Football B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Now, I know this is likely to be controversial with some of you, but I'm thinking I'd like to include some mention of the Celtic Boys Club sexual abuse scandal in this article. I hope my credentials (I have made 137 edits to this article, a lot of them reverting mindless sectarian vandalism) will convince you that I am not taking a POV here. It just seems extraordinary that neither this article nor the History of Celtic F.C. one even mentions the affair at all. Including a brief mention will, I believe, make the article more encyclopedic and might even reduce the number of "BJK" edits I am reverting. --Guinnog 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm certainly happy to give you the opportunity to see what you propose, but wouldn't it make more sense to expand the info about the scandal in the Celtic Boys Club article, and then link to that, with a brief mention, from the main article? Rockpocket 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable; I only wonder if there is much more to say about it than we already have. Let me think about it. --Guinnog 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is plenty of source material here (pdf). Rockpocket 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable; I only wonder if there is much more to say about it than we already have. Let me think about it. --Guinnog 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jim Torbett is the place for it. Any attempt to add this type of entry is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia style. For example, Ted Bundy worked for the Republican Party. Check their entry to see if he is mentioned. Of course not. The suggestion of adding Torbett to this article has no precedent or basis. Where do we go next ? Add Findlay to the Rangers article? Change every company article that any offender was ever employed by? Where would it end ? That being said as some of the victims were members of the Boys Club which was fundamental to the event, there exists a basis for mention there. PalX 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree about it's inclusion. It wouldn't be a particularly large section if it was included in the main Celtic F.C. article, and it'd have to made sure that it didn't become that. But it is a fairly large event in the club's history, and for it not to have a mention anywhere already is somewhat strange. Archibald99 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It may be fairly large in the eyes of the inhabitants of Castle Greyskull (hey, how is the weather out in Mordor?), but sadly it has no place on this page. As a comparator, should the Rangers FC article contain details of the actions of Donald Findlay, the former vice-chairman who was caught on video tape signing sectarian songs? Or maybe of Andy Goram, who wore a black armband in memory of the death of a terrorist, and was named in the Guardians 20 most shocking moments in sport article? Paul Gascoignes wife beating was very big news too. Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer posing for photographs with convicted sectarian murderer Michael Stone, Duncan Ferguson being jailed for 3 months for head butting an opponent, Bob Malcolm forgetting that his name isn't 'Fuck The Pope', the 1972 European Ban for rioting in Barcelona? Oh, and Archibald, it's not that strange when you consider that he was never actually an employee of the club. --Cloveoil 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Cloveoil - this belongs in the Jim Torbett article & the Celtic Boys Club article. The Celtic FC article doesn't even mention Celtic Boys Club as a feeder club. Archibald99, it's not a fairly large event in Celtic's history - though it's certainly a fairly large event in Celtic Boys' Club's history. Hippo43 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I inserted a mention into the History of Celtic F.C. article. It was a significant event in the club's history, after all, and is certainly still very much a live issue. It will do more harm to appear to suppress mention of this very unfortunate event, in my opinion. --Guinnog 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed it per the reasons given above.--Vintagekits 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- With all respect to the contributors above, I didn't see any reasons in terms of Wiki policy not to include it. I think I would approve of the inclusion of some of the Rangers scandals described by Cloveoil into the Rangers history article; we could even reference this discussion. Vk, I was bold and inserted my proposal, you reverted it. Would you mind explaining why, in terms of wiki policy? --Guinnog 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have explained it to you, infact I have done it twice now.--Vintagekits 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Would you say that in the real world it has more or less significance to the history of Celtic F.C. than the Cadete affair? Please give reasons. Thanks.--Guinnog 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have explained it to you, infact I have done it twice now.--Vintagekits 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- With all respect to the contributors above, I didn't see any reasons in terms of Wiki policy not to include it. I think I would approve of the inclusion of some of the Rangers scandals described by Cloveoil into the Rangers history article; we could even reference this discussion. Vk, I was bold and inserted my proposal, you reverted it. Would you mind explaining why, in terms of wiki policy? --Guinnog 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed it per the reasons given above.--Vintagekits 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not having heard any good reason not to, I've restored the info about Torbett, along with a fairly major copyedit of the History article. --Guinnog 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
First British / Northern European Club to win the European Cup
I've reinstated "first British club" as this seems important in the history of British football. I've also reinstated it at History_of_Celtic_F.C. and Lisbon_Lions.
As far as I can tell, from the discussion here - Talk:History_of_Celtic_F.C. - Vintagekits' objection to this is that "in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British"
Excuse me Vintagekits, but my husband and all his family are Scottish, and Celtic fans and Catholics and they certainly do not depise everything British! Your generalisations are way off the mark! I think you've got some issues mate! Trouble between Scotland and England dates back over 500 years-get over it! Scottish people ARE British, and Celtic FC, along with clubs like Liverpool FC and Cardiff FC, are all BRITISH clubs, whether you like it or not! Because they reside in the country called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
This is a ridiculous generalisation. Vintagekits cannot speak for all Celtic fans, or a majority, and to ascribe his own political views to hundreds of thousands of Celtic fans is bonkers. IMO, many Celtic fans are very proud of the fact that Celtic won the European Cup before any club from the generally stronger English league - quite an achievement for a club from Scotland.
Like it or not, Celtic are a British club - being from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland makes Celtic British, irrespective of what Vintagekits thinks. As all of the Lisbon Lions were born in Scotland, presumably they travelled to Lisbon on British passports, whatever their own politics, and presumably most of the thousands of Celtic fans in Milan travelled on British passports, whatever their politics.
I support Barcelona. I'm not Spanish or Catalan and I would correct anyone calling me Spanish or Catalan, but Barelona are still a Spanish club. And a Catalan club. Celtic are a Scottish club, AND a British club AND a Northern European club. Being the first [and in Scotland's case, only] club from each of these 3 places is significant and should be included in the article.
Celtic's own website [1] states "Celtic thus become the first British (and non-Latin) club to win Europe's most coveted trophy." So clearly the club thinks it's important enough to mention in its official history page.
However, the bottom line is that this isn't just about what Celtic FC or Celtic fans think - this is an encyclopedia, and to leave this fact out is just ridiculous. Even if Vintagekits was right, that "Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British", Celtic would still be the first British club to have won the European cup.Hippo43 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, there is no reason why it cannot be described as the first British team. Especially if the Celtic FC are doing so. Astrotrain 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Reliable sources, not the opinion of editors, are the benchmark. Rockpocket 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree. Let's for a minute ignore the fact that many, perhaps the vast majority of, Celtic supporters would object to the term "British", "first northern European" covers British and it covers Scottish, and illustrates the club's actual achievement, rather than the parochial "we got there before any of the English did". Seems like the debate is actually more about the inclusion of a politically controversial term/we got there before the English, than an objective desription of actual achievement. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't censor Wikipedia to suit Celtic supporters. In anycase, only a minority would object to the term "British". The Club themselves use British as a description. Astrotrain 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I get the feeling the main reason to use "first British club" is to boast to the English that Celtic won it first. I have no objection to using the term "British" - it lies in United Kingdom territory and therefore is a British club - but surely in this case "first northern European club" is better, as it denotes the actual achievement. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we are ignoring it, why is it a core point of disagreement? It makes no difference who objects to the term. The simple fact is that "British" is an accurate discriptor beause it is a discrete, objective entity. It is also reliably, and regularly reported as such [2] [3] [4]. Personally I would ditch "Northern European" because its pretty subjective (where does North Europe meet SOuth Europe?), but that is also reliably sourced and thus can stay in per policy. Rockpocket 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, nice try. Neither Spain, Portugal nor Italy are ever considered part of northern Europe, so the question of France's (or other ambiguous country's) inclusion in northern Europe is irrelevant; "first Scottish club", "first British club", "first club in the British Isles", "first club in the British Isles or Russia", etc, etc, are all accurate, but they all give less information than "first northern European club"; ideally, "first club outside Italy or Iberia" could be used, as that gives the most information. The reality is that some people do not like the term "British", and I'm not of the opinion that people should be offended when no reason exists to offend them; there's simply no point of using the term "first British club", unless 1) you wanna boast to the English that Celtic or the Scots got there first 2)a) you wanna offend people who dislike the term or 2)b) you wanna insist of the term because of your pro-British sentiments or 3) you wanna hide the information that Celtic were the first club outside Italy and Iberia to win the trophy. None of these reasons seem to me to be appropriate motivations in a wiki article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- ... or, and excuse me if this is a radical suggestion, that we use reliable sources as threshold for inclusion. Thats good enough for me. Rockpocket 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- we can say British and Northern European then, or British and non-Latin (like Celtic FC do themselves). Astrotrain 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, nice try. Neither Spain, Portugal nor Italy are ever considered part of northern Europe, so the question of France's (or other ambiguous country's) inclusion in northern Europe is irrelevant; "first Scottish club", "first British club", "first club in the British Isles", "first club in the British Isles or Russia", etc, etc, are all accurate, but they all give less information than "first northern European club"; ideally, "first club outside Italy or Iberia" could be used, as that gives the most information. The reality is that some people do not like the term "British", and I'm not of the opinion that people should be offended when no reason exists to offend them; there's simply no point of using the term "first British club", unless 1) you wanna boast to the English that Celtic or the Scots got there first 2)a) you wanna offend people who dislike the term or 2)b) you wanna insist of the term because of your pro-British sentiments or 3) you wanna hide the information that Celtic were the first club outside Italy and Iberia to win the trophy. None of these reasons seem to me to be appropriate motivations in a wiki article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't censor Wikipedia to suit Celtic supporters. In anycase, only a minority would object to the term "British". The Club themselves use British as a description. Astrotrain 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- My problem with it is that it is an unessessary stated to state both Northern Eurporean. Why dont we say remove redundant statement. Why dont we say they where Celtic first club from Northern Europe, North Western Europe, United Kingdom, Britain, Scotland, Glasgow and the East End to win the big un? Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl and that if it Rangers fans and Scottish monarchists that are trying to put the term in, which is pretty annoying in the first place it is a redudant statement.--Vintagekits 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with Calgacus - some people may be offended but they have no inherent right to not be offended, particularly by a straightforward factual statement. I might, for example, be offended by the fact that Margaret Thatcher won 3 general elections, but it's still true and should be in an encyclopedia.
Offended or not, Celtic were the first British club to win the European cup. This is a piece of information that exists in numerous sources - a simple Google search [[5]] reveals lots of mentions, such as this one from the BBC - [6]. That suggests that numerous authors have seen this as significant.
That and being the first club from outwith Spain/Portugal/Italy are 2 separate achievements, 2 separate pieces of information, and are both noted by the club's website - see link above. Winning it before any club from England is a great achievement. If I wrote that so-and-so was the first British actor to win an Oscar, would that be boasting about winning it before anyone else??Hippo43 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Forget about the "offend" bit (even though it was me that brought that up - it was just my opinion that Astrotrain is just trying to stir up trouble because of the current investigation into his behaviour. The really reason for having just Northern European or even non-Latin is because British is a redundant statement and Northern European is a greater achievement.--Vintagekits 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vintagekits, you are being ridiculous - I am a Celtic fan - Scottish by birth, Irish ancestry and a [British] republican, but that makes no difference here - clearly the objection you have is that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl". This is a ludicrous motive for trying to remove a historical fact. Per the reasons in my last edit, it is not a redundant statement.Hippo43 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it is a redundant statement - Neil Armstrong was the first person ever on the moon - whould there be any need to add that he was the first American or the first person from Ohio?? If you cannot realise that you are being used as a pawn here then your need to take a step back--Vintagekits 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vintagekits, you are being ridiculous - I am a Celtic fan - Scottish by birth, Irish ancestry and a [British] republican, but that makes no difference here - clearly the objection you have is that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl". This is a ludicrous motive for trying to remove a historical fact. Per the reasons in my last edit, it is not a redundant statement.Hippo43 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not being used as a pawn - I have no knowledge of, or interest in, any of Astrotrain's business. Are Celtic FC and the BBC, and the authors of virtually every history of Celtic FC also pushing a British monarchist agenda?? I put this in myself because it is true, and significant. Your view of what is significant or not is clearly coloured by your admission that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl". Britain [the UK] is a country, although it might not be your favourite country. It seems to me that only you and Calgacus are interested in removing this. I will keep reinserting it and encourage others to do the same.Hippo43 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- People are offended by such things, that's just the way the world is. There is no point generating needless offence; "first northern European club" covers British and Scottish, and that's that as far as I can see. It'd be different if other northern European clubs had won it but no club from Britain or Ireland had won it, and then Celtic went and won it. But that's not what happened. If "British" is inserted instead of "northern European", Vintagekits or anyone else is entitled to revert it. What is the point of generating needless offence, may I ask? BTW, I personally am not in the slightest bit bothered by useful usage of the term "British", just so you know. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hippo43, I am not having a dig at you - I am just being honest about my feelings about calling Celtic a British club, other editors may not be as honest - anywaymy real problem is not that I am offended by the term - a a wiki editor I try and put that to the side when editing, however, my problem with the statement is that it is a redundant statement as pointed out by my Neil Armstrong example.--Vintagekits 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hippo43, I reverted your edit because you cited this discussion, which is ongoing and has not reached any consensus. I suggest, in good faith, that you hold off renewing that revert war until a better understanding exists. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hippo43, I am not having a dig at you - I am just being honest about my feelings about calling Celtic a British club, other editors may not be as honest - anywaymy real problem is not that I am offended by the term - a a wiki editor I try and put that to the side when editing, however, my problem with the statement is that it is a redundant statement as pointed out by my Neil Armstrong example.--Vintagekits 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- People are offended by such things, that's just the way the world is. There is no point generating needless offence; "first northern European club" covers British and Scottish, and that's that as far as I can see. It'd be different if other northern European clubs had won it but no club from Britain or Ireland had won it, and then Celtic went and won it. But that's not what happened. If "British" is inserted instead of "northern European", Vintagekits or anyone else is entitled to revert it. What is the point of generating needless offence, may I ask? BTW, I personally am not in the slightest bit bothered by useful usage of the term "British", just so you know. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lets all take a moment to sit down and have a cup of tea (dare I say it, a very British thing to do;)). What isn't going to help this situation is to question the motives of other editors, so lets just assume that there are not "motives" or agendas here other than to make this article as good as we can. Can I also ask that we completely drop the whole "British is offensive to certain people" aspect of the debate? There is no basis in policy whatsoever for this justification and it simply will not hold up per WP:NOT. It is a matter of record (cf. the sources above) that Celtic were the first British team to win, so arguing that we should leave it out due to personal distaste of the Union is against everything this project stands for.
- So what we are left with is whether British is redundant to Northern European and which (neither or both) are more appropriate for the description of Celtic's European achievement. Clearly at a fundamental level, British is redundant to Northern European as I don't think ayone will argue the the UK is not in Northern Europe. However, there are plenty of arbitrary grouping one could use and expanding the geographic area to the largest possible doesn't automatically provide the most pertinant information. Especially when the scope of that grouping is not discrete. So the question is more about which grouping provides the most pertinant information for our readers? Personally, as I have stated elsewhere, I believe objective groupings are more informative than subjective ones, and would use Britain over Northern Europe if forced to choose. Others will disagree. If no consensus can be reached then the obvious compromise is to use both, which I would support. Lets here some opinions, but keep in it the scope of policy because speculating on the motives of others or arguing censorship so not to offend people are worthless. Rockpocket 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already said what I have to say on this matter; I don't see how one could possibly argue with me on this point or why they would unless they had one of the motivations I mentioned above (i.e. boasting, pro-britishness, etc). Pointing to websites which say "first British club" is useless - we know Celtic were the first British club, we don't need to cite websites to prove it. How about:
- In 1967, Celtic won the European Cup, which had previously been won only by Italian or Iberian clubs. Celtic were hence the first Scottish and first British side to become European champions. Celtic won every competition that they entered that season: the Scottish League, the Scottish Cup, the Scottish League Cup, the European Cup and the Glasgow Cup.
- ? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read my comments above? If not, let me be clear: my motivation is the make the article as good as possible - as I assume is everyone elses - and the reasoning is based upon the use of an objective, rather than subjective grouping. Therefore its very easy to see how others can argue your point without having one of the motivations you describe. Please make yourself familiar with WP:NPA before speculating on the personal agendas of others. That said, I am perfectly happy with your latest proposal and would support it as a compromise. Rockpocket 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rockpocket, I respect you as an editor and I will make a cohesive argument to outline my take on this later, and thank you for your input. regards--Vintagekits 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, read the above comments. But don't see how a discussion about Subjectivity and the View from Nowhere relates to the 1967 European championship. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- "subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view." Great Britain is an objective geographic and political entity; Northern Europe is subjective entity ("the term is of subjective nature with its meaning usually determined by the geo-political outlook of the speaker"). Simple, innit. Rockpocket 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, you've just stated that Great Britain is objective and northern Europe is not. How is that exactly? Glasgow lies in the north of Europe, and that's that. It also lies in on the island of Great Britain. What's the difference? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- "subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view." Great Britain is an objective geographic and political entity; Northern Europe is subjective entity ("the term is of subjective nature with its meaning usually determined by the geo-political outlook of the speaker"). Simple, innit. Rockpocket 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already said what I have to say on this matter; I don't see how one could possibly argue with me on this point or why they would unless they had one of the motivations I mentioned above (i.e. boasting, pro-britishness, etc). Pointing to websites which say "first British club" is useless - we know Celtic were the first British club, we don't need to cite websites to prove it. How about:
- The subjectivity is not necessarily about whether Glasgow is included in Northern Europe, but what else is, or is not included. If we say "Celtic was the first British team to win" the reader can delineate the precise parameters of that statement (i.e. they can deduce exactly which teams did not win the Cup before Celtic according to our statement, because Britain is an objective entity). If we say "Celtic was the first Northern European team to win" the reader cannot do that because its not clear what a Northern European team is (as we have established, the term is subjective). There is no point stating something in an encyclopaedia if the meaning of the statement is ambiguous. This is why your suggestion "...which had previously been won only by Italian or Iberian clubs" is a much better option, as it is precise, objective and unambiguous. Rockpocket 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am still busy and have not had a chance to put together my arguement yet, however, I would say that Northern Europe is not subjective or we could could the term non Southern European team - the wikilink clears an ambiguity up as does mentioning the countries that had won it later in the sentance. regards--Vintagekits 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The subjectivity is not necessarily about whether Glasgow is included in Northern Europe, but what else is, or is not included. If we say "Celtic was the first British team to win" the reader can delineate the precise parameters of that statement (i.e. they can deduce exactly which teams did not win the Cup before Celtic according to our statement, because Britain is an objective entity). If we say "Celtic was the first Northern European team to win" the reader cannot do that because its not clear what a Northern European team is (as we have established, the term is subjective). There is no point stating something in an encyclopaedia if the meaning of the statement is ambiguous. This is why your suggestion "...which had previously been won only by Italian or Iberian clubs" is a much better option, as it is precise, objective and unambiguous. Rockpocket 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- (reset indent) If you follow the links you provided you will see that "there is no clear definition of the term Southern Europe" and "the term Northern Europe is of subjective nature", so quite how do you come to the conclusion that it is "not subjective" or that "the wikilink clears an ambiguity up"? Rockpocket 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Vienna or Lyons. Glasgow is unambiguously in northern Europe. Where northern and southern Europe blur isn't relevant. (Is Orkney in Great Britain, is Skye, is Mann, are the Channel Isles, what about northern Ireland, etc, etc). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Once again I refer you to my comments above. Glasgow isn't the issue, places like Monaco, Munich, Paris, Amsterdam, Bordeaux, Vienna or Lyons are. You appear to be missing the point: If you want value from a statement about Celtic being the first of a group, you have to know the parameters of that group. If you can't unambiguously define the group (and Northern Europe clearly doesn't according to our own article) then there statement is diminished in value because the reader will not be able to discerne whether or not a French, Dutch or Austrian side won the Cup before them. That is why we should avoid subjective terms. Rockpocket 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, your idea that one is "subjective" and the other isn't is simply preposterous; I refer you to my above comments. Both concepts blur at the edges (apparently your definition of "subjective"), and such blurs are irrelevant to Celtic, as Glasgow is neither doubtfully physically located in Great Britain nor doubtfully located in northern Europe. BTW, I suggest you should submit your ideas about subjectivity and objectivity to a philosophy journal, as their exoticness may be of interest. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- My "ideas" are taken from our articles on the subject and the references therein. I have provided numerous illustrative links and quotes. If you have a problem with those descriptions I suggest you take it up there, instead of here. In reply you appear to have your own interpretation, which is fine of course, except it doesn't count for much without sources. You appear unwilling or unable to reflect on the reasoning that I have now explained twice, thus I don't see much point in continuing this debate. If you wish to go ahead with your proposal about using "clubs not from Iberia and Italy" then you have my support. Otherwise lets wait to see if consensus forms around the reasoning discussed here. If not, we can either compromise or open a request for comment. Good-day. Rockpocket 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that your reasoning doesn't have the strength you think it has. I mean, ignoring everything else you said, you seem to think we're talking about some difficult to verify, obscure piece of information; why else appeal to "sources", when Celtic's European victory in 1967 and previous winners are well known? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You say "your idea that one [Northern Europe] is "subjective" and the other [Great Britain] isn't is simply preposterous", I provided the links that said exactly that. So how is it "preposterous" exactly? Rockpocket 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that your reasoning doesn't have the strength you think it has. I mean, ignoring everything else you said, you seem to think we're talking about some difficult to verify, obscure piece of information; why else appeal to "sources", when Celtic's European victory in 1967 and previous winners are well known? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, if you think you did that, then you had the correct idea before when you declared you were giving up. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll repeat it if it helps:
- "Great Britain is an objective geographic and political entity; Northern Europe is subjective entity ("...the term is of subjective nature with its meaning usually determined by the geo-political outlook of the speaker".
- Oh dear, indeed. Rockpocket 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll repeat it if it helps:
- Oh dear indeedie, you've already tried this. See above comments. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It should state that Celtic was the first British and Northern European team to win the European Cup. Pretty much any time ive read articles in the press or footballing literature regarding the win this is how it is described. Any political discomfort certain Celtic fans might feel about the use of the term "British" is totally irrelevant. siarach 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree- I've added this back and referenced to Celtic FC- [7]- "Milestones in the history of Celtic FC" Astrotrain 10:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am glad I started this discussion... Hippo43 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Vintagekits, but my husband and all his family are Scottish, and Celtic fans and Catholics and they certainly do not depise everything British! Your generalisations are way off the mark! I think you've got some issues mate! Trouble between Scotland and England dates back over 500 years-get over it! Scottish people ARE British, and Celtic FC, along with clubs like Liverpool FC and Cardiff FC, are all BRITISH clubs, whether you like it or not! Because they reside in the country called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. (unsigned comment)
- You are excused Tammi, my argument is that it was not necessary to state that Celtic were the first British team to win the EC is because it is a redundant statement. If they were the first non-latin or Northern European team to win the cup then it is redundant to state that they were also the first British, Scottish and Glaswegian team to win it because that goes without saying - for example Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon so is it necessary to state that he was also the first American, Ohian (person from Ohio?), Wapakonetan, university professor or alumni of the University of Southern California??--Vintagekits 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
VK, I don't believe that Neil Armstrong is a comparable example to Celtic in this case. Walking on the moon is not a regular competition with a definite winner every time, unlike the European Cup, and Armstrong was the first man ever, unlike Celtic (not the first club ever). If the World Moon-walking Cup was held every year, and first won by Armstrong in 1969, it would be legitimate for us to write , say, "In 1977 Penelope Keith became the first British and first European Astronaut to win the World Moon-walking Cup, which had previously been the preserve of American and Chinese spacemen".
IMO, something like England winning the Rugby World Cup in 2003 is a closer comparison - first northern hemisphere team to win it? England. First European team? England. First of the 'Home Unions'? England. For me, 3 separate pieces of info.
I don't really buy your statement that you want this removed because it is redundant - your earlier comments that "in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British" and "that term British actually makes my skin crawl" make it clear that your objection is more personal. I respect your opinion on those points, and the honesty with which you made them, but they aren't good enough reasons for leaving this fact out. Hippo43 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said Hippo43! Keep it as first BRITISH club!TammiMagee 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Real Name
celtic Fc's real name is 'Celtic Football Club'. The 'the' was dropped, because only 2 use the 'the' and that is: The Arsenal Football Club The Rangers Football Club
Please fix this
First can you provide a reference, please?
Is this a joke? Look here - [8], here - [9] and here - [10].
Hippo43 11:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Match stats
In German Wikipedia one user asked if it's possible to bring in the statistics (Victory, draw, loss) for ALL Celtic fixtures. Do you think if this is meaningful and does someone here has the opportunity to take researches on this case? Thanks in advance. -Lemmy- 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Notable former players
Should be in alfubettikal order, should'nt they ? The new way is stoopid. Thats my o'pinion for the day!
Does anyone mind me addin these guys to the notable players Ulrik Laursen, Marc Rieper, Enrico Annoni, Regi Blinker, Bobby Petta, Vidar Riseth, Dmitri Kharine, Momo Sylla — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
- Please read the discussion here first. I don't think the majority of these players meet the criteria discussed. If you disagree with these criteria, or have a case why you think these players should be included, then by all means lets hear it. But please don't just include any ex-Celtic player by default, especially not one that played less than ten games for the club (like Dmitri Kharine.) Rockpocket 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think all the players mentioned above should be added with the exceptions of Marc Rieper and Dmitri Kharine.Ulrik Laursen was a solid player for us,solid enough to be played in the cup final in Seville.Enrico Annoni should be added as he is Celtics only decent Italian signing next to Paolo Di Canio and Annoni played quite a bit for us(37).Regi Blinker and Bobby Petta should be added as they are both from Holland which is something rare in the SPL,the only other team to have former players from Holland is Rangers.Petta played almost 100 times for us and Blinker was a Dutch international.Vidar Riseth should be added as he played for his country almost 50 times and played at a World Cup.He also played a good number of games for us.This im sure you'll agree is notable.Momo sylla should be added as he played with us for 4 years scoring 7 times,was part of the Seville squad and is an international for his country.Also is there any problems with Roy Keane being added.I think we can add these guys without letting any old former player in and still be able to main a sense of strictness needed to make the page work.What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
- I think you should read the discussion we had on this which Rockpocket referred you to above. Please sign on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).--Guinnog 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ive read it and gave you the reasons why they should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
- Being a "solid player" doesn't inherently make one unusually notable with regards to Celtic; neither does being "Celtics only decent Italian signing next to Paolo Di Canio", being "from Holland", being an internationl or having "played at a World Cup". Being part of a notable squad (such as the Lisbon Lions or Seville team) is perhaps a better claim and is one we could discuss further to see if there is consensus for that. I don't see how any other claim you make is extraordinary enough to merit inclusion. As for Keane, quite how is he notable with regards to Celtic? He played how many times for the club? Rockpocket 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well how strict are you being.Its stupid being that strict and only letting prolific extraordinary players or Lisbon Lions in.Not every single player in there has to be essential to Celtic history.Compare Rangers former players to our page,Ours looks bare compared to theres.And you know how many times Keane played for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
- That could be put down to the fact that no set criteria have been drawn up for the section. Archibald99 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that one article should mimic the imperfections of another never carries much weight here on Wikipedia. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a Celtic fansite. And please, please sign on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Guinnog 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well comparing theirs to ours,theirs having no set criteria and ours with a very strict ones,the Rangers page is lookin much better.Dose anyone think the criteria should be loosened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
- No. I might suggest the Rangers ones should be tightened though. --Guinnog 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Im not saying we should mimic any page but im saying we can offer better than what were already showing.It is an encyclopedia and I think the players im offering are notable.You cant deny the are.Just because they never helped Celtic to a Major cup or a european trophy.Now is anyone up for changin the criteria to a looser one? User:LiamD1
- Seeing we just recently put a fair bit of work into deciding these criteria as the list was getting too long, not really. However, please have your say. Why do you think Roy Keane was notable as a Celtic player? --Guinnog 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a competition to see who can list the most players. And whats with the "them and us" language? No-one owns "their" page any more than "we" (whoever "we" and "they" are) own this one. There already is a category listing all Celtic players: Category:Celtic F.C. players, there is no value in having a similar indiscriminate list here. If we are going to have a notable player list, then it must selective, and the more selective the better, IMO. Now, if you have some guidelines for how you think we should decide who is listed and who is not, then lets hear them so we can discuss it. Proposing they "should be loosened" isn't particularly helpful unless you can tell us to what extent. Rockpocket 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Im not saying we should let every or any half decent player be added but i think players that have made an impact,were involved in anythin major e.g seville and also players notable to football itself like Ian Wright,Craig Bellamy and Roy Keane should be added.(86.147.52.64 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)).
- I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen any official policy on the matter of "players notable to football itself" within Notable players sections. Possibly something to be brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Archibald99 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
can someone please explain to inclusion of Harald Brattbakk, the only thing that I can remember from him is the 4 goals he scored against Kilmnarnock, this to me does not warrant "notable player" D. BULL 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea.We could have 2 sections for former players.The first section would have past players with no criteria but obviously not every player from the player list would be added.This section would have all celtic players who are notable but not as notable as the ones in the next section.The next section has the prolific players for celtic like the lisbon lions ,the seville squad,Dalglish,Bonner Mcstay and Larsson and any other players who were truly notable.We could give it an appropriate name like The Hall of Fame or something.What do you all think?(LiamD1 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)).
- I don't recall the reasoning behind Brattback's inclusion. It might be been because of his league winning goal against St Johnstone. Pretty weak claim, IMO. Regarding the proposal of multiple sections: It makes no sense. You say: "The first section would have past players with no criteria but obviously not every player from the player list would be added". That is logically incompatible. If there are no criteria, then every player would be added. If every player would not be added, then there must be some criteria to determine which ones are. You talk about "prolific" players and those that are "notable but not as notable as the ones in the next section". Those terms are meaningless unless there are some guidelines for what they mean. If you can come up with some guidelines then lets hear them. Otherwise it pretty much comes down to arbitrary levels of notability in your opinion. Rockpocket 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OK.You know what I mean by prolific,like Celtic Legends.They would be added to that section.The other section would have players that are notable but not as notable as the ones in the Legend section.For guidelines for the notable player section I would say ones nowhere near as strict as the ones we already have.Mohammed Salim and Gil Heron were added because it was unusual for a scottish club to buy an Indian or a Jamaican player so for the same reason people the likes of Juninho,Du Wei,Eyal Berkovic and Fernando de Ornelas should be added as it isnt often a Brazilian,Chinese,Israeli or Venezuelan plays for Celtic.Basically the notable players list should have players that are worth noting for what ever reason whether it be they are from a foreign country or scored a winning goal etc.We should save the strict stuff for the legends section, if we make one.(LiamD1 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)).
- It was very unusual, and hence notable, to sign such players as Salim and Heron at that time they were signed. They were firsts. Its no big deal that a Celtic player is foreign these days and thus it doesn't make them particularly notable. All the players you list barely played a handful of games for the club, therefore its hard to see how they could be considered with noting (and Juninho wasn't even the first Brazilian!). If you are intent on some kind of structured list, why don't you create List of former Celtic F.C. players? I'm not convinced it would last too long (seeing as it would essentially duplicate the category), but if it was structured to give additional information then it could be useful. Rockpocket 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes to learn about the pros and cons of such a move. Rockpocket 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats what am sayin,the players a just mentioned arent particularly notable but they are notable to a certain extent,and i think if people come onto celtics page they should know celtic had players like that and they should be clearly noted on the page instead of having to click to lists etc, that is why i proposed a legends section so the other legendary notable players are kept seperate but at the smae time both can be listed.I honestly think it would work.(LiamD1 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think there would be much support for such a proposal, especially without any guidelines for how we should distinguish those that are notable from those that "arent particularly notable but they are notable to a certain extent" from those that are in either of these groups. But lets invite further comment and see if there is any consensus for such change. Rockpocket 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a rough out line of what i think would work.Being notable to football in general.Being from an unusual country to scottish football.Playing in a world cup etc or playing a lot of games for us.Try and think of the notable players section as the ones worth noting outwith the player list and it could be for any reason,but the legend section would be reserved for celic best ever players and players that deserve to be noted out with both the player list and the notable player section.(LiamD1 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
- I'd say if that information could usefully be collated (in a form that would substantially add to Category:Celtic F.C. players), it could be useful list article. It would certainly be too long to include in the main Celtic F.C. article. --Guinnog 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont mean list every player but just list more in the notable section and the legendary players in another section.So that that way theres the list of players,the notable ones,and the absolute legendary celtic players.(LiamD1 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
- Its probably worth noting that we already have another section listing the 11 most "legendary" Celtic players (as voted by the fans). Rockpocket 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats the best team.Im talking about a section for the legends or a hall of fame or something with the lisbon lions,seville ,mcstay burns,boyd etc with an appropriate name.That way the other notable players get to be noted without such strict criteria and the legends get a sepearte section with the strict criteria eg a certain amount of games,left the club such a number of years ago etc.That section would be totally different from the greatest team section.If you look at other teams their notable player section isnt made up from only their best past players ,but past players in general and their pages looks quite good.Is anyone up for that,making another section with strict criteria and loosening the criteria on the current one to allow more players in.(LiamD1 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
Notable players: alternative proposal
I would instead propose that we adopt the format used at Liverpool F.C.#Notable players (note it uses text instead of a list, which is always preferable in an article, directs to an enhanced List of Liverpool F.C. players which is itself a featured list, and maintains similar criteria as we are using at the moment.) Rockpocket 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be perfectly aplicable to the legends section and another section could be used for simply notable players where we could list all of celtics past foreign players and other scottish ones.That way we could just list the notable ones and dedicate a list and text to the legends.A format we could use to list just the notables could be the one Rangers and AC Milan have adopted.(LiamD1 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
- Rockpocket, I like it. --Guinnog 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I like Rockpocket's idea, but it can still just as easily be swamped by not-very-notable players. I think having 2 separate lists would be daft, sorry LiamD1 - this needs to be tightened up, not expanded.
As for the likes of Roy Keane - he seems notable to me as he is a notable player in football itself, if not for Celtic. If Celtic had signed, say, Pele or Diego Maradona for a few games, they would surely merit being included.
Either way, this needs to be sorted with some kind of criteria. IMO including Ulrik Laursen over Marc Rieper would be ridiculous - Rieper was an integral part of a championship-winning team and an excellent player, Laursen a useful but unspectacular squad player who was about 4th choice for his position.Hippo43 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think if we include players due to their inherent notability (i.e. "famous players"), irrespective of whether that notability is in any way related to their association with the club, then we are going to have even more problems with keeping this under control, and we are going to fall foul of Western bias. For example, if we are including Keane, I can't see any argument for not adding Ian Wright and Junihio by the same rationale. But then what about players like Berkovic (is he not as famous in Israel as Keane is in Ireland and the UK?) or Hedman (fit wife - famous in Sweden), or Kharine (for all we know he is a household name in the Ukrainian heartlands), or Olivier Tébily (a superstar in Côte d'Ivoire, due to being Didier Drogba's cousin), or Viduka (big - literally - in Oz). Obviously i'm being somewhat facetious here, but it is something to consider. Rockpocket 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I might be being a bit UK-centric, but I think Keane's stature in the world game over his career is fairly significant [not something that I'd say about the others, except Juninho], and not just that he is famous in these parts.Hippo43 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I mean.All the players rocketpocket just listed aswell as others I think deserve to be noted on the celtic page outwith the player list.But no-one can come up with a way.Does anyone agree that players like that should be noted?(LiamD1 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Can I ask why players like Paulo Di Canio and Jorge Cadete have been added with Cadete having 47 appearences and Di Canio havin 37 yet you wont let Mark Viduka and Enrico Annoni in who have roughly the same amount of appearences.And why havent Momo Sylla and Ulrik Laursen been added , they were part of the team that were taken to Seville.(86.147.50.72 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)}
- At the end of the day, Seville isn't that notable. Not even a winning team, and if every club's notable players section included all players who had been part of teams who had lost in a final (UEFA Cup at that), it would be a very large section. Archibald99 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Cadete and Di Canio's position among the Three Amigos makes them notable enough for inclusion. The impact thet had in the short time they played and left Celtic marked a watershed in the evolution of the club into a well managed PLC. I don't think the others you mention had the same level of notoriety, though Viduka may have a decent claim. Rockpocket 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree i think Viduka should be added.Could we add him?I also think we should add Eyal Berkovic as he was quite controversial and made an impact for the amount of time that he stayed.(LiamD1 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
What about Eyal Berkovic, he made an impact and was controversial.What do you think?(LiamD1 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
- Here's an idea. Why not improve the article on Eyal Berkovic, rather than trying to add him to this list? He was definitely not notable for Celtic, in my opinion.--Guinnog 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article on Berkovic dosent need to be altered its good as it is.Berkovic is notable as he was contorversial and didnt get along with the Celtic fans who under rated him and his attitude is notorious.I think he worth noting,anyone else think so?(LiamD1 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
Colours & badge
I'm thinking of adding a section on the club's colours & badge - similar to what Liverpool's article has - Liverpool_F.C.#Colours_and_badge
If I've got time I'll get onto it - let me know what you think.Hippo43 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea if it can be well sourced. Rockpocket 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking stuff like the original clours, 100 years of the hoops, other clubs who have chosen Celtic's colours, history of the badge (centenary season etc), shirt sponsorship issues - that kind of thing. Maybe even a mention of the hoopless hoops Celtic wore a few seasons back. Any more suggestions?Hippo43 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Reserve & youth squad
I wonder how we can best handle this. The field of redlinks looks ugly at present, and youth and reserve players are inherently non-notable; the ones who do have articles should not. I suggest unlinking them and deleting the few articles which exist. Thoughts? --Guinnog 10:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why dont we just make articles for them?(LiamD1 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC))
- As Guinnog says, there is a good chance they would not pass the notability criteria. Archibald99 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nickname
Is the nickname "Tic" correct? There has been a lot of vandalism today so not sure if this has slipped through. Thunderwing 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Archibald99 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks- hadn't heard that one myself, so wanted to check! Thunderwing 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
2004-05 season
Hi,everyone! The article Celtic F.C. season 2004-05 still needs some attention... Regards -Lemmy- 09:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Future Arrivals
Could we do a section on future arrivals like Liverpool and Bolton have done.This one would be for Scott Mcdonald and Greg Dalby(LiamD1 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC))