m Signing comment by Robbierangers - "→Second most succesful team: " |
Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) →Second most succesful team: Wrong |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
Well even without mentioning Rangers F.C they are still the second most succesful team in Scotland and is worth a mention as it is factual information and thats what wikipedia is, FACTUAL INFO. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robbierangers|Robbierangers]] ([[User talk:Robbierangers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robbierangers|contribs]]) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Well even without mentioning Rangers F.C they are still the second most succesful team in Scotland and is worth a mention as it is factual information and thats what wikipedia is, FACTUAL INFO. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robbierangers|Robbierangers]] ([[User talk:Robbierangers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robbierangers|contribs]]) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Unfortunately you are wrong in what Wikipedia is. [[WP:V|What Wikipedia is is VERIFIABLE INFO]]. If you can produce a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says this it can be considered. Otherwise, mentioning that they are the "second", without any explanation of who is first, is not only [[WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]], but unhelpful teasing of the reader. --<font color="purple">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 12:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 10 September 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Old Firm and liquidation of Rangers
Think the article should now be updated to say Celtic 'had' a fierce rivalry with Rangers and not has as Rangers FC where liquidated and as of yet no rivalry with Charles Green's 'The Rangers' has been established and its still debatable whether the fans of Celtic will view the new club as rivals, they certainly dont regard them as the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.64.100 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence
User:Haldraper performed a bit of a tidy on the lead sentence, which was reverted. I am in agreement with what was done. Specifically;
- "based in the Parkhead area of Glasgow". The district of Parkhead means absolutely nothing to most readers, so telling them this in the lead leave them any the wiser. Nor is it particularly relevant that Celtic are based here, rather than in any other part of Glasgow. But mention of it in the lead implies that it is. What is far, far more significant and informative is that they are based in Glasgow. So the detail about Parkhead is largely irrelevant, distracting and should be removed.
- "currently plays in the Scottish Premier League". "currently" here is completely superfluous verbiage that doesn't tell the reader anything useful. Time relative references should be avoided in Wikipedia. The reader does not know when "currently" was written, so does not know if this is still accurate. It could also be inferred that this status is in a state of change, or liable to. It would be better if this simply said "plays in the Scottish Premier League". Should this fact ever change I'm sure it will promptly be updated.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Its the based in Parkhead bit which i specifically object to being removed. Its informative Glasgow is fairly big and it identifies the clubs location. Whether it means anything isn't the point we are an encyclopaedia its easily referenced and it links to the article to tell people where parkhead is. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a difference between telling the reader everything, and telling them detail up front before other far more important information. Frankly I doubt most readers give two hoots which part of Glasgow Celtic are based in and will skip over this in search of something more informative. It's simply not that important and could easily be left to later. But if it must be there, then can it not be abbreviated to "Parkhead, Glasgow"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Together with their Glasgow rivals Rangers, they form the Old Firm, one of the most famous and fierce rivalries in sport. The club's traditional playing colours are green and white hooped shirts with white shorts and white socks."
- The first part of the section above is both unsourced and not required in the lead. Why not just state "Celtic have a fierce rivalry with their cross-city opponents Celtic; the two are collectively known as the Old Firm" The old firm article and other areas of the Celtic article have the details.
- The second part is dubious because it shows the clubs colours in the info box with further details in the article.
- "were all born within a 30-mile radius of Parkhead." Extra information stated in detail in the main body of the article.
- "An estimated 80,000 Celtic supporters travelled to Seville for the occasion. Celtic fans received awards from UEFA and FIFA for their behaviour at the match. In April 2003 the club was estimated to have a fan base of nine million people, including one million in North America."
- First part of above is undue for the lead to include how many fans travelled to a one off game. Explained in extensive detail in main body and the celtic fc supporters article. Same with award, what relevance does this have above others, suitable for match article, main body and supporters article. Second part about the nine million fans is seriously outdated and questionable to its factuality. Suitable for the main body as a statement of that time period and supporters article. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- {editconflict)Celtic is (should it not be are?) a Scottish football club based in Parkhead, Glasgow. They compete at the highest level of football in Scotland, the Scottish Premier League, and have done so since top level football was established in 1890.
- My proposal for a better introductory segment. I personally think the whole lead needs a re-write, it reads sort of like an advertisement and does not comply with MOS:LEAD. Adam4267 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Im really not bothered in which way or form Parkhead is mentioned but it should be there.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Adam4267's proposal above is good, can we do this?
- The whole is/are thing is complex, but usually hangs on whether you are talking about the club (singular "is") or the team (plural "are"). In this case it's singular because it goes on to say "football club". In the article you link to it uses 'are' because Lawwell is including himself in "We". If he had talked about "Celtic football club" he would have said "is in decent shape". He wouldn't say "Celtic football club are in decent shape". A commentator, however, may say "Celtic are in decent shape" when talking about the team during a game. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 2 July 2012
no mention of child abuse scandal Theceltictruth (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your example and an edit request needs to state exactly what should be changed, you are welcome to draft a section yourself. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Celtic are based in the east end of Glasgow is of particular significance given the reason for its formation. The Irish immigrants that the money from Celtic's games was to go towards were largely (although not exclusively) based in that part of Glasgow and it was this group of people, and there plight, that led, in the first instance, to the formation of Celtic FC. For this reason, the mention of the area of Glasgow in which Celtic are based is of huge significance. Attakkdog (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Confusion about the sectarian/republican association
Other than the name is there a reason why republicans are fans of a Scottish football club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.142.99 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Change of Club crest image to 125th Anniversary from current crest.
Just a suggestion to change the club crest used on the page to the specially designed 125th anniversary crest for this season.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4756/celtic125th.png
That is the .png image available there.
ChrisBhoy67 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 2 August 2012
Morten Rasmussen needs to be removed from the squad list.
- Thanks, i have removed him from the list. In future if you create a new section, please put it at the bottom of the talk page as it makes it easier for people to notice. Also you may want to use the Edit Request template explained on this page which will ensure more people notice your request. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 20 August 2012
There are two issues with the section entitled "Irish republicanism".
- 1:
"Some groups of Celtic fans express their support for Irish republicanism and the Irish Republican Army by singing or chanting about them at matches.[54][55] Although offensive..." Edit request: remove "Although offensive"
Reason: "Although offensive" with neither the implied consensus, nor reference to any group that it is claimed are offended, remains a unfounded opinion. The term as phrased is applied equally to Irish Republicanism and the Irish Republican Army. I am sure the vast majority of the world do not find the existence of Ireland as an independant state "offensive", which was down to Irish Republicanism, which in turn would not have happened without the Irish Republican Army. From the historic perspective of those songs, they are no more offensive than a song sung or tale told by a British Jewish or Indian citizen about their recent ancestors struggle for freedom from colonialism. Non factual and frankly, worrying.
- 2:
Celtic fans have also been known to chant in support of the Provosional IRA [62][63] and prominent republican figures and prisoners.[64] Edit request: change "Provosional" to "Provisional"
Reason: Conflates the nickname "Provos" with "Provisional"... non factual.
Hammerhead Hal (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the first bit and have amended it to IRA chanting has been described as being offensive but not sectarian by various people and journalists. Obviously various people and journalists isn't a very good descriptor but that's a technical issue.
- As for the second part it really shouldn't be in the article at all. Adam4267 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- This page to me already reeks of fan bias and the above changes push that even further with the removal of their being anything offensive about such chanting. I'll have to dig up many sources from news sources with headlines such as "IRA shame of celtic fans" etc... this view that the chanting and singing in support fo the republican army is akin to singing 'flower of scotland' is an arguement only ever put forward by celtic fans, when the mainstream media regularly codemn such chanting as being in support of terrorist groups. As Wikipedia editors it's not yoru place to try to justify such chants, but instead give an accurate reflection is what is being reported by sources. I also have an issue with this part of the 'poppy' section "....which is a divisive symbol in Ireland". This is offered as an explanation or justification for the controversial banner which is widely codemned. But Celtic are not IN ireland, and it seems to me to be 'guess work' as to the motives behind such a banner. A better explanation would be to go into more detail about a section within the Celtic supports hatred for the soveirgn state of the united kingdom & britain, and the british army. This would give a more detailed explanation and engulf more instances, such as the booing of the troops on several occasions at football grounds, etc... Ricky072 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you try actually reading the section. Make sure you take in what it says - then come back an offer a reasonable opinion. Adam4267 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
William Collum
The source does not state Celtic fans were responsible for this. It could of been either of the clubs and not proven even then. Its relevant to William Collum or Sectarianism in Glasgow but not specifically Rangers or Celtic unless another source says otherwise.Blethering Scot 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The "7 million Japanese fans" line
Should it not be made clear that the source of this research, Sports Revolution, had a business relationship with Celtic at the time, thus potential for a clear conflict of interest? Unless this is made clear, I think the line should be removed. After all, as a 'client' of Celtic, any financial benefit gained from inflated customer base figures (from sponsorship deals etc) could in turn benefit Sports Revolution with more 'business' from Celtic? Gefetane (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Old Firm
Have to update this section. The rangers football club Celtic played their first match against ceased to be on 14 Jun 12, and the team to whom their SFA licence was transferred are in the third division, so are hardly their rivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.109.237 (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
How many hoops?
Anyone got the official number of green and white hoops, with references? -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Do Celtic...
...have a name in Scots Gaelic? If so...you get the rest. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Second most succesful team
Celtic ARE the second most succesful team in scotland. Go and look at the facts etc. I believe this to be a good addition to the page as this is a decent acheivement considering their is about 60 teams in scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, your language wasn't exactly neutral or grammatically elegant. That stuff about bitter rivals is not necessary there. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well even without mentioning Rangers F.C they are still the second most succesful team in Scotland and is worth a mention as it is factual information and thats what wikipedia is, FACTUAL INFO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you are wrong in what Wikipedia is. What Wikipedia is is VERIFIABLE INFO. If you can produce a reliable source that says this it can be considered. Otherwise, mentioning that they are the "second", without any explanation of who is first, is not only undue emphasis, but unhelpful teasing of the reader. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)