Talk:Steve Nash/Archive 1

message: "Steven John Nash was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico.."
 This conflicts with the sidebar stating his birth in Johannesburg, SA
86.129.175.114 11:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error on page

message: "He is also the first player to win back-to-back MVPs without a championship or an appearance in the NBA Finals."
You tell me why not??? Why not??? It is a KEY stat We have him listed with all those other greats. They do not relate to the award either. This article is so POV, it is disgusting.
Hganesan 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a key stat: it's certainly not referenced by any prominent writers (you don't count). It's an attempt to disparage Nash's MVP award by implying he's not worthy of it. It makes a generalization based on a small sample size (only back to back MVP winners). It's redundant (if he hasn't won a title, he obviously hasn't appeared in the Finals). It's not clear what the meaning of the sentence is (does it mean he didn't make the Finals before/after/in-between his back to back years? does it mean all the other winners won a title before or after their MVPs?). Finally, it's ridiculous to make such a statement in the middle of the current playoffs where it could be proven wrong in a few days. For that matter, it's inappropriate in the middle of his career; such a retrospective look should wait until he's retired. 
WHAT??? Till he's retired?? He is the first player to not win a championship with back to back MVPs. It's redundant?? So is everything positive about the guy. No it is not because people from all around the world don't know that. Do you want me to add NEVER??? I will add it. It is not inappropriate. Explain how the other players are appropriate then??? Explain that category that he falls into with the 8 others. They did not vote him as MVP and most of them were not playing when he "WON" his back to back awards. He is also different from those guys because he never won a championships. He is the same as those 8, now we must post how he's different. You have agendas man, that is why this site is so horrible. It is so biased. Hganesan 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This ignores, of course, your ongoing obnoxious behavior. Now your sockpuppets are posting messages to your own talk page to make it look like people support you? Come on, dude. Simishag 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to add this statment to the MVP 2006 section

message: The following " He is the first player in this group without a championship ring, and an average of under 20 points per game in both MVP seasons. He is also the only player in this category to average less than 15 points and 1 steal or block per game in his nba career (since the NBA tallied blocks and steals)." has nothing to do with an MVP award.  MVP is an award for a specific season.  Referencing a players previous seasons has absolutely nothing to do with the award itself.  Furthermore, you've been warned by several people to remain neutral.  We would all prefer that you discuss why this belongs there rather than calling everyone idiots.  Maybe you could actually try to make a point.  - Henry
I cannot make a point, this is WIKIPEDIA, FREE OF BIAS. Full of FACTS. Referencing previous players has nothing to do with it either them. I prefer to post all the facts. You want to delete all the facts Henry. That is not good. It only shows your propaganda motives. Hganesan 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't post "all the facts".  If we did, the articles would get way too long and become unreadable.  Therefore, we try to determine if a certain fact has "notability".  There are some methods for making that determination, but it is still relatively subjective.  So the best way is to just discuss it on the Talk Page and come to some consensus among the different editors.  Personally, I think the fact that he's the "first player in this group without a championship ring" is notable while the rest is not notable since you could probably pick out stats like that for any of those players and they'd be just as meaningless.  That's my opinion anyway. We'll see what others have to say.  Maximusveritas 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MVP EDITS

message: ===There is no way this guy deserves MVP===
:Deleted per WP:TPG: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
===I've never heard him compared to Stockton===
:See above.
RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two sections deleted

message: :See above.
RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I've never heard him compared to Stockton

message: However, other observers will emphasize that although Nash's STEAL'S AVERAGES (see below) are lower than Gary Payton and Jason Kidd's, Nash does play defense with immense intensity.  Nash plays both man-to-man and zone defensive schemes to his fullest.  When beat off the dribble, Nash is always seen sprinting to regain his defensive positioning.  When challenged with a shot, Nash hurls a defensively sound block attempt at his opponent; Nash is so technically sound that when he goes for a block attempt, Nash is often seen lunging at his opponent TOWARD HIS MAN'S SIDE in order to avoid fouling while maintaining his objective to bother the shooter. This superb consistent defensive play was especially evident during his years in Dallas where he didn't have to shoulder as much of the offensive load unlike with Phoenix in 2005.  
Observers will also point to the fact that questions about his defense never really were raised UNTIL AFTER San Antonio's 2005 Playoff rout of Nash's Suns.  During this rout, Nash had to shoulder even more of the team's work load averaging a career playoff high of 40.67 minutes per game (MPG).  As a matter of fact, Nash stepped out of his usual pass-first mentality to average a career playoff points-per-game average of 23.9 PPG. This was also a common theme throughout Nash's 2005 NBA Playoff appearance as he had to tally 48 Pts (Game 4) and 39 Pts (Game 6) against Dallas; these were his largest point totals ever in his career, highschool, college and pro careers combined. He was virtually forced to do this because of his team's circumstance: Joe Johnson hurt, Shawn Marion struggling, Quentin Richardson Struggling and with a very shallow unreliable bench. 
This increased workload weared down Nash to the point where his defenseive intensity became compromised; keeping in mind this was also happening during his MVP year where he was undoubtedly a marked man by the opposing teams. One could also argue that an individual's defense is just as good as his supporting teamate's; this was especially true with Phoenix as they, aside form Nash, lacked any defensive stoppers. 
<Br>Career Regular Season Steals, Turnover and Defensive Rebounding Averages (as of the conclusion of the 2004-2005 Season)
NASH......0.8(STL)....2.6(TO)....2.0(DEF REB)
PAYTON....2.0(STL)....2.4(TO)....3.0(DEF REB)
KIDD......2.1(STL)....3.3(TO)....4.9(DEF REB)
Steve Nash's Career Regular Season Averages For Minutes Played (MPG) and Points Per Game (PPG):
29.3(MPG),12.8(PPG)
Steve Nash's 2005 Playoff Averages For Minutes Played (MPG) and Points Per Game (PPG):
40.67(MPG),23.9(PPG)
Well, IMHO this is full of original research and extremely POV. I am big fan of Nashty, but he cannot play D to save his life, and this section describes him as the next DPOY. Onomatopoeia 09:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should be removed. Without citations, this looks like a sports site. Far too POV, and it's getting out of hand. --Downwards 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section (Strengths and Weaknesses)

message: Who wrote in "His man-to-man defense is extremely suspect"? 
That's why I put the  tag on it.--203.214.88.244 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable use of words

message: Great Britain hasn't had an olympic soccer team since ages and the article says he was offered a position in the team. I think that should be incorrect. I will check and edit if required.
:* I believe the article is talking about him playing for the Great Britain Olympic basketball team, though it is confusing because the rest of the paragraph is talking about soccer.  I couldn't find a source for that, but I did find something about him possibly taking a role in building the team for 2012 , so it makes sense that he would have been offered to play previously.  -Maximusveritas 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Britain hasn't had an olympic soccer team since ages  

message: Why the hell is Don Nelson being referred to as Donnie?  Can someone please edit that to make formal sense.  This is Canada's MVP's former coach we're speaking of, not a 6 year old's mentor.
: Calm down, fella. Donnie Nelson is clearly identified as the son of "Canada's MVP's former coach". Get it? Don Nelson is one person, Donnie Nelson is his son. See how that works? Get a clue. You should have your computer taken away.
::Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Nelson vs. Donnie Nelson 

message: I've made a few changes already, but I think the main problem is in the sections on his NBA career where it sometimes loses focus from Nash and spends too much time discussing the Mavs and Suns in general. I think it would be good to move some of that information to the articles about those teams and let this article focus on Nash.
Also, I don't think we need a section for "Career Averages" since he's still an active player and it's gonna be changing constantly. I could find no other article on an NBA player that had such a section.  If there are any objections, let me know.  - Maximusveritas 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming down the article 

message: I can't find anything about him winning the 2006 NBA MVP. I'm pretty sure it wasn't announced yet, can anyone find a source?
:There's only been leaked reports from insiders that he's reclaimed the award for 2006... no official word from the NBA yet.  I've rewritten some of the sections to remove the speculatory nature of the article. --Madchester 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 NBA MVP

message: I basically nuked this thing, rewrote and renamed it. This section was really getting out of hand, full of either fanboy or hater talk. I made it IMHO more factual and CONCISE.
*Nash is seen as one of the premier point guards in the NBA. He is a two-time regular-season MVP, the only second point guard in NBA history to have achieved this after Magic Johnson. ==> Fact
*He is one of the most creative and intelligent players, averaging double digits in assists. ==> Fact (he averaged 11.5 and 10.5 apg the last 2 years)
*His ballhandling is superb as seen in the 2005 NBA All-Star Skills Contest, which he won. ==> Fact
*He is also a great three-point shooter and is the third best free throw shooter in NBA history. ==> Fact, .421 on three-pointers and .896 on FTs is stellar.
*Nash is also very effective playing the pick and roll with former Dallas teammate Dirk Nowitzki and later Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion. ==> well-known, hard to reference though
*Many critics point to Nash's defense as his primary weakness. ==> Fact, he has yet to get voted into an NBA All-Defense Team. Payton is a DPOY, Kidd perennially in the All-D-Team and Billups is two-time All-D.
*On May 11, 2006, ESPN.com rated Nash as the 9th greatest point guard of all time[8]. ==> Fact
BTW, plz remind yourself that this is an encyclopedia, and not a sports site. Also, plz do not pick single unrelated games to make a point, plz stick to complete playoff series or seasons, because they are much more representative. With random games, I am pretty sure I could pick 20+ games which make Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain look like complete buffoons, and just elegantly forget the hundreds of games in which they played legendary.
Onomatopoeia 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strengths & Weaknesses section, revisited

message: While I strongly object to User:Hganesan's methods, I suppose we must admit that his opposition requires us to achieve consensus (even if he's the only one objecting). In the interest of following the rules, I propose this copy be added:
:Nash is only the second point guard, along with Magic Johnson, to win the award multiple times. Nash joined eight other NBA players to earn back-to-back MVP awards (Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan).
I assert that this is not POV. It reflects that Nash has accomplished what few other players have accomplished. The obvious implication is that Nash is an elite player, but one could say that is the obvious implication of saying "Steve Nash is an NBA player" (since he must be somewhat elite, compared to the general public, to play in the NBA). Suggesting that this constitutes POV is ridiculous; it would mean we couldn't say anyone won the MVP, or for that matter, than anyone plays in the NBA. I would venture to say we'd have a lot of empty pages if we had to be concerned about the POV implications of basic facts (as opposed to related facts, as in the next paragraph).
I assert that it is POV to cherry pick stats like "Nash is the only MVP to average less than 20 ppg". The award is subjective, which is why it's voted on; to point at Nash's stats in this fashion is not only to suggest Nash is unworthy (POV), it also impugns the voting process by suggesting the voters don't know what they're doing. Also POV to say "Nash is the only MVP without a title" (irrelevant; he's also still playing so such a comment isn't appropriate until he retires). The statements are perhaps factual but they have a clear bias to make Nash look undeserving. It would be just as unacceptable to say "Jason Kidd is the only MVP to be accused of beating his wife" in his MVP section (that doesn't mean it's off limits for his article, just that section). 
:It was noted that Kidd never won MVP. Fine. It's a hypothetical example. The point about writing style is still valid. Simishag 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nash MVP & consensus

message: User:Hganesan is back with his new "friend" User:Bucsrsafe (looks like another sockpuppet to me). More uncivil behavior from both of them, and now they're talking to each other as well. Looking for an admin to check this out before the page blows up again. Simishag 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:12.134.204.214 (previously identified as a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan) removes sockpuppet tags from User:Hganesan and User:Bucsrsafe within a few minutes of each other. What an amazing coincidence. Simishag 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:BAN#Enforcement. Banned users' edits may be reverted without discussion or justification. You are the only user making these claims (if you are in fact a legitimate separate user and not a sockpuppet; I will remain skeptical until I see evidence to the contrary). Simishag 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is your responsibility to add sources when you add new claims. It is not our responsibility to find sources for all the claims you make. Uncited claims are commonly removed from pages across WP. You have also just admitted that you are performing original research, which is not allowed. Simishag 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again: Simishag's false claims

message: Nash is mentioned as a "foreign" born MVP along with Hakeem. Tim Duncan is being added and removed to this, depending on whether people think the US Virgin Islands is "foreign" or not. It is foreign for anyone outside the US, and the territory has a special status in the US even if it's not "foreign". Does Duncan properly belong in this category, and if so can we change this to "non-mainland-US born" or something? Simishag 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one's really bugging me.  Tim Duncan is unambiguously NOT "foreign."  If you're born in the USVI, you get a US passport and no other.  Period.  The fact that he wasn't born in the contiguous 48 is barely relevant in his own article, and completely irrelevant here.  Two foreign players: Olajuwon and Nash. Cory.willis 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Foreign" MVP

message: Ok, lets talk about this reasonably. in my opinion, this article does not have any where near enough emphasis on Nash's lack of defense. There are 3 lines in the whole article about his defense. its his main deficiency in the game and nobody seems to want to talk about it. i will stop editing in statistics and things with the other dude if it is addressed properly. i honestly want to sort this out by agreement with other people but it seems that so many people are just wanting to keep Nash's page without any reference to his deficiencies. this is an encyclopedia, not a nash love page and there should be more than a couple of lines reference to his poor defense. its not a coincidence that rubbish players suddenly score loads of points against nash. this needs to be addressed and i want to hear people's thoughts on the matter. Buscrsafe, 18.28, 4 June 2006.
:It sounds like you have an agenda to portray Nash as a lousy defender because that's your opinion of him. In fact, based on the comments you made on User:Hganesan, you are both admitted "anti-Nashers". That's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought). We've explained over and over again how to add these things in a non-biased fashion (on this entire talk page, on your talk page), but neither you nor your friend seem to care about doing this the right way. When your content was removed as inappropriate for multiple reasons, you immediately added it back in, ignoring the objections of others. When I added the original research tag as a compromise, you promptly removed the tag. Now someone else has stepped in and removed the individual games part entirely. Do you plan to add it back in yet again?
:If this is to stay in the article, you need to find prominent, reputable journalistic sources who see Nash as a bad defender, and really, they should say it more strongly than that. We've already noted that he's not a "great" defender, but your opinion appears to be that he's so bad that he's a liability to his team. This hasn't been backed up by anything that's been posted here, and I don't think you'll find it easily in a reputable source, but I'm willing to examine any such sources you find. Please post them here first before adding anything to the main page, so we can avoid further disputes.
:Finally, both of you should read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV carefully. You should especially pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone. There are ways to get your point across about people without heavy handed attempts at making them look like chumps. Simishag 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something has to be done about the lack of emphasis on Nash's bad defense

message: I actually like Steve Nash, but I pointed out that his MVPs have been somewhat controversial amongst statistically minded observers.  This was quickly deleted.  Is that just par for the course here?  If you don't like the apbrmetrics message board, do you have a better collection of well informed NBA statistical analysts?
The Animal 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coumarin is correct- blogs and forums are not reliable sources. Newpspaer and magazine sportswriters are considered relaible, and if this is a widley-held view then it shouldn't be hard to find one of them expressing it. -Will Beback 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The books and established publications would be fine sources. If the debate is limited to webforums then it isn't a notable debated. -Will Beback 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I bother or do people delete valid content all the time? 

message: I have reworked the disputed section about Nash & criticism. For starters, it was full of weasel words like "Some criticize..." It really should not be hard to find and cite this criticism appropriately. I can almost guarantee that anything uncited will be promptly removed (by someone, not necessarily me). However, a citation alone is not a blanket license to add anything. It needs to be presented fairly, and it needs to be germane to the article. If you aren't sure, post it here on the talk page first, and I'll be happy to provide feedback. And even with citations... actually, especially with citations, you need to put "Joe Blow criticizes Nash...", not just "Some criticize Nash..." There is really no excuse for weasel words once you have a good citation. Once that's done, we can argue about whether the criticism is relevant to the article.
Also, the Simmons article does not appear to be a criticism of Nash per se. Simmons' point is that recent NBA rules have made the game better. He mentions 5 specific rule changes (some are merely "points of emphasis" for refs) and 1 "unannounced, under-the-table" change. It is the last change which Simmons believes benefits "penetrating guards" like "Nash, Wade, Harris & Terry..." This doesn't strike me as "criticism", and I think to suggest that Simmons is taking a swipe at Nash is misleading at best. Simishag 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be Simmons' point. He also mentions "Wade, Harris & Terry, Parker, Hinrich, Billups, even an old-timer like Sam Cassell." I don't think he's criticizing all of them; he certainly is not taking a critical tone. In fact, the overall point of his article is how great the playoffs are now. Also, it's sufficient to say "rules changes." We don't need to get into the specifics; the reader can go to the source if they want to know more. Simishag 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Player Profile & POV

message: Due to 3RR violations by an aol anon, I've semi-protected the page. Discuss below: William M. Connolley 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I think they should all be deleted. Any real basketball player knows that a 6'3" (6'0" in real life) 195 pound (175 pounds in real life) basketball player will get lit up by any talented player who has a large weight advantage (like Chauncey Billups) or height advantage (like Shaun Livingston). Television sports commentators are about as objective as Fox News. Nash was voted MVP by the real experts because of his ability to render not only his own defender, but the entire opposing team's defense completely helpless. 
He received his 2005 MVP award because he took the Phoenix suns from lottery team to best record in the league. 
He received his 2006 MVP award for taking the Stoudemire-less Suns that were predicted to be one of the worst teams in the west to the top-seed in the Pacific. His greatness was confirmed by leading his team to embarass both the Lakers and the Clippers in the playoffs. 
Any basketball player who actually watches Steve Nash can see that he is as important to his team as a quarterback in football.
He is top ten all time in lifetime free throw % and three point %. 
Players that Nash turned into stars who had no notoriety before or after: Amare Stoudemire, Quentin Richardson, Joe Johnson, Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, Leandro Barbosa, Boris Diaw. Their careers depend on having Nash around both attracting attention as a dangerous shooter and threading the needle as a distributor. 
Steve Nash has taken two different teams into the playoffs five years in a row. Three of those years (2002, 2005 and 2006), his team was expected to be a shoe-in for the lottery. 
All of these factors contribute to the assessment of Steve Nash as one of the NBA's greatest. TV commentators' opinions on the quality of his defense are expressions of bitterness for the snubbing of their own favorite player and have no basis in fact.
:You are not entirely right, e.g. John Stockton was a superb defender and was only 6-1 / 175 lbs, Walt Frazier is 6-4, 200 lbs and is probably the best defensive PG of all time. But I do think that he is a darn good player, a great shooter, assist giver and leader, and I think the "Player profile" section says that. Onomatopoeia 09:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Defense 

message: This article is well written for the most part,  however the emotive text sticks out like a sore thumb and is obviously biased it might be a good idea if someone could clean it up?  
"With a new starting lineup consisting of mainly unproven players and no real center, the Suns were not expected to repeat their successful 2005 season. However, due to Nash's leadership and the great play of teammates like Marion and Diaw (who was voted as the Most Improved Player of the year), "   
"Head coach Mike D'Antoni, who had taken over midway through the previous season, decided to employ the "run and gun" style of basketball that was in vogue in the 1980s. Fielding a small, quick line-up, D'Antoni gave the ball to Nash and let him orchestrate a fastbreak offense. Nash and his teammates would consistently outrun their opponents to their end of the floor and every player had a green light to shoot at all times. The result was the highest-scoring NBA team in a decade, averaging 110.4 points per game during the regular season. Nash's precision passes and alley oops to Stoudemire, Marion, Richardson, and Joe Johnson provided many SportsCenter highlight reels.
The Suns posted a 31-5 record before Nash went down with an injury in the first half of their next game. The Suns lost their next three games without their leader. After Nash returned, however, the team won four of five, and eight of their next nine. The Suns finished the season with an NBA-best 62-20 record, a 33-game improvement from the previous season.
As the Suns' starting point guard and a veteran among youngsters, Nash was the discernible leader of the team's dramatic turnaround. While he averaged a modest 15.5 points per game, his field-goal shooting percentage was remarkable: 50.2%, a career high, and a rare figure for a guard. Equally impressive were his 11.5 assists per game, a career best and the best in the NBA; no one else had more than 9. The last player to average more was John Stockton with 12.3 APG in 1995. Nash's numbers affirmed his status as an unselfish, "pass first" player. Nash also ranked sixth in the league in both three-point percentage (43.1%) and free throw percentage (88.7%). Nash also ranked third in the NBA in double-double totals — a statistic traditionally dominated by big men with high rebounding numbers — behind only Kevin Garnett and teammate Shawn Marion. Nash was the only player to average double figures in both points and assists. Nash also earned his second career triple-double on March 30th, recording 12 points, 12 assists, and a career-high 13 rebounds in just 27 minutes. Perhaps Nash's greatest contribution to the team was that he made his teammates better. Many of them were posting the best seasons of their careers across the board, and both they and outside observers attributed this to Nash.
In the playoffs, Phoenix swept the Memphis Grizzlies in four games, before meeting Nash's former club, the Dallas Mavericks, in the second round. In leading the Suns to a 4-2 series win, Nash played some of the best basketball of his career, averaging 30.3 points, 12 assists, and 6.5 rebounds per game, recording his first playoff triple-double, and scoring a 2005 single-game playoff high of 48 points. In the Western Conference finals for the first time since 1993, the Suns lost to the eventual NBA Champion San Antonio Spurs in 5 games. In the series, Nash averaged 23.2 points and 10.6 assists per game. Despite the loss, Nash and the Suns were still pleased with how far they had progressed and optimistic about how far they could go in the future."
Just a few examples.  As I stated before,  it's a well written article however it isn't neutral and some cleaning up wouldn't do any harm
Cee em bee
: You're right. Most of them had been fixed. The rest of them have been fixed now. Viewpoint neutrality is essential for an encyclopedic reference. Bobgat 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is opinionated 

message: How come every other article of basketball players puts "...is an American basketball...", etc. Why hasn't "Canadian" been added to Steve Nash's? Aka khan 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it -- Aka khan 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, he's not an American citizen. He's a hero around these parts (British Columbia), so if he had US citizenship, I'm sure most of us would know... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He is embraced by Canadians because he acquired Canadian citizenship, but he is South African, not Canadian.Bobgat 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please re-read what you just wrote? In one sentence you say "he acquired Canadian citizenship", and in the next you say "he is .. not Canadian".  --Downwards 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is...??? Being a Canadian citizen doesn't make him Canadian. He's a naturalized Canadian, not a Canadian.Bobgat 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He's Canadian, dude. He grew up in Canada, has Canadian citizenship and plays for the Canadian national team. Nationality is not always dependent on ancestry or birthplace -- for example, I was born in Hong Kong but have only Canadian citizenship. There's actually a good chance of me getting deported from Hong Kong back to Canada if I tried to reside in Hong Kong without proper permits. So yes, Nash was born in South Africa, but it doesn't mean he can't be Canadian. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited because I was wrong. Actually, we were both wrong. See below.Bobgat 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian 

message: Is there proof that Steve Nash has South African citizenship? I don't know if their laws have a jus soli citizenship law. If not, then the South African flag should probably not be on there (since nationality isn't necessarily based on birth). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked out South African nationality law. The jus soli law applies only to births after 1995. I guess it's safe to say that he has no South African citizenship until some sort of proof comes up? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If jus soli doesn't apply, then jus sanguinis does. He's either South African or English with Canadian citizenship. Take your pick.Bobgat 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to an interview with the Times (Feb 19th 2007), he holds both Canadian and British passports. His parents are British, he was born in South Africa and raised in Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.203.103 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: I looked at the Arnold Schwarzenegger entry because one of you brought it up. I suggest the rest of you do as well. They have it right. Schwarzenegger is Austrian-American. He was born in Austria and emigrated to America. Nash was born in South Africa and emigrated to Canada.  Bobgat 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much in an effort to compromise as to be correct, I've made this edit per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph #3, which states, "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)" Per this guideline (which applies equally to an infobox), even if proof can be found that he retains South African citizenship, his move (over which, as a toddler, he had no control) makes him a South African-born Canadian; therefore, one flag under birth, one under nationality. Comments invited. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to an interview with the Times (Feb 19th 2007), he holds both Canadian and British passports. His parents are British, he was born in South Africa and raised in Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.203.103 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Edit of the Nationality Question 

message: Not going to bother changing Nash's entry again, but I am just curious here. Is Wayne Gretzky Canadian or American? Gretzky's entry reads Canadian, yet he went through the rigorous process of obtaining American citizenship. Your Steve Nash arguments would indicate that Gretzky is now American, but the Gretzky people swear up and down that he's Canadian because, well, because they say so. So which is it? 
I would be fine with considering Nash as Canadian because of his citizenship because that was his choice and he considers himself Canadian, but then the same must hold true for Gretzky. Gretzky chose to attain American citizenship. So he's American, right? Or, at least, because he holds dual citizenship, he's Canadian-American, right? Bobgat 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph #3 could be used for either argument; my first question would be, even as he has obtained US citizenship, does he retain Canadian citizenship? If so (and, that was the case last I'd checked), I would give Canada precedence per notability, or list both with Canada first. Just my US$0.02... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gretzky has dual citizenship, so I suppose he has retained his Canadian citizenship. I don't know how you would give Canada precedence though. I have him as Canadian-American, indicating that he was Canadian and immigrated to America. I don't see how else you could do it. Bobgat 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem i (& i think others) have with this is that you assume that being American or being Canadian only means one thing, that you are a citizen of that country. This is obviously not true. If you were to say that "he is American" or "I am American", you are making more then a simple statement of citizenship. The word 'American' or 'Canadian', etc. have symbolic meaning. There is a certain ideology associated with these words. In Gretzky's case for example, if you were to put 'American' within the first few lines it would speak volumes about WHO Gretzky is. To the average reader with no prior knowledge of Gretzky there would likely be an assumption that this is a man who associates himself with being American. Gretzky to me is a person who is American out of simple necessity (tax, etc). I think if you look at Arnold the wiki bio puts American even though he is born in Austria because obviously if you are a Governor of a state you associate yourself with being American. The symbolic meaning of the word is accepted here because it holds true. On pure technical terms yes Gretzky may in fact be an American Citizen but if you were to put that on his wiki bio within the first few lines it says something more than that. Same holds true for Nash. You might say that this is just an opinion and my interpretation but clearly me saying "i am American" means more than its literal meaning of citizenship. Aka khan 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right on there. That's why for sports pages, playing for international teams is how I determine which nationality to use for a player, because it speaks volumes about the national allegiance (in addition to citizenship, which is required by most international sports federations to play for a certain country). Nash plays for Canada, so that pretty much says it all. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Which is it?