Talk:Greg Rutherford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British not English[edit]

Hello 90.220.154.234
"Greg Rutherford: 'It's pretty cool to join elite of British athletics'"[1] (talking about himself)
"The outspoken sports star joined British athletics’ hall of fame' [2]
"British Athletics"[3] (the source you provided)
"Britain's Greg Rutherford once again proved" [4]
"British LJ Record Holder" [5] (his official Twitter profile)
"Greg Rutherford climbed off his sick bed to join British athletics’" [6]
"Rutherford’s victory in the long jump means he joins an elite band of five British athletes" [7]
"Greg Rutherford: Well this isn't right. Where's the Union Jack?" [8]
"Greg Rutherford at 2:12 : From a British point of view" [9]
"COUNTRY Great Britain & N.I. Great Britain & N.I." [10].
"Greg Rutherford ... third British Olympic gold medallist" [11]
“I’m hoping that’s enough for people to accept I am a half-decent British athlete now.”
“The names in there are some of the greatest in British history. These are the guys I grew up watching.”[12] Erzan (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, Erzan. Greg Rutherford calls himself a "British" athlete in the context of discussing British athletics, and no one is denying he is a British athlete. However, he is also English and competes for England in contests such as the Commonwealth Games. The term "English athlete" also denotes a British one by default; "British athlete" does not denote an English one. A citation has been provided that confirms his nation is "England" and that it is in no way erroneous to introduce him as an "English athlete". Otherwise there is a senseless imbalance in which all English people on Wikipedia are called "British", but the those from other parts of the UK are referred to by their constituent nationality. Please do not expect anyone to engage in a debate with you over this long-draw-out issue which has already been debated to death on Wikipedia hundreds of times over the years. 90.220.154.234 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we should ignore him calling himself a 'British Athlete', ignore all the media that calls him British and the source you use that has in the header 'British Athlete'. Is this correct? Erzan (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford is primarily a 'British' athlete; and competes in all non-commonwealth competitions under that designation. however, like most British, and some Irish, athletes, he also can complete under a separate designation, his English one, in commonwealth events. Would it not be best simply to refer to him along the lines of "Rutherford is an elite athlete, competing in long jump for Great Britain and England.". I don't think an edit war is the way to solve this. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us follow the evidence and rationale. He describes himself as British, is refereed to as a Britain or British and is by the wide range of sources demonstrates a mild pride in it "Well this isn't right. Where's the Union Jack?". Lastly the source the user used to revert an edit in the header had 'British Athlete'. Erzan (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those issues that should be dealt with using compromise. Neither party is right or wrong, and it is wrong to enforce either "English" or "British" as there is no doubt that both are correct. Mpjmcevoybeta's suggestion is a very good one, and editors should remember that edit warring and POV-pushing are no way to resolve a dispute. In other words, maybe grow up a little. I don't know Rutherford but I'm willing to bet he'd consider this the dumbest argument ever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be POV pushing when Rutherford calls himself British along with 12 sources? Please argue the point rather then resort to words such as 'dumb' and 'grow up'. Personal insults do not make an argument more credible.

Erzan (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I insulted nobody. I have made what I thought was rather a relevant point, which you failed to address. Rutherford is both English and British and Mpjmcevoybeta's wording reflects that. Are you actually suggesting Rutherford is not English? I believe the IP is wrong to suggest the article should only state "English", but at least he admits both are correct. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Words such as 'dumb' and 'grow up' are personal insults that do not make an argument more credible. England is mentioned twice in the info box and 11 times in the article. This is again about whether he should be described as a British Athlete. Once again, how can it be POV pushing when Rutherford calls himself a British athlete along with 12 sources?.
Erzan (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both are true, off course. England ist part of the United Kingdom, thus he is English as well as British. A footballer (soccer player) is English because he plays for England. When Rutherford competes in the Olmpics he is British. It should be mentioned in the article that he is English competing for the UK. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It already mentions he competed for England three times. However he self identifies as a British Athlete, that is not an editor POV because it is based on his own words and something Wikipedia is supposed to respect I thought?
“I’m hoping that’s enough for people to accept I am a half-decent British athlete now.”
“The names in there are some of the greatest in British history. These are the guys I grew up watching.”[13]
Erzan (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erzan They're only personal insults when ascribed to someone personally, which I didn't do. "Grow up" was aimed at everyone and "dumb" was (clearly) aimed at the edit argument/war. It is a dumb argument. Moving on, Rutherford is clearly both English and British, and has competed for England and Great Britain. All that can be sourced. Moreover, there's clearly a debate about how to describe him which cannot be resolved one way or the other – so the only sensible solution is to use both terms as per the wording by Mpjmcevoybeta. The thing not to do is to go on and on and on arguing for one thing over the other when both are true. That is POV pushing and unconstructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UKNATIONALS#Sport, "For sportspeople, their nationality is usually described by the national team that they qualify to represent or, in individual sports, the national sports association or federation with which they are registered." Apart from one event (the Commonwealth Games) track and field athletes compete as British, not English and it is therefore appropriate to describe athletes as British. Exceptions may be made when there is a very strong self-identification which contradicts this, but I don't see a case for this here. I do not agree with using the suggested compromise wording as this is not consistent with WP:OPENPARA (point 3). January (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BretonbanquetYou do not have to name a person to insult them. Again I ask, refrain from using words and phrases like 'dumb' and 'grow up', it doesn't make your point any more credible. Greg is clearly mentioned as competing for England several times and I am respecting the Wikipedia guidelines people have previously pointed out, to follow the sources and the subjects personal self-identity. Which is British and British Athlete.
Erzan (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erzan I won't take any lectures from you about credible points. The idea that you do not consider any compromise to be credible speaks volumes. Rest assured that whenever I see a dumb argument, I will continue to describe it as such, whether you like it or not. I doubt that Comnenus and the IP have any interest in settling for British, given their previous editing patterns, so I hope you all continue to enjoy the dumb edit war in which you've so far indulged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet perhaps you can read January constructive point of information on UK sports nationality and refrain from trying to make this personal. Use some sources and guidelines to add weight to your point? thanks.
Erzan (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually Bretonbanquet I have nothing to do with this argument at all, I've not made a singe edit to the article or talk page so I'd be grateful if you didn't bring me into this. Given your own bias on the subject of nationality in the UK I don't think you're in a position to talk down to other users.--Comnenus (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is my username at the top of the page?--Comnenus (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Comnenus, that's why I thought you were involved. Amazing that you claim I have a bias when I am about the only editor here looking for a compromise. Utterly laughable that you want to have a pop at me for criticising Erzan when you've done it yourself on your own talk page: let's see... "being disruptive and clearly here on some crusade, not here to actually contribute to Wikipedia... It's like an obsession" Now that's a personal attack Erzan, maybe you can tell the difference now. You're asking me for sources, so you clearly don't even understand the point I'm making. Here's a guideline for you, actually a policy: WP:CONSENSUS. Here's another one: Wikipedia:Edit warring. Some of you are clearly beyond assistance so I'll let you get on with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet WP:CONSENSUS editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and it mentions being civil too.
Erzan (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. My argument is for a compromise using your sources and the IP's – I am astonished that you don't understand that I don't need to provide sources of my own to advocate a compromise. Common sense? Maybe Comnenus was right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet The IP's source states he is a British Athlete. Read the sources at the start, I even carefully placed this fact in bold right at the top.
Erzan (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has also produced sources to say Rutherford is English, and he has competed for England. I did ask you if you were suggesting Rutherford isn't English, but I never got a definite answer. You can produce sources until you are blue in the face, but you will never be able to deny that he is both English and British. In the event of a dispute (and this is one), the sensible thing is to describe him as both. The only alternatives are either one of you backs down and gives up, or you edit war forever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet You really should read this all over again, England is mentioned and recognised 10 times and more, lastly check WP:UKNATIONALS#Sport.
Erzan (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that; we're talking about the lead sentence, not the rest of it. WP:UKNATIONALS: 1) It doesn't back up your argument. 2) It's an essay, not a guideline. If the IP has given up, then this isn't worth continuing. If he comes back then (god help us) we'll carry on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I certainly have not given up, but (as I am sure you are aware by now, Bretonbanquet) Erzan's convictions are beyond fanatical and there is little point trying to reason with him. What has interestingly not been done in this discussion so far is to compare Greg Rutherford's article to those of other British athletes. There are many sources that could be used to assert that the likes of Chris Hoy and Andy Murray are "British athletes". After all, the majority of the time they compete for Team GB, and Hoy openly describes himself as "British". However, they are Scottish in terms of birth, heritage and upbringing, and so it is not unreasonable to introduce them as "Scottish" people. Neither is it unreasonable to introduce Greg Rutherford as an "English" person, and it's a pity more people do not support what would be a fair and balanced treatment of all UK nationals on Wikipedia. Should it be that only Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and "British" people exist on Wikipedia? Fanatics like Erzan seem utterly incapable of appreciating this - he has been going around Wikipedia for months changing every mention he finds to "English" or "England" to "British" and "UK", with or without citations, starting edit wars left, right and centre. This should not have become a controversy at all; the englandathletics.org citation should be enough to satisfy all concerned ... but then there is Erzan, who ignores all citations but his own! It's all about self-identification, is it, Erzan? Then how exactly does the King's Cross station fire self-identify as "British"? And where is the source that has Greg Rutherford saying "NEVER call me English, only calling me British is acceptable"? 2A02:C7D:B30A:7500:D434:5BA6:6600:8B5E (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Andy Murry and Chris Hoy are described in the opening as such is because editors have followed the guidelines of accurately describing the athlete if they have expressed a strong self-identity. As the sources demonstrate, Greg has several times identified as a British Athlete. Even when he is not competing, for example in his tweets and interviews. Again, no one is ignoring he competes for England, it is mentioned 10 times.
Erzan (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


No, you're simply ignoring the fact that he's an English person. Chris Hoy has referred to himself many times as "British" and has repudiated identifying with any Scottish nationalist or separatist sentiment, but it is still acceptable to all to introduce him as "Scottish" because it is where he is from. As I have said, this is far from over. 2A02:C7D:B30A:7500:D434:5BA6:6600:8B5E (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, Bretonbanquet Comnenus January. Please check my 'suggested' new introduction. The intro copies Chris Hoy's intro slightly and clearly shows Greg competes for England at the Commonwealth games. The article now mentions England 13 times.
Erzan (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only interested in wording which everyone else is happy with, so it's basically up to the IP. None of the recent versions has been wrong so it's between the two of you (it seems) to agree on something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that.
Erzan (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in both your interests to figure something out, or it'll be an RfC and others will decide for you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it does not acknowledge the fact that Greg Rutherford is an English person (the way that Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and some English athletes are recognised as such), and so it is no compromise. 2A02:C7D:B30A:7500:D434:5BA6:6600:8B5E (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will start an official resolution procedure.
Erzan (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11826264/Greg-Rutherford-Its-pretty-cool-to-join-elite-of-British-athletics.html
  2. ^ http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/601964/Greg-Rutherford-Going-gluten-free-was-a-leap-of-faith
  3. ^ http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=21572>
  4. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34054555
  5. ^ https://twitter.com/gregjrutherford
  6. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/athletics/greg-rutherford-wins-world-championships-6318258
  7. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3210234/Greg-Rutherford-clinches-historic-gold-World-Championships-Beijing-fifth-British-athlete-claim-four-major-titles.html
  8. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/14/missing-union-jack-flag-british-athletics-team-kit-greg-rutherford_n_7986436.html
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qfd30-h-gQ
  10. ^ http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/great-britain-ni/greg-rutherford-205345
  11. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/anniversary-games-2015-golden-greg-rutherford-fails-to-shine-on-return-10416168.html
  12. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/greg-rutherford-wins-gold-briton-wins-long-jump-at-world-athletics-championships-in-beijing-and-leaps-into-pantheon-of-british-greats-10471097.html
  13. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/greg-rutherford-wins-gold-briton-wins-long-jump-at-world-athletics-championships-in-beijing-and-leaps-into-pantheon-of-british-greats-10471097.html

RfC: Greg Rutherford's identity[edit]

Should the "Intro" section of Greg Rutherford describe him only as a 'British athlete?' Erzan (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'd normally steer clear of this type of entrenched debate. I edit Wikipedia for pleasure and this type of discussion gives me none. However, you have asked for comment. I think January sums it up very well and I am in agreement with all the points he/she made. For those reasons, Rutherford should be described as a British athlete in the introduction. Dalliance (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Dalliance's comments, which in turn second January's. Yes, British is fine as the lede sentence, especially considering England is explicitly stated across the article. No need to turn this ridiculous dispute into a nuclear holocaust. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has said "Greg Rutherford is an English athlete" for the last four years (since at least Sept 2011) without controversy, so I don't see why it needed to be changed now (especially as it had an englandathletics.org citation). Because it had the misfortune of catching Erzan's attention? 2A02:C7D:B30A:7500:B085:678D:67C7:ADD6 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Greg Rutherford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Rutherford&oldid=1209700622"