. And besides, even if there were such thing as "London must be UK", we are still faced with a problem that a similar convention would exist to call everything else by its constituent nation giving us the undesirable inconsistency. But no such rule applies and no concensus has been reached. Constituent nations far outnumber UK on articles. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Non Neutral Edits

KnowlG has done an excellent job in recent edits in cutting down a lot of waffle in the article. However, there are a number of problems introduced. This is why I edited them.

Not Neutral

Wikipedia should be neutral. This is through the use of words like 'dramatic' and phrases such as "a legandary victory", "a place in the publics hearts secured." or "bravely battled on and almost won the match" These are clearly not neutral as they all offer the writer's opinion of Murray's performance or of the match.

Legandary is not an overstatement when talking about a match which no one gave Andy a hope of winning. Even the BBC imply that legandary is the word to use http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8132893.stm when they say not likely to live the moment of cramping down. Also in the same article it implies that Murray wasn't fully developed thus causing cramps. At the moment the article reads that he was unfit he wasn't. As off memory and there will probably be a link later he was cramping due to his back being not fully developed.KnowIG (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Legendary" is a Peacock term and is not for us to apply. In fact, it's utterly incorrect as it only applies to people or events whose existence cannot be or has not been proved, whereas Murray, er, and his match, do exist. If the BBC described the match as "legendary", we might state that they so described it, but even so, that's only one opinion. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is an overstatement is not the issue. It's an opinion that is not supported by any notable person. It is also not Wikipedia's job to determine what is 'implied'. Let the reader reach their own conclusion of what is meant by sticking to what the cite says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

"legandary" , "recieved" "occured", "it's" "Swizerland" "retierd" ...

Speculation

The text opinions as to what may have happened or may yet happen. Wikipedia should not contain speculation such as "occured when he looked well set for the match".

Andy

It is usual to refer to an article's subject by their last name, unless there is a possibility of confusion (for example within a family). Referring to Murray as 'Andy' is over familiarity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please KnowlG, it would save us both a lot of time if you could take on board the following;

• Neutrality. Describing things as 'a hero's welcome', 'fantastic' or 'historic' is not neutral as you are offering your opinion. Calling it 'artistic description' doesn't exempt you from following encyclopaedic standards.
• Descriptions of play. Describing play as 'tame', 'comfortable' or that players 'surprised', 'stormed back' or 'raced' is again offering your own opinion of things. If this was permitted other editors could justifiably sprinkle the text with "fortunate', 'lucky' or 'plodding' as their opinion of the play.
• Spelling. Please use a spell checker if you have difficulty with spelling. Repeated errors like 'recieved' or 'consecuative' makes the whole article look sloppy and amateur.
• Grammar - I know it's easy to do when editing existing test. but leaving fragments of sentences like "Before he stormed back from 2 sets down against Melzer." confuses everything. What happened before?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

VIEW SOURCE?

Why can you only view the source? I want to edit the page as I have some vaulable contributions. Can some admin please ammend this mistake. Love 2 B Fair (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected due to disruptive editing. Established users can still edit the article, but other users should make requests on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Love 2 B Fair is blocked indef as WP:DE sockpuppet of User:Sinbad Barron. --Tadija^speaks 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom vs Constituent countries

In the absence of a true concensus regarding this matter, I am starting a section as per User:Escape Orbit's suggestion that the affair be discussed. Before anyone gets carried away by my recent editing, I wish to clarify that my position is PRO- and not ANTI- sovereign nation. I'd like to see UK used everywhere for all subejcts, alongside Scotland, Wales, etc. perhaps. But all I can see when consulting the various British subject articles is constituent country only. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Evlekis. The description of United Kingdom has been on this article, since last July. That is a long time for this article when it concerns this often disputed matter. Anything that prevents dispute has to be a good thing, even if it is an uneasy compromise. There are good reasons for it to say London, United Kingdom.

• It helps emphasis, for those who wish it emphasised, that Murray is a citizen of the United Kingdom. This balances in part the Scottish nationality stated in the lead.
• Murray's residence in London is on the basis that he is from the United Kingdom. He is there because it is the capital of the United Kingdom, not because it is the capital of England.
• Otherwise it makes no factual difference whatsoever to the description of London.

There is no guideline that London be paired with UK, and equally nothing that dictates that it should be with England. What is therefore used on each article therefore depends on what works for that article. As guidelines note on the related question of nationality; "Do not enforce uniformity. It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels." I would suggest the same applies here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your points, all of them. You won't believe this but you are preaching to the converted. My edits did not reflect my true sentiments. I accept the point about uniformity as well, since keeping things the same is not practical. There comes a point when one crashes as a result of trying to enforce a single policy. The other thing is that with my own personal background (former Yugoslavia, Balkans/Central Europe, etc.), I'm only too familiar with the confusions caused by ethnicity/nationality; nationality used to mean ethnicity; ethnicity presented in an obscure way (eg. Black European, British Asian, etc.), and so on. That is probably the best example of a phenomenon that is not universally embraced. If there is to be a concensus, my vote is with UK on all stations, but I'd like to see this everywhere, and that is not going to happen. In the meantime, with constituent nations proving to be widely popular, are you happy to keep the article in its present shape (ie. England, United Kingdom)? Or do you seriously wish to see ENG and SCO removed? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be overkill detailing both constituent countries and UK. Because it appears as redundant, the insertion of the constituent countries before the United Kingdom could be interpreted as POV emphasis that London is in England, or Glasgow is in Scotland, which in turn is likely to cause someone to remove it, and so we go around again.... I would prefer simply Glasgow, Scotland on his place of birth (it's more precise and describes much about him) and London, United Kingdom on his residence (as I explain above). Or, failing that, simply United Kingdom alone on both. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back, I thought you'd forgotten this part. I'm happy with Glasgow, SCO and London, UK; I can't guarantee it will stay unless we add a footnote. But then neither of us have the authority to mark text giving orders to other equal users. Scotland one place and UK the other reflects some inconsistency, but that doesn't worry me personally. Shall we go for it then? Your original? Glas - SCO; Lon - UK? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've done this. It's not perfect, and appears inconsistent, but that's how things have to be sometimes. Hopefully it won't get changed without good reason in future. Thank you for your constructive input. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. This is an unusual scenario and you know the aphorism that states: "there is always an exception to the rule", and we've found an example. At the time of me writing this, you have already made the edit, so for the purpose of future discussions - should any observer wish to consult this piece once it is archived - I am in favour of your arrangement, and so we have an agreement. This talk section in turn may be viewed as a continuation of the topic discussed farther up the page. A solution has been reached so I believe this matter is concluded. So thanks for your efforts and diplomacy Escape Orbit, particularly in not resisting the temporary exaggerated entry that stood until previously. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The current edit is such POV. Why the fascination to show Scotland as being different? It's incredibly misleading to the reader. United Kingdom to both should be the solution. It's already confusing enough with his sporting nationality.83.41.0.114 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with showing Scotland as being different or misleading in any way. Saying Scotland offers greater precision and, as the above discussion explains, is a compromise that has minimized dispute for longer than any other. Yes, it's not simple. Yes, it could be seen as confusing. But that's because it isn't simple and is complex. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I have not looked at the history because I have been away from Wikipedia for over a week (until now). I see however that someone has saved my original suggestion, constituent nation + sovereign country but I thought we had agreed that this was somewhat painful for the eyes. Now where do we go?! Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::UK or Great Briatin, one or the other, that's what he is. Never say "Scotland" or "England" because it is not PC. Love 2 B Fair (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Love 2 B Fair is blocked indef as WP:DE sockpuppet of User:Sinbad Barron. --Tadija^speaks 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Link for the first use of the word "British"

I put a link on the first use of the word British, It is linked much further down the article but not at the start. So for the person that took the link away, can I ask "why" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoBrit (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. If Scottish is to be mentioned first in the introduction i see no reason why the wikilink for British should not be used there in that introduction as well in the sentence on being British number 1. It is very strange for the first link to be near the bottom of the article in that identity section. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ANDY Scottish or British ???

I think it should say "British", He plays for Great Britain, If he wins any competion he will show off a "Union Flag" (the symbol of the "British). Me being Scottish would not have any problems with that saying British, Does anyone disagree ? ScoBrit (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus on Wikipedia, reached after much metaphorical bloodshed, that Britons who strongly identify with one of the constituent nations should be described as such. Hence, Murray describes himself as Scottish, and therefore so do we. Rodhullandemu 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont think andy has came out and said that he does not want to be called "British", The reason for it being "British" is because the fact that he plays for "Great Britain" and not "Scotland" is clear. Murray has also made is clear that he is British on a number of interviews that I could post here on wiki. If he played for Scotland then yes it should say "Scottish" but no he plays for team "Great Britain" so that makes him British.ScoBrit (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:UKNATIONALS. This article has had its fill of circular editing on the issue, please, no more, even though it is Wimbledon fortnight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of us are unhappy with WP:UKNATIONALS which of course is just advice and not actual policy that must be followed. This debate will continue to come up here and on other articles because Wikipedias policy of not having a policy on all this is a joke.

Andy murray is Scottish and British. He plays for Britain and is known for being Britains number 1 there for he should be called British in the introduction. A footballer should be called Scottish, a tennis player should not. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The intro to the article has a hidden comment regarding this, stating This is, as Wikipedia guidelines suggest, as he self identifies and by long term consensus but with the continuous subsequent warring on this matter it is unclear whether the this referred to is British or Scottish. I've seen this war resurface in this article several times and I dare say I might be able to work out from the copious talk page archives if there is a consensus and what it is. Life's too short and this is wasting editors' time that could be more usefully expended. Threads are archived after 60 days so any previous decision, consensus or whatever on the matter is not immediately visible to new combatants, possibly unknowingly reviving this war. Can someone clarify in the hidden comment what the consensus was and (if it's possible to put a link in a hidden comment) link to the relevant section of the talk archives? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"as wikipedia guidelines suggest", that term is rather misleading because this whole area is simply covered by advice, which does not have to be followed and can be viewed in different ways anyway. As far as im concerned that UKNATIONALS page justifies using British not Scottish here.

• He plays for Great Britain.

• He is the British number one.

• He does not reject being British.

• Almost every time he is in the media it is British sport related.

• There are a huge number of sources calling him British.

There is certainly no overwhelming case for this article to start by calling him Scottish like there would be for Alex Salmond or Sean Connery. The default position of all articles regaring British citizens should be that they are called British unless there is justification for it not being British, like the two people i mentioned above or those who only play for Scotland at sport.

Of course a compromise could be that we simply remove "Scottish" from that first sentence but put that he was born in (Edinburgh, Scotland) straight after when he was born. That would stop people changing it between Scottish/British all the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at exhaustive length and it re-appears like clockwork every Wimbledon. Please refer to many, many, many previous discussions. The consensus is, as is usually the case, a compromise. It doesn't necessarily delight everyone, but it's the closest we've got. This consensus balances him being Scottish with being British and works like;

• The info box says Great Britain, because that is who he represents in competition as a tennis player.
• The lead says 'Scottish' because it is what he has personally self identified as, as an individual, as WP:UKNATIONALS suggests. It also is more specific terminology, as MOS:IDENTITY suggests. Yes, he also identifies as British, but if we don't say 'Scottish' here, where else can it go? If it is removed, you can be sure it will be re-added and no consensus will ever be reached.
• The lead also says he is British #1. This emphasises his position as a British tennis player.
• There is no "default position" for British citizens, as BritishWatcher claims. Guidelines specifically say; "Do not enforce uniformity. It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels."

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this has been gone over many times in the past, the fact it still comes up highlights the present situation may not be the best option. I will reply in more detail to your points later on, focus should be on the matter below and the possibility the article has incorrect info on his birthplace, once that is resolved one way or another can return to this. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed the default position was to put British, that is the reason why i reject the UKNATIONALS advice because it fails to accept someone is a British citizen/national and there for that should be the default position unless there is specific reasons to list them as Scottish or English... Like being a separatist or being famous for playing a sport for Scotland / England.

"Andy is a Scottish professional tennis player " is how the introduction starts, yet he plays for Britain in his capacity as that professional tennis player. Thats why it makes sense to say "Wayne Rooney is an English football player", it makes less sense to say Scottish professional tennis player. The article has a section on his national identity so there is no reason why the introduction could not have a single sentence on how he identifies himself and we could also add the fact he was born in Scotland after his birthdate. You say if we removed it someone is bound to come and re add it, yet we saw endless changes when he played the other day as well so that problem applies no matter what is said.

The fact the introduction clearly says he is British number 1 does make this whole thing less of a concern, if that was not there i would have a much bigger problem with the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with WP:UKNATIONALS advice you should pursue the matter there. Otherwise I'd say we follow it, as it has been discussed at great length and is proving a successful reference point for many articles. There is nothing special about Murray that he needs to be treated differently.

Unfortunately your example of Rooney is not a good one. Rooney is both English, and plays for the English national team. It may be different if Rooney played for the British Football team.

Murray, for the most part, plays tennis for himself. His nationality in most matches is largely irrelevant. So nationality shouldn't be over-emphasised in relation to his tennis. Don't forget the article is about a person, not just a tennis player. He is a Scottish person, who is a professional tennis player. If Murray self-identifies as Scottish the article should reflect this, no matter what his status is as a tennis player.

It is rarely acceptable to have birth place act as a stand-in for nationality. There are too many cases where they are unrelated and misleading. I'm also not keen on having the issue of how he self-identifies feature in the lead. Just because various Wikipedia editors make a big deal of it, doesn't mean it's that important to the article. Murray doesn't make a big deal of it himself and it isn't why he's important.

It's true we're going to see edits in the coming days over this, we always do. But I still say that what's there has worked over some while as a consensus, and you haven't suggested any improvement other than effectively removing the word "Scottish". I see that as guaranteed to make things worse. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe saying British is fully in line with UKNATIONALS and i have debated the flaws in the advice that page gives before. He is Scottish but he is a British professional tennis player there for it would make more sense to call him British. The example of Wayne rooney perfectly fits in with my point, of course he must be called English because he plays for England. As the infobox correctly shows Murray plays for Great Britain.

I agree it is not a big deal for him as he accepts both identities, but both sides of editors on wikipedia make it a big deal by demanding that Scottish or British must be in the first sentence. It is certainly not one sided. I am simply supporting the suggestion that he is a British professional tennis player and that the wording in the introduction should reflect that. I offered the suggestion that considering there is a whole section on national identity it might be justified for a single line on how he identifies himself. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And everything you are saying would be just as valid if we were to say "he is a Scottish professional tennis player". He is a Scottish professional tennis player, who plays for the Great Britain team. He is a Scottish professional tennis player, who is the British male #1. The lead and info box covers all the bases in a balanced fashion, in line with all agreed protocols created exactly for complicated issues like this.

The point is he has self identified as Scottish, just as much as British, yet you want to remove all mention of his Scottish identity from the lead paragraph. Every guideline on Wikipedia agrees that Wikipedia editors can split as many hairs as they like, it's what the subject self-identifies that counts.

My concern about it not being made a big deal of is only in so far that the lead shouldn't start to reflect even a tiny fraction of the debate that the issue provokes on the talk pages. The reader has all the info they need to understand he is both Scottish & British. They don't need to read by what process Wikipedia editors have reached consensus on this, how its should be presented, or be lead into the debate. It's all a side issue covered more than adequately in the section further down the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said it should not mention the fact he is Scottish in the first paragraph, i just think that its more in line with the advice to say hes a British professional Tennis player in the first line. There is clearly not going to be consensus here to change it to British, but such a change would be just as valid.

In a way this is the same problem as on many articles which the current advice provide little help in resolving, simply comes down to who had enough numbers and previous consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove "Scottish" from the first sentence, yet still have it in the lead paragraph, where would you put it without it sounding like it's been added as clumsy compensation? How are you going to mention the question of his nationality in the lead, without it appearing that Wikipedia has settled it for him by not mentioning "Scottish" in the lead sentence? Do you not think that having Scottish in the lead sentence, alongside British, offers the reader more information that repeating of "British" wouldn't? Is it not accurate? Is it not self-identified? Is it not more precise? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"where would you put it without it sounding like it's been added as clumsy compensation? " It probably would be seen as there just for the sake of it to appease people although considering national identity has a whole section in the article there is no reason why a sentence wouldnt be justified which could cover it.

I agree at the moment it being able to mention both Scottish and British in the first sentence does provide the reader with both bits of information, but there is no reason why it couldnt be handled in another sentence. Bottom line is he is a British professional Tennis player, and as he identifies as also being British and is a British citizen it should take primacy over anything else. It could say he was a "British professional tennis player born in Scotland". There are many articles which currently start with Scottish or English that could also mention British for fairness, but do not. This is the whole problem with that UKNATIONALS advice, it is clearly flawed and still leaves open huge room for dispute and interpretation. The articles should clearly state citizenship and allow a way of mentioning Scottish / Welsh / English etc.

Anyway i can see we are not going to agree on this and there is little chance of the current wording being changed so we can leave the debate there. Maybe same time next year when Wimbledon is on we can see if views have changed then :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• This whole 'he self identifies as Scottish' assertion is a load of balls tbh. What do people expect him to say? That he's martian? It's just a fact, it's not some philosophical statement. As far as I can see, the evidence backing this assertion up to show it is some sort of ethno-political standpoint is as weak as piss, because not only does he immediately follow it up with 'I'm also British', he seems to spend most of his time in the press fauning over how much he loves the English, especially after that remark, and how he loves all things British, even after the latest bowing to the Queen will he won't he palaver - he couldn't have made it clearer in those statments that he thinks of himself as British as a bulldog, a loyal subject of her maj. Frankly, if Murray is an example of someone who primarily identifies as Scottish, in an ethno-political capacity, as people seem to be suggesting, then the SNP are fucked for life (although even they have recently backtracked it seems and now want equal status under the Crown - what would Mel have said to that I wonder). If people have better arguments than this that I've not seen, I suggest they create a FAQ for the article, because the current position does not look justifiable, and using British in the lede seems eminently supportable by his almost total lack of rampant, or even what would classify as average, level of Scottishness. Frankly, he's a pretty poor tennis player and has the most boring voice I've ever heard in my life, so it's beyond me why people want to claim him as a perfect example of all things Scottish at all, although the idea that Scots are rubbish at sports is a common comic stereotype I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Lmao i always love reading your contributions :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Fortunately personal opinions on an article's subject do not determine what should be in the article. But I'm glad you are agreed that Murray being Scottish is 'just a fact'. That's what a lead should concentrate on; facts. (BTW, HRH is half Scottish and Queen of Scotland, so your observations on Murray's royalist position is doubly irrelevant). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What a rubbish reply. Yes it is a fact, but you know fine well that that is not how nationality for all UK nationals is dealt with in Wikipedia, and the 'self identification' concept is not about basic FACTS!. Deciding uk leads would would be a piece of piss if it were. Yes, I gave you my opinions, but I also refereed to the sources apparently used to back up the assertion that he self-identifies as Scottish for the purposes of UKNATIONALS. Something you just ignored. If you can't respond to people's entire posts, or think that this sarcastic garbage is remotely acceptable as a way to debate, and you just want to answer what is convenient for your position, which you can take as read is already known, then frankly, don't waste my time or anyone else's by even replying. And don;t even start with the 'Queen is Scottish' bollocks, she's also part-German, and Queen of Canada, and a whole load of things that are, for this issue, total irrelevant crap. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the idea that he felt supremely honuored to be bowing to her maj at Wimbledon because she's Queen of Scotland is freaking hilarious. yes, that's my personal opinion. But if this notion appears anywhere in souces either, I've yet to see it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This whole debate is almost entirely irrelevant. It mentions both Scottish and British in the first line. Andy is both Scottish and British. So this is what an encyclopaedia should say, and it does. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact it mentions he is British number 1 reduces the need for change but it does not change the fact he should be described as a British professional Tennis player and not a Scottish one. British should be the default term used unless there is specific reason not to say it for example (Scottish/English footballers or separatists). Whilst the current wording is able to mention both pretty well, do not dismiss this as an irrelevant issue. This is a wikipedia wide serious problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why [is it a serious problem]? --Pretty Green (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Because in many other cases the person does not happen to be "British number 1" there for there is no British in the first sentence at all. I accept in this case it is helpful to the reader to be able to state Scottish and British in the first sentence, if only that was the case across wikipedia articles i would not consider it a serious problem.

Almost all people articles state the persons nationality which is also their citizenship. UK people are British nationals and have British citizenship, the fact they also consider themselves Scottish, Welsh etc can be mentioned but British should be there too. Today that is simply not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; sorry if my comments were a bit facetious. I do get your point but equally think that as long as we can cheat our way out of situations (Scottish tennis player and British number one) then we should, and that this issue should be a case by case thing. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't be replying to MickMacNee in future until he reads WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK and follows them. No one is interested in his opinions of Murray and this talk page is not the place to air them. If he can't learn to discuss improving the article with peppering his contributions with his own personal thoughts on the subject, then he has no right to demand others sort out the wheat from the chaff. And there is a lot of chaff there. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another pointless reply. You are suggesting I need to AGF with someone who just cherry picks others people's words? Do me a favour. I don't care if you want to ignore me, my post is there for all to see, everyone can see how truthfull your asessment of what I said is. If you've got nothing to say other than to waste peoples time with this pathetic tantrum when you are called out on your twisting of other people's words, then just don't say anything. Nobody has to seek your permission, or specifically engage with you, in order to be allowed discuss this article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

Article says he was born in Glasgow and that it should not be changed because it is said on his bio. His website says his birthplace is Dunblane. [1] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did just change it to Dunblane considering two of the 3 sources no longer exist and his site says its Dunblane now but i have reverted so we can get agreement here and be sure its accurate. Need to check for some other reliable sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting this - please see discussions about this in the AM archives. Although we're onto a new talkpage it doesn't mean we can ignore previous conversations - and on this issue there have been many, However, I agree that it is extremely misleading that his own website is saying one thing while others are saying something else (although it should be pointed out that this isn't the first time that's happened). Personally, I think it's possible that as his website has been put together by a 3rd party they may have taken a standard line in his bio (something like "Andy Murray is from Dunblane" and taken that to mean he was born there too.

To anyone who wants further discussion on this can you please look through the archives first, and raise your concerns here and get consensus before changing anything. Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry British Watcher - just noticed you've decided to wait rather than revert - thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I misread the Scottishroots source thinking it backed up using Dunblane, didnt notice the following sentence saying about Glasgow so i reverted after i saw that because i am less sure. [2] and [3] back up Dunblane. I would trust the BBC and fan site and his own site over that scottish roots site, unless there are other sources backing it up as Glasgow. It is pretty scary when you think about how easy it is for wikipedia articles to potentially be wrong on something so big as where he was born. :\ We need a volunteer to go to Wimbledon and try and get to his mother and ask her, she is the only one who must know for sure. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was a home birth, he is far more likely to have been born in Glasgow. There is no hospital in Dunblane. His website definitely also used to have a bio by Murray himself that said Glasgow. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And indeed his website still says this; http://www.andymurray.com/about/biography. Born 15th May 1987, in Glasgow, Scotland Think that's Glasgow Royal Infirmary pictured. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok ive removed the two dead links and replaced it with the one to that biography. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray Photo

We need a photo of Murray in 2010 (Wimbledon?) wearing his new adidas gear instead of older shots of him wearing Fred Perry clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As ever this comes back to WP:NFCC. There is a 2008 image on Commons here, and I am not a great fan of the current infobox image. Not much choice, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You can take a pick from the pictures on commons. My favourite 2010 picure is this [4] Someone needs to crop it though so that Andy's in the middle, if you are a perfectionist KnowIG (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the cropped 2010 Australian Open photo. Anyone prefer this to the current infobox image?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Good work. More upto date as Murray is wearing the correct gear. Can get one of him smiling later. But it's nice to have an 'action' shot KnowIG (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and added this, because it gives a clearer view of his face and has a less distracting background than the previous image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1.1 Dunblane massacre

I'm not quite Wikipedia literate but I personally do not believe this is a huge significant factor of his Early days and should be blended with the rest of the heading 'Early Life' .

I agree it was pretty significant but not to the extend that it needs it's own mini heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this too. I don't think it needs a mini heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.130.0 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest changes

Im not sure i agree with the latest changes, especially : "Murray has often seen to be moody and has been a source of fun early in his career. Murray early in his career was often prone to PR gaffes" I do not think that belongs in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe some of the latests additions are appropriate for this BLP. Does the fact a source or two say "he is moody" mean it should be in this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, BLPs are not magazine profiles, and should stick to factual material as far as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please remove - "Murray has often seen to be moody and has been a source of fun early in his career. Murray early in his career was often prone to PR gaffes." -, its not even backed up by solid sources saying this. Ive already undone a couple of edits on this page in the past 24 hours, dont want to be accused of edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've removed this, as it is not well worded BLP material. Please establish a talk page WP:CONSENSUS before adding this in a similar form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stupid I'm reverting saying that it's not backed up by a solid source is poor. It's written by a jounalist for a broadsheet paper. If you don't like it rephrase it, don't delete KnowIG (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about a living person are ultimately guided by WP:BLP. The phrase that was removed contains sweeping statements of POV that are against the spirit of WP:BLP. This does not really need to be in the article, and it seems to have become a test of will to prevent other editors from removing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a solution then wise guy! OH WAIT you haven't got one...APART FROM delete which leaves everyone going what is image all about. Sort it out instead of deleting.KnowIG (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When the problematic bits are deleted its left with a blank space. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there are clear WP:BLPSTYLE issues here, whatever the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agh! Edit conflict, lol! Look I don't have an issue with the sentence I have an issue with the deletion and therefore inadaquate section, as I feel Identity and controversies or what ever I called it needs to be in one section, as IT STANDS IMAGE WITH the REMOVAL of the sentence THUS does not make sense nor does it support it. WHat I am annoyed about is you 2 blindly walking in and not coming up with a solution, so come on lets get a solution e.g. come up with a new section heading! KnowIG (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) This is poorly sourced (in fact, almost unsourced) and negative information on a BLP. Per WP:BLP, contentious and poorly sourced information should be removed immediately from a BLP without waiting for discussion. If consensus goes for it, it can go back in, and not before. I would note that I have warned KnowIG of 3RR on this page. Pfainuk talk 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing things like that doesn't make for a consenus as people won't go there if your adding to an arguement. Next time keep your comments to your self they can see what you've done on my talk page KnowIG (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question: these changes? Sourced to a blog, with the strap-line "Opinion. Conjecture. Other stuff." Why is there even any debate here? Lose the text, this is a BLP and claims like this should be exceptionally well sourced. The Guardian is a great source. The Guardian's blog is not. I'm amazed that the "Opinion. Conjecture. Other stuff." part didn't give it away. TFOWR 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR can you come up with a better heading for image which nobody seems to want to bloody well come up with hence a rubbish looking page, cheers KnowIG (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue at the moment is the text which should not be added to the article. As for the Image heading, i believe we do not need that heading at all. National identity was perfectly acceptable as a full section, it did not need to be a subsection. I am unsure about the other subsection which is other text you restored. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Other incidents" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Murray's image. I'd change "Image" to "Controversies" or "Criticism" and shorten the Scottish/British stuff to two sentences ("Murray was criticised for... Murray later denied that...") It may be worth taking this to WP:BLPN - they may have better advice than me - but my initial thought is that there's far too much on the Scottish/British thing. TFOWR 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He did originally call the section controversy or something along those lines, but the national identity bit did not seem appropriate under that heading, its fine as its own section as it has been until it was changed yesterday, unless some of the sentences are to be removed. The other incidents section is stuff that got readded yesterday that had previously been removed i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And round we go again. Stop avoiding it and come up with an alternative title Brit KnowIG (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend deleting the title all together, National identity can be its own section and so can the new "other incidents" section you have readded, although it would need another title. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Split off

This article is way too long. So I propose that we create a seperate article for his career. I propose to do this in one of two ways. Either get all 5 years and chuck them into an article. Or to create separate articles. One for the 2005-2007 seasons entitled Andy Murray 2005-2007: First steps on tour or something like that. And another one for 2008-present entitled something else appropiate. KnowIG (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I have an edit dispute with unknown user 2.102.254.162 about material he has added to the article with sources. He has reverted me 3 times. Would others care to comment on this situation? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It can be put in if cited. I did a Google on Murray news and couldn't find anything on this. If true then no doubt it'll appear on reliable sources soon. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Like Google news is the be all and end all. Check offical player lines, i.e. their twitter and website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.162 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using Google News. You should also read about the limitations of Primary sources. But I'm puzzled why you're disagreeing. Either you were wrong and events proved it, or you were participating in an April Fool's stunt. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, it proved to be an April Fool's joke by Murray.... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orbit for your help with this. The text towards the end of this section needs references. --BwB (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Country - Scotland

Is this correct when he represents 'Great Britain' at tennis? Tim Henman, the former British No. 1, and Greg Rusedski are both listed as British. I'm going to change it, any thoughts? Dalisback1 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Britain by long term consensus, chiefly because of who he represents internationally in tennis and it is a tennis infobox. He's also described as Scottish in the lead. Thanks for pointing it out. I've reverting it back to the consensus it was at before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems someone is intent on keeping it as Scotland. Why should it say Scotland for Murray and Great Britain for Tim Henman? Either keep all as Great Britain or use the country of birth for all. It should say Great Britain though considering that is who he represents as you say.86.181.120.27 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

He's Scottish by birth as I am Welsh but both he are British and he plays Davis Cup for the British Team not the Scottish team. Scotland does not exist an independent sovereign state and has not since 1701. --Navops47 (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can debate the status of both Henman and Scotland all you wish. Wikipedia works to the principle that it's self-identification that matters. Therefore if Murray says he is Scottish (as documented later in the article) then he's Scottish. His role in the GB tennis team, and British #1 is clearly conveyed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone represents great britain for tennis or europe for golf does not have an effect on their nationality. Equally other sports people have represent multiple countries (Eoin Morgan, Shontayne Hape or Greg Rusedski to list just 3. In regards to UK passport holders, Please refer to WP:UKNATIONALS - Great Britain is not a countries but a political union made up of countries. Some people may choose replace their national identity with 'british', others do not. Therefore it's done on a case by case basis. Murray's official website stated his homeland to be Scotland(not britain) [5], so that's why his nationality is listed as Scottish here --Richardeast (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The compromise situation would appear to be to put two countries in the info box instead of one (with Britian being the first)? As is the case with the Elena Baltacha and Heather Wilson. As the article notes Murray describes himself as both British and Scottish. If it is about 'self-identification' than surely the fact he represents Great Britain at tennis is self identification enough? 80.189.188.234 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The info box is designed for tennis players and is for the countries the player has represented in competition. It is not for nationality. Murray has only represented Scotland at school level, which doesn't count. I'm not familiar with the Elena Baltacha article, but I'd say this recent addition to it is wrong. (Not sure who you are indicating with Heather Wilson.)

This issue comes up every year, without fail, around this time. Please see previous exhaustive discussions in the talk pages archives. The current article is a compromise that has lasted longest, as it covers all basis. Tipping the balance either way by further mentioning either Scottish or British only results in edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The current article status seems 100% fair and balanced. His country of representation is the UK, while his personal identity/nationality is Scottish. They are not exclusive. The fact he represents the UK should be reflected and it is, why is he notable? For representing the UK in tennis. There is no issue here, just revert any POV pushing edits as vandalism - because that's what it is.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In direct response to Richardeast The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country, Since 1701. The argument that it is just 'a political union' is extremely ignorant to the cultural, historical, linguistic, political and religious unity and similarities among the four regions that make up the United Kingdom. As well as the histories of other countries like the United States or Germany. Both at present are united regions, once divided by political rule. In USA you had the various states and in Germany you had East and West Germany. Yet they politically united. Even Alex Sammond acknowledged the social unity both Scotland and England share and if Scotland split, would want to maintain. But for a more objective source of reasoning, then I appeal to the various organisations the United Kingdom is given full membership, like the United Nations, European Union and World bank simply because it is recognized as a legal sovereign-state, a country. On top of this British citizens are seen as British nationals in other countries. Thus, Britain is a country. A fact of life. Erzan (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read some of the previous debate on this subject before repeating what has already been discussed repeatedly before. You would also help yourself if you read guidelines here. The status, or otherwise of Britain and Scotland is irrelevant. It is what the individual themselves identifies themselves as. Murray has identified as both, and the layout of this article has been a long-standing compromise to reflect that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It is inconsistent to say he is Scottish at the beginning of the page and then state his country is Great Britain in the box at the right. Scottish is his nationality because Scotland is a country. Because Scotland is a country, and that is where Andy is from, then that should be consistent throughout the page, it's simple. The only people who want to change it to Great Britain are English people who are jealous that Andy is a far superior player than Tim Henman ever was. If Andy was rubbish, this page would say his country is Scotland - that is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.1.107 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that he is from Scotland. That is why the lead says that. However, in international competition, he competes for Great Britain and that is why the flag icon is GB. He has often spoken about competing for Great Britain [6]. This has been discussed a great deal on this page and the consensus has been to refer to him as Scottish and to display the flag of Great Britain. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Get with the times, nobody in Scotland cares about 'Great Britain' - recent election results show that clearly. It's not often Scotland has a sporting champion like Murray, can't you let us have this one?! Whilst I'm at it, Henman's country should be England. Also, why is Colin Fleming's country Great Britain AND Scotland? That doesn't make sense! Your arguement that Murray competes for Great Britain is weak - tennis is predominantly a solo sport, so the majority of the time he competing himself as Scottish. Only someone English, or someone who doesn't understand Scottish views on 'Britain', could claim Murray's country is Great Britain. Check out Murray's sweatband on this link [7] Get the flag changed to Scotland, it's the right thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.1.107 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion of what nobody in Scotland cares about is noted. Unfortunately your opinion is not relevant. Murray competes for the Great Britain team in national competitions, this is what the Tennis Info box is about, it is not an indication of his nationality. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be against wiki policy. The flag icon on tennis players cannot mean where he was born, where he died, where he lives or even his citizenship. It is there to show what flag a player plays under in international events. In Murrays case you would check the Olympics, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup. Even the four Major slams list in their own archives what international flag someone plays under. You'd need a heap of rule changes to use Scotland. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not even just the Davis Cup etc; he competes in all tennis tournaments under a British registration. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

He competed for Scotland in the Aberdeen Cup. That means a Scotland flag should at least be shown alongside the Union Flag - the same as it is for Colin Fleming. Anyway, regardless of what anyone says, he represents Scotland. Not displaying a Scotland flag is wrong. If you can't do that, then remove flags from all players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.1.107 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been explained in detail to you why it is as it is, and all you have is a reference to a defunct minor tournament that Murray played in once. This has all already been discussed at length and you're not bringing anything new to the table. If all your argument amounts to is "regardless of what anyone says, he represents Scotland" then there's little point to continuing this discussion. There is no consensus for your proposal. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 - "citations needed"

Are all the "citation needed" tags really needed in the 2011 section? It seems unnecessary to me to put a reference after every statement that says he won a match (something which can be easily referenced). Would it not just be better to leave it with one reference about say the final or the last match he competed in a tournament in? I.e. Murray won the first round 6-... etc and then won/lost the final 6-... [reference]. Alan16 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's endorsements

I receently corrected a lie in the article: "Always endorsing Adidas for his shoes." Shortly thereafter it was reverted back. No doubt, this was because I don't know how to cite sources. You can find photos of Murray playing in Nike Vapors at Wimbledon, and one year, he even tried Nike Breathe Cages for clay season. You can also find die hard Murray fans discuss it on tennis forums. This was of course before he signed his contract. Either way, that quote is a blatant lie in the article. Furthermore, as a tennis geek I don't see why Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal's articles go in depth about their racquets and fake paint jobs but when I posted the truth about Murray's racquets, it got removed. Again, probably due to the fact I didn't cite. Murray endorses the Radical, which needs to be mentioned in the article anyway, but if you look very closely at pics of murray's racquets, you can tell it's a Head Prestige. This can be proven by the grommets. The radical has a standard headguard, but the prestige has the cap grommets that cover from one side of the beam to the other. Murray's racquets have cap grommets. I don't see why Nadal and Roddick's articles should be anymore informative than Murray's. Help me out guys. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allcourter (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Allcourter. I reverted your addition, but it wasn't simply because it wasn't cited. Discussion on fan forums would not be considered reliable sources for information. Also "looking very closely" at pictures of Murray's racquets would be considered as original research, which isn't permitted. If you can find a good source for this information (like a reputable tennis website or a newspaper) then of course it can go into the article. If you can paste the link here I'd be happy to get it into the article as a cite. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also altered what the article says to more accurately reflect what's in the cite. It says nothing about what footwear Murray wore prior to his adidas deal. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy Murray forum - external link

Would it be possible to link

http://andymurray.forumotion.co.uk/

Andy Murray - The Forum

which is a tennis forum for Andy Murray dedicated to his tennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubbahey (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't a suitable external link. Wikipedia is not an internet website directory. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the necessary requirements for adding an external link.Millertime246 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

They are listed here. Basically it should be either to an "official" website tied to the article subject, or to encyclopaedic information that cannot be included in the article (e.g. copyrighted). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubbahey (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo

What's with the miserable photo? Get something else from 2011 from his many other wins. Cincinnati or Shanghai would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rap Single Contribution

There doesn't seem to be anything about Andy Murray's contribution to Mike & Bob Bryan's 2009 rap single "Autograph". Is it because people don't know about it, or people just haven't got around to it? http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-sport/2009/09/01/andy-has-it-rapped-up-115875-21639056/ http://sportscene.excite.co.uk/the-andy-murray-rap-N8666.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xT74EJ8vbw Thedoctor98 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

change to scotland

82.9.111.182 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Murray does not represent Scotland in tennis. He represents the Great Britain team. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted a recent edit because of obvious vandalism in the top paragraph.

188.222.177.167 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon 2012

I was wondering why the table had been filled in to show that he's reached the semi finals? I know he has, but that table hasn't been updated each time he's reached a different round and gives the impression that he's out at the semis. It may well be the case, but it hasn't happened yet! Starlemusique (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it happens every year as Murray approaches the finals at Wimbledon. The tables shouldn't be updated until he exits the tournament (in line with all other articles), but people insist on treating the article like a newspaper and put his progress in at each stage on the info box. I used to keep removing it and added editor notes, in an attempt to keep it consistent, but it would be re-added by someone else almost immediately. I gave up trying. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BRITISH NO.1

someone had deleted Andrew Murray as being "British" No.1, this was important to convey that fact he is a Scottish Tennis player representing Team Great Britain. I am not sure when this was deleted, but clearly it was deleted without discussion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.3.45 (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It says he's the only British Grand Slam finalist in the open era. Greg Rusedski was in the final of the US Open, so that is incorrect. Can someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.10.238 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-english?

The reference of 194 to his anti-English comments (or lack of) is no longer valid and needs a new citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsparagusTips (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

He's been runner up in 4 grand slam finals

Way to be timely, Wikipedia! 68.81.192.142 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

In External links, please add

• Andy Murray/Archive 12 collected news and commentary at The Guardian

184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The existing external links provide sufficient extra information on Murray. Sylosin (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We might need a lock.

Because all we're going to get very soon is a we might get a tirade of angry Scots waving haggis around and changing the country field in the info-box to "Scotland" - and then we're going to have a bunch of Snooty Brits thinking he kisses the queens arse and changing his lead nationality to "British". PHEW. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Grand Slam first?

Since this article is about Andy Murray rather than tennis specifically, is there any reason why can't put Olympics before Grand Slam? 92.20.149.105 (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say we shouldn't. He is notable for one thing... tennis. And the Majors are far more important in prestige and points than the Olympics as far as tennis goes. I guess it also depends on what you are actually thinking of changing. The Gold medal is his highest achievement to date.Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New photo, for goodness sake!

Murray with the flag/gold medal should be the main photo. Not some photo of him looking seriously miserable holding some deadbeat ATP 500 trophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.52.37 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is limited to free images, not copyrighted ones per WP:NFCC. If anyone has a decent quality photo of him with the Olympic gold medal, please upload it to Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely all the photos on Zimbio are copyright free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.52.37 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Country Great Britain?

Great Britain is not a country by any definition. He might represent Great Britain, but that still doesn't make Great Britain a country.--86.181.221.19 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

By the International Tennis Federation's definition it is a country. , and Murray is a representative of it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It just wouldn't be Wimbledon fortnight without going through this again. Murray plays for Great Britain in the Davis Cup, and the rest is a WP:UKNATIONALS issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. We can look forward to a fortnight of the exact same edits and arguments that happen every year. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

He represents the Island in Tennis :P sporting nationalities can be a bit quirky at times. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The man's nationality, by law, is British - his country, as in the sovereign state of which he is a national, by law, is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, usually referred to as UK, or occasionally GB & NI. In the few occasions he competes internationally he does so for the governing body , theLTA, who employ the name "Great Britain", presumably, and it is only a presumption, a standard abbreviation of the fuller and more long winded title. The ONE thing he does not do is represent Scotland, nor does he have Scottish nationality, since no such legal nationality exists unless Scotland gains independence, and good luck to it in that endevour. He is an olympic champion, by his own admittance, the most important win o f his career...represetning the BOA, who compete as GB & NI, or under the brand name TeamGB. His 'Scottishness' is clearly very importnat, of course it - but is it really sensible to describe him as a Scottish tennis player first and foremost? Would we describe a Canadian hockey professional from Montreal in the VERY first line as XX, is a quebequois hockey player? THat simply seems absurd. Can it not read, a British tennis player, from Dunblane, Scotland ? Mpjmcevoy (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was reached, after a great deal of discussion, to describe him as Scottish. This balances the mentioning of his country of representation (Great Britain) and the fact he is British #1 male tennis player. Thus everyone on both sides of the Scottish/British debate are satisfied. Maybe not to everyone's idea of perfect, but that's consensus for you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like consensus to me here, and since he is "Scottish when he loses, British when he wins", it seems timely to update this on his Wikipedia page. At least until the next tournament. Cloudz679 09:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is merely one discussion on what has be debated at great length countless times. Fact is that the current compromise did not occur by accident, it was reached after much discussion. And has lasted far longer than any previous description, which was constantly edit warred over. No reason to change it now. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Scottish when he loses, British when he wins" - heard that a lot. It's a joke, not a serious point for discussion. The current layout clearly shows him as being British and Scottish. People get hung-up about the lead all the time here, and on many BLP's relating to nationalities from the United Kingdom...is there any need? No of course not. This guys nationality isn't that important to his notability despite what a small section in the article says. His sporting nationality, which is key to why he is notable in many ways, is in the info-box...right at the top of the page would you have it. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Have we forgotten he was born in Scotland?

Shouldn't we have Glasgow, Scotland, UK in the infobox, as Scotland is a country part of the UK. Glasgow is both recgonised as a Scottish and UK city but more a Scottish city? So shouldn't it be Glasgow, Scotland, UK as English, Scottish or whatever personals have either the city they were born followed by the country (England, Wales etc) or the city thet were born and followed by the country and then a UK? 93.186.23.83 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Glasgow, UK" and "London, UK" is the current layout in the info-box section on place of birth & residence. I have no idea what's going on here, but it's a bit on the trivial side as to why it keeps being changed. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we name every footballer's home town as "Manchester, England, UK" and "Nottingham, England, UK" and "Aberdeen, Scotland, UK" and how about "Londonderry, Northern Ireland, UK"? Why not just keep a standard (As is used in this example) and just have the city with UK (eg Glasgow, UK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.118.27 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's what your wanting to do, you have a lot of articles to change then! What about Fred Perry, why does it just say England and not England, UK? If it happens to one, it should happen to them all. So therefore, I think it should just be Glasgow, Scotland, as everyone knows its part of the UK anyway, and people know he represents both Scotland and GB. 92.22.28.230 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: he may have been born in Scotland but he represents the UK. Should he have been a footballer or a rugby union player being Scottish would have had its importance as he most probably would have been representing Scotland. But as tennisman he's British since Scotland doesn't exist internationally in Tennis or at the Olympics. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
PS In order not to look "Anti-Scot" I precise that the same would apply to any English, Welsh or Northern-Irish tennis player.

The goal should be consistency. That's not going on right now. Tim Henman is referred to as English, while Murray is called British. Either Henman should be changed to British or Murray should be changed to Scottish. But the status quo should not remain. This seems like a pretty widespread Wikipedia problem. "Englishness" is emphasized, while "Scottishness" is downplayed. For example, Calvin Harris and Sheena Easton are called British rather than Scottish, whereas English singers/musicians like Adele are called English. --JamesAM (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

JamesAM. I think you will find with a little searching that many, many more people from England are described as British than people from Scotland are. There is no "Anti-Scottish, Pro-English Bias" here, and what does "English" have to do with this anyway? This was about calling people British not English. And Andy Murray is now described as Scottish again, as he has been for years. theBlackCat, you have violated community consensus on this issue and ignored the previous consensus that was reached. therefore you will be reverted per WP:BRD (Which has now happened) --Τασουλα (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again this has been changed. This is going against the community consensus that was reached upon how to describe Murray. Per BRD I have reverted the recent change. Anyone wishing to change this needs to come here and discuss it first and not resort to slow-moving edit wars. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add in the fact that it was 79 years to the day that Perry won his first slam final also at the USO link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.4.6 (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2012‎

Done, although it was a bit difficult finding the proper place for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012

The Total Grand Slam Win % = 100 % 127 = 78.74% (not 78.33%) Hozman2 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In Personal Life we have a link to Dunblane school massacre followed straight away by a link to Thomas Watt Hamilton which rightly redirects to the former mentioned article. As this is currently on the main page it would seem sensible to remove the second link. 86.168.193.112 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Probably happened because he may have had a separate page previously. Thanks for pointing it out. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated! 86.168.193.112 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012

I have just discovered that the article about Harold Mahony the last Scot before Murray to win a major is incorrect. He was actually Irish, born to Irish parents his father being Richard John Mahony, an Irish barrister. he was born in edinburgh Scotland but he was Irish and represented Great Britain and Ireland at the Olympics. if i am correct then this should be removed as it is incorrect.

i hope this helps thank you

Thank you for responding

Here is a link i hope this will help my point. The title of the article is (Harold S. Mahony (1867-1905)–Ireland's last Wimbledon singles champion) please do read.

thank you

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=380137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.16.136 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes i completely see your point i have found what i believe to be reliable articles. I know it doesn't mean much to the point but i have a family member who was born in Germany but is 100% English/British (save the argument) and another who i think was born is Australia but again isn't.

http://www.turtlebunbury.com/history/history_irish/history_irish_tennis.htm http://www.evi.com/q/facts_about__harold_mahony (this one not as helpful sorry)

these are article but it might support my point. plus is they are all similar. http://www.sportspundit.com/tennis/players/6956-harold-mahoney http://www.enotes.com/topic/Harold_Mahony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Mahony (says hes Irish on Wikipedia)

obviously i understand that when he won the title, it was over 120 years ago so its difficult to define.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.16.136 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

81.103.16.136 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You have an interesting point. Unfortunately the current fact within the article is cited to a reliable source. Whether Mahony counts as "Scottish" or not is debatable, and we'd need a reliable source putting your opposing view before changing things. The Harold Mahony article itself has a cite describing him as "Scottish-born". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a forum post would not be considered a reliable source. But either way, being considered by Irish does not necessarily mean he could not also be considered Scottish. Especially at the time Mahony was born. But the claim to him being Scottish does look like a bit of a stretch. A good cite would resolve everything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest British player of all time

Numerous tennis critics have cited Andy Murray as Britain's best ever player, and I suggest that this be detailed in the lede. If we reach consensus on its inclusion, the information will be inserted with sources. If not the greatest British player ever, I suggest the greatest of the Open Era. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

At this moment he doesn't even outrank British players John Gregory or Algernon Kingscote, and he's light-years behind Doherty and Perry in accomplishments. Probably the greatest British player of the Open era would be Virginia Wade. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I neglected to include "male", which I should have. Pre-Open era tennis had minimal competitiveness, making a multi-time Slam finalist in the 2010s a far superior player to a multi-Slam winning, polite softie from back then. There's a reason for articles stressing the eras. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a pov load of baloney. You are obviously a ceib guy and that's fine and dandy for you. What articles do is key in on the last 10 years as if the prior 100+ doesn't matter as much. Historians think larger scale and judge against peers and history. But at least I see your colors and understand why you would post this suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have known there'd be no chance of objectivity, given the heavy rigging of the tennis section. Nevermind, I'll let the impartial tennis enthusiasts here continue presenting carefully contrived articles to the world. Tennis publications make the distinction for a reason, and that's because a pre-Open Era player like Perry had no real opposition and would be smashed by an elite athlete like Murray, the greatest British male ever. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are your sources? You keep making these claims but have yet to produce a single source. Nothing is going to be added without being sourced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Until we see some of these "numerous" critics the point isn't even worth discussing. No-one is interested in who Wikipedia editors think is the greatest. Could you please list some of your sources? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all a matter of phrasing. I think we can comfortably say that (apologies for not using full referencing on talk page) 'his achievements make him the most successful British male singles player of the open era/since the 1930s [8][9][10][11]."

Well certainly when you talk of men's Open Era British tennis, Murray is top of the heap. He's doubled up Henman's tour victories and has done far far better than Henman, Rusedski, Cox or Lloyd in Majors and tour wins. He's been ranked higher than any male Brit also. In terms of achievement he is easily the best male British player in the Open Era. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the thing - if this was a debatable point (ie there was another player who had more tour wins, but fewer Grand Slam finals, or another player who had won a Grand Slam, but not been as consistent) then it mightn't be worth mentioning. But's it's such a gap that it seems almost perverse to not mention that he's the most succesful player in 70 years: effectively, for half the period of time that 'lawn tennis' has existed. Pretty Green (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article, the lead is way too short: it really should be at least a couple of paragraphs long (see WP:LEAD). If we can increase the lead with some more summary of his career, it might contextualise the detail of the main body. --Pretty Green (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well certainly in the Open Era. Not sure what the records of male British players in the 40s-60s were. Virginia Wade is far an away the greatest British player of the open Era. As for opening length, we already have a HUGE problem with length here that needs to be addressed. Wiki articles are supposed to be around 60k in size with a max of 100k. This thing is a bloated mess of 131k+ and getting bigger and bigger. It desperately needs a separate career stats page like Federer before an admin starts chopping it away. Also all the scores in prose have to go as it's against wiki/tennis guidelines. So before we start adding we need to start separating/removing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is groaning under the weight of inconsequential detail of practically every match he has ever played. No-one, ever, is going to read through all that verbiage and it makes the article as a whole unreadable. Some hero needs to take on the task of ruthlessly cutting it all down to size. Any modification to the lead regarding "greatest ever" requires authoritative sources. No-one here can perform the original research of adding up titles and comparing eras. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot in my sandbox to try to get it to 80k or so (to give it some room to grow in the future). A tall order to be sure with no guarantees I'll be successful. One can but try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Be bold and ruthless! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Amazingly I got it down from over 131k to 85k. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It's not perfect, but the first pass through to weed out the rubbish is always the biggest slog. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was far from perfect. Wording can be changed and more could probably be cut. Every tourney is still covered but only with final results, and what was important in his early years (milestones) was not in 2011. I simply wanted to get it to a wiki approved manageable size and let others more up on Murray, cut and write it as they like. If he wins a Major each of his yearly sections can have their own articles (like Federer does). That will make it even easier to keep small. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The point I was trying to make was that to expand the Lead would help properly position some of the text from the body, and contextualise it: it would help in the task of trimming the article down. Pretty Green (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

hey you changing back andy murray to Scottish rather than British is biased your using wikipedia for bias on and i will report you Scottish nationalist .

Is jessica ennis or Bradley Wiggins English ? No they are British

Andy murray stated he is happy he is the first BRITISH player since fred perry to win a grand slam and hopes he isn't the last BRITISH player to win a slam in his life time .

He said he did not think about Fred Perry on match point, but he was aware of the significance of his achievement. "When I was serving for the match, there was a sense of how big a moment that is in British tennis history," he said. "More than most British players, I have been asked about it many times when I got close to winning grand slams before.

"It's great to have finally done it. I hope it inspires some kids to play tennis and also that it takes away the notion that British tennis players choke or don't win - or it's not a good sport. Tennis is in a very good place in the UK right now. Laura [Robson] has done very well. The Olympics [where he won gold and he and Robson won silver in the mixed doubles] was great for us. Liam Broady was in the final here in the juniors. It's in a good place. I hope it stays that way."

Here is the link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/11/andy-murray-wins-us-open

"The pressure is intense [from] being the sole Brit," says Shirley. "We always tease him about being Britain's last hope. He has been on his own really, with no backup whatsoever, and naturally all the attention is on this one British player. That business of Fred Perry in 1936 [the last British male player to win a grand slam] is brought up and thrown at him, to remind him what people are expecting. I can't imagine how he must be feeling today but he will be euphoric. He must be."

this from his mother shirley who also calls her own son a Brit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/11/andy-murray-us-open-dunblane

i suppose people know better than andy and his mum provide me with links of him calling himself a scottish tennis player.

There are cites already on the article. Please read it. Calling him "Scottish" and the British #1 in the lead does not in any way contradict anything said by Andy or his mother. He is British, he is a British US Open winner. He is also Scottish. Which is exactly what the article says if you read it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the current version is factual and accurate, and was a stable consensus for a long time. I'm sooooo tired of seeing this nationality debate coming up every ten seconds around here too...and I'm not supposed to be getting involved with this stuff any-more =.= --Τασουλα (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

N.B. Andy's mother is called Judy, not Shirley; the quote referred to above is from his grandmother. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If he is British and also scottish surely he is a British/Scottish professional tennis player . Also the quotes are from andy and his grandmother , The article that calls him scot are by the writer of the article. I guess your not British calling him a scot is like calling someone from Texas a Texan or someone from Newscastle a geordie. So why don't you start off with lance Armstrong's wiki page he is a Texan road cyclist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovereign8 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we leave what's on the Lance Armstrong article to be decided by what's best for it? Meanwhile, on the Andy Murray article, it clearly spelt out that the Scot Murray is the British #1 and plays tennis for Britain. And if you read the entire section on the article devoted to this otherwise trivial matter you'll see Murray say; "I am Scottish. I am also British. I am patriotic and proud to be Scottish". It is therefore fair to try to reflect this in the lead. What is currently there has proven to be the best compromise with the longest lasting consensus, without undue emphasis on a matter of only passing relevance to a tennis player.

If you also read the archive of this talk page, you'll see we've been through all this discussion before. You are simply rehashing old arguments. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok but surely having him as scottish is taking sides . Why can't you put British/ Scottish tennis player or British and Scottish ,He clearly states half his family are from newcastle which is in England . personally having British and scottish would make both sides happy . I thought wiki was balanced and in my long time in using wiki this is the only biased part of wiki i ever found. Look im just throwing my voice into the camp that thinks it should be changed to British/Scottish or British and Scottish and leave it at that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovereign8 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

British/Scottish is a tautology: if you're Scottish, you're British. Rothorpe (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "sides" you are talking about. See my previous replies. He is clearly described as both Scottish and British in the appropriate contexts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012

At the 2012 Wimbledon finals, Murray won the hearts of many by giving an emotional speech after losing to Roger Federer.

Shigupta (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a link to a reliable source confirming your requested edit. Electric Catfish² 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Residence

User:Jon C. has again added "England" to the residence field, after being reverted before. I invite him to discuss rather than edit war. My problem with "England" being there is twofold;

• Firstly it is needless verbiage in what is supposed to be a concise summary. Is there any doubt in the reader's mind where London UK is? Is it likely to be confused with another London elsewhere in the UK? I don't think so.
• Secondly it is adding irrelevant emphasis. Murray does not live in London because it is in England, or the capital of England. He lives in it because it is the capital of the UK (and also the very big international city befitting a jet-setting multi-millionaire sportsman). But the fact it is in England is almost as irrelevant as it being in Middlesex. Listing it here appears to be giving it some importance when it is largely irrelevant.

So to summarise; it's not there for the reader's benefit, and yet having it there suggests to the reader some unexplained importance. So unless it can be explained what that importance is (and that falls within policy and guidelines) I see no reason absolutely no reason for it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So London, UK and Glasgow, Scotland, UK looks right to you? All of the above is irrelevant. It's about consistency, he was either born in Scotland and moved to England, or was born in the UK and moved to another part of the UK, or both. He did not leave Scotland and move to the United Kingdom. It's nonsensical. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is great inconsistency among biographical articles on this point. Some say "England", others say "UK", and still others say both. An applicable guideline suggests:

  When detailing a settlement, such as the birthplace of a notable person or the headquarters of an organisation, the county (if applicable) and constituent country of the UK should be stated.

  That seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, if the overriding objective here is mere necessity, we could WP:IAR and simply say "London", which links to the relevant article for whatever minuscule percentage of visitors might need disambiguation. Escape Orbit is correct that it's unlikely "to be confused with another London elsewhere in the UK", but for that matter it's unlikely to be confused with another London anywhere in the world. Unless it specifically says otherwise, "London" means London. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is great inconsistency across biographical articles, you're right, but there should at least be consistency in the same article. The point about confusion is another irrelevance, because Glasgow in Scotland is undoubtedly the primary topic for that particular name and unlikely to be confused with any others.

London and Glasgow are both equally in the UK and in England and Scotland, respectively. We should have "Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom" and "London, England, United Kingdom", "Glasgow, Scotland" and "London, England", or "Glasgow, United Kingdom" and "London, United Kingdom". — Jon C.^ॐ 08:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He lives in London, but the fact that London is in England is of zero relevance. He was born in Glasgow, and the fact that Glasgow is in Scotland is very relevant to how he identifies as Scottish. The reader is also much more likely to need further information on where Glasgow is than London. Overall I am not that concerned whether Glasgow is labelled with Scotland or not, but in this case Glasgow being in Scotland is far more relevant and informative than London being in England. The comparative political and geographical statuses of the cities are not so important as how do they apply to Murray?. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional opinions would be welcomed here. Are you okay if I open a RfC? — Jon C.^ॐ 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You really think it's that important and worth the effort? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it's clear we're at a bit of a deadlock here. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free in that case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2012

The section on the 2012 shanghai masters stating in the penultimate masters 1000 of the season is wrong as the BNP Paribas Masters is the last masters 1000 of the season so please could this be changed. 81.103.16.136 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Penultimate means 'next to last'. See Wiktionary. Dru of Id (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Shanghai Masters 2012

The article states that Murray won the 2012 Shanghai Masters final in five sets against Novak Djokovic. In fact Murray lost to Djokovic in three sets, the maximum possible in the competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.121.80 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above required edit is for the "Murray-Djokovic rivalry" section. DHooke1973 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

The box near the top right (Grand Slam Singles Results) omits that he got to the US Open final in 2008 (this IS correct in the box at the bottom of the article). So it should read: US Open: F (2008) W (2012)

Phegarty (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done that box puts in only the "best" result, and will show multiple times a player received that "best" result. Since he won the US Open, a loss in the finals will not appear here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I had initially gone ahead and made the edit but I reverted myself per the above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

The box at the top right (grand slam singles results) doesn't mention his appearance at the 2008 US Open final. So it should say: US Open F 2008 W 2012 69.191.176.33 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: See above. Please don't post the same edit request unless you have further comments that were not part of the previous request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Profile picture

I am perfectly aware of what tennis players keep in their shorts, but may I suggest that the current profile picture is a particularly unfortunate one. could we at least loose the grin? --wintonian ^talk 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox image was changed. The previous image, [12] is not ideal for the infobox because Murray's face is too small. And since some people have vivid imaginations, they may ask what he is doing with his hand:).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good, imagination has no place in a factual encyclopedia. :) --wintonian ^talk 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

--86.174.194.207 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)== Full Legal Name ==

Have made the following changes

1. Honor to Honour as UK English is applicable to this page per WP:ENGVAR
2. Full name is Andrew Barron Murray and commonly known as "Andy Murray" so listed as "Andrew 'Andy' Barron Murray" per WP:FULLNAME.
   • Andrew is subjects given name and is cited in The London Gazette for Murray's OBE appointment
   • (You will also find that Andrew Barron Murray is a director of Parched Investments Limited which manages andymurry.com and the Murray's assets).

References

---

Er what is the point in stating Andrew and a reference. His Grandad a few years ago appeared on TV refering him as Andrew and NOT ANDY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.32.164 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) orn in dunblane

WP:COMMONNAME has to be taken into account here as well. Wikipedia is not Debrett's, and does not make a meal of formal names and honorifics. It would be hard to find any mainstream media source where he is referred to as Andrew Barron Murray. See also the infobox of Bill Clinton.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line of dashes after the {{reflist}} tag (in my previous comment) to separate the references from further comments.

1. Unsigned editor asked "point in stating Andrew and a reference", a reference is always a good idea when changing an article as I don't know which TV show on which TV channel in which country the subjects Grandad referred to Murray as "Andrew".
2. IanMacM: WP:COMMONAME relates to the article name which should be "Andy Murray" which is already the name of the article and page. WP:FULLNAME relates to the name of the subject in the lead paragraph and should be their legal name and reference their commonly used name and one method is legal name, post-nominals (born 99 Month 19xx), better known as common name unless an editor can suggest a clearer method to present the legal and common names.

---- Karl Stephens (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick point - it states in the Murray v Federer rivally section that Murray is the only active player along with Nadal and Djokovic, to have a positive head-to-head record against Federed. In fact Djokovid does NOT have a positive head-to-head record against Federer - Djokovic trails 13-16 (Source: ATP World Tour). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.207.202 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Creating pages for past tennis seasons

I'm trying to create a page for Murray's 2012 season, however whenever I search for it and try and create it, I just get redirected to the main page, and the #2012 section. How do I create a new page with this title, and stop it redirecting to the main Andy Murray page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetradge (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Use this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Andy_Murray_tennis_season&redirect=no

Are you sure there's a need for such an article? It would have to be more than just a repeat of the existing section. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

His 2012 season was a very significant one for Murray, so I think it would be good to have a proper documentation of the events that occurred during said season.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetradge (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ranking dates

The ATP published its rankings on mondays, so please don´t change the date for current ranking to march 31. Murray will be number 2 on Monday April 1st. Please check this link, all dates are mondays ATP Rankings. --186.15.168.92 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained numbers

What are the unexplained numbers after "Australian Open" in the section [[13]]. I'm guessing they refer to how many of that final he's been in, but in that case, why are there no similar numbers after "US Open", and in any case, why is it unexplained? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Updating Performance Timeline and Infobox

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

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

Edit request on 6 July 2013

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

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

Made up "records"

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

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

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

Good point well made! May I add:

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

Edit request on 6 July 2013

change age to 27

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

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

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

2012 wimbledon win

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 7 July 2013

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

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

Edit request on 7 July 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final photos

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

Birth place

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia Wade.

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

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

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

New Photo

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

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

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

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

File:Andy Murray Wimbledon.jpg

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

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

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

Murray celebrates after winning Wimbledon in 2013

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

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

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

Andy Murray is clutching the Wimbledon trophy.

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

Olympic/Wimbledon record

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

I believe Rafael Nadal holds this record solely, because:

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

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

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

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

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

OBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Suggestions

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

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

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

Section "2005-2008":

4th par:

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

5th sentence: "onto" is two words.

5th par:

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

6th par:

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

7th par:

3rd sentence: de-capitalise "Hard".

Section "2010"

3rd par:

4th sentence: "ending"

last par:

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

Section "2012"

2nd-last par:

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

Section "2013"

1st par:

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

2nd par:

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

3rd par:

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

Section "Playing style"

1st par:

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

Section "Charitable work"

2nd par:

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

Section "Grand slam performance timeline"

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

Section "Awards and honours"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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