Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) →Largest foreign travelling support at the time: added italics |
|||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::And anyway, all this is doing is diminishing the significance of the record. Is it not more impressive that the 80,000 was greater than even any domestic fixture? --<font color="purple">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
::And anyway, all this is doing is diminishing the significance of the record. Is it not more impressive that the 80,000 was greater than even any domestic fixture? --<font color="purple">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Agree with Escape Orbit. Although Seville is 'foreign' to Celtic, without doubt, we can only go with what the source says. It says "largest travelling support to have assembled for a single game" so that's what the article should say. If there is a more recent reliable source which says the same thing about another team's fans since, then the sentence should be changed to say "at the time". --[[User:Hippo43|hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43|talk]]) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:03, 25 February 2009
Football B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
!?
All right, what's going on here!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That's that cleared up then.
Greatest ever team - diagram
Anyone know why this diagram has 'SIMPSON' in yellow and 'JOHNSTONE' in gold? hippo43 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm presuming Simpsons is yellow due to the colour of his jersy. Why Jinky's is gold I don't know. Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've changed them to white. If there is a very good reason for the different colours I'm sure someone will explain it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Largest foreign travelling support at the time
I wonder if this statement is actually correct. We know that Rangers took more fans to Manchester for their UEFA cup final. Where they a foreign travelling support? Since when has Manchester been deemed a city in a foreign land? If the Rangers article mentions that they took the largest away support for a European game that is quite correct. If we say that Celtic have the record for the largest support to a foreign country that is also correct. Why does it say at the time? It is still true. Jack forbes (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look, none of the cites actually confirm what is said. We can say there was 80,000, but whether this is the largest travelling or foreign support, either then or since, is not mentioned. So perhaps the entire sentence needs to be reworded, unless someone has a reputable source that can confirm it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reference added. I agree with your first point above, there must be a more elegant way of putting this. However we would probably need a recent source to say "largest foreign travelling support" or similar, or it would be original research to suppose that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue. ----hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be original research to say that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue? Rather, I would think it would be original research to say it is a foreign venue and would need a source to confirm just that. Jack forbes (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very good point. I had assumed there would be sources 'confirming' the Rangers fans' record because I seem to have heard it so often, but I struggled to find one with a quick Google search. maybe one will turn up. --hippo43 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately other events in Manchester rather masked any chance of this being noted or publicised. I've looked before without any success. I also suspect that the claims that a proportion of those who turned up were not supporters, but trouble-makers, also makes it complicated. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I propose to remove the word 'at the time' from the above sentence. As I said, whether or not Rangers had a larger following in Manchester, there is no source to say it was a foreign travelling support. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. If someone finds a more recent, good quality source which contradicts this sentence, we can revise it. --hippo43 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done.--hippo43 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I propose to remove the word 'at the time' from the above sentence. As I said, whether or not Rangers had a larger following in Manchester, there is no source to say it was a foreign travelling support. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately other events in Manchester rather masked any chance of this being noted or publicised. I've looked before without any success. I also suspect that the claims that a proportion of those who turned up were not supporters, but trouble-makers, also makes it complicated. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very good point. I had assumed there would be sources 'confirming' the Rangers fans' record because I seem to have heard it so often, but I struggled to find one with a quick Google search. maybe one will turn up. --hippo43 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be original research to say that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue? Rather, I would think it would be original research to say it is a foreign venue and would need a source to confirm just that. Jack forbes (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reference added. I agree with your first point above, there must be a more elegant way of putting this. However we would probably need a recent source to say "largest foreign travelling support" or similar, or it would be original research to suppose that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue. ----hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You've got this the wrong way around. "At the time" is essentially correct, what needs to be removed is 'foreign', as there is absolutely nothing in the cites that says this. The cite states that it was, at the time, "the largest travelling support to have assembled for a single game".
Any concern about whether Manchester is "foreign" to Glasgow is irrelevant, as it's not a specification that UEFA used. I suspect this additional definition was added in an attempt to prevent it being "trumped" by the Rangers figure. (It can't be a coincidence that it appeared after the Rangers UEFA final.) It may remain accurate, depending on how you want to define 'foreign', which is a POV, but basically it is lovely example of subtle original synthesis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your suspicions have no relevence. Since when have we needed a cite to say that Sevilla is foreign? You say yourself it is accurate. Whether or not you think it is just trying to trump Rangers, the fact it is true trumps your argument. Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)PS: The cite does not mention 'at the time'. Jack forbes (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can't go creating new definitions of records that are not in the cite, while simultaneously discounting the Rangers figure until it is cited with the same newly invented definition. Particularly when the new definition is open to interpretation and opinion (i.e. what counts as foreign?).
- But I'm not asking for a cite that says Seville is foreign, I'm saying that this is classic original synthesis. It is adding one fact (Seville is foreign) to another fact (a record 80,000 travelling supporters were at the game in Seville) to construct a new fact that advances a position; (a record 80,000 foreign travelling supporters were at the game). And that's even before we consider whether Manchester is foreign. It's exactly because of this matter of debate that Wikipedia insists editors don't go constructing facts in this manner. No-one here should be deciding if either set of supporters are "foreign travelling" or not.
- And of course it doesn't say 'at the time'. Everything written is 'at the time'. If you don't like the phrase then how would you rephrase it?
- And anyway, all this is doing is diminishing the significance of the record. Is it not more impressive that the 80,000 was greater than even any domestic fixture? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Escape Orbit. Although Seville is 'foreign' to Celtic, without doubt, we can only go with what the source says. It says "largest travelling support to have assembled for a single game" so that's what the article should say. If there is a more recent reliable source which says the same thing about another team's fans since, then the sentence should be changed to say "at the time". --hippo43 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)