Football C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Scotland C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Year Founded
Celtic were founded in November 1887, not '88. Somebody please change it, as I do not have editing rights.
its true that celtic were founded on the 6 of november 1887, but as the the clubs first season wasn't untill 1888. a football clubs founding year is most often the year of their first competitive season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.76.14 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, but in the "formation and History" section it claims Celtic were formed on 6 November 1888, rather than '87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- yeh its when they play first competitive games, its already explained(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC))
- why does it say 1888 on the badge and all club related items?(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- Because their first official game was in 1888. [1] Jack forbes (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- then i would think thats the year that they are founded in, lots of teams have played games and been an org before their official founding date but it is not until their official first match like you said, you are confusing the issue by having a diff date on the first page, if someone wants to read more about when they first met as celtic i.e. in 1887 then there is the club history page(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not confusing anyone as it wasn't I who changed it to 1887. The confusion is that it was quite a while from the "founding" to their first game. I'd love to know what they were doing in between. The Celtic website does say that they were formally constituted in 1887 (why it says constituted and not founded I don't know). Hey, I'm a Celtic supporter and I've always been confused over the 1888-1988 centenary year. There must be an explanation out there somewhere, but I don't have it. Jack forbes (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked for some advice on this at Talk:Association football. Jack forbes (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- then i would think thats the year that they are founded in, lots of teams have played games and been an org before their official founding date but it is not until their official first match like you said, you are confusing the issue by having a diff date on the first page, if someone wants to read more about when they first met as celtic i.e. in 1887 then there is the club history page(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- Because their first official game was in 1888. [1] Jack forbes (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- why does it say 1888 on the badge and all club related items?(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- The problem is that we're trying to make the info fit the infobox. The details are clear - the club was constituted in 1887, and played its first game in 1888 - yet we are trying to make one of these dates fit the undefined term 'Founded'. We have to provide info for the benfit of readers - if they want to know when the club was constituted, it was 1887; if they want to know when the club played its first game, it was 1888. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hippo has moved my request for advice on this to the correct place, the football project talk page, WT:FOOTY#Celtic_F.C._founded_1887_or_1888. Jack forbes (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
First Northern European team to win European cup.
Ok, I'll start it off. First off, is it more notable that they were the first northern European team to win it or first British team? Or both perhaps? Jack forbes (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Surely if they are the first northern European team then it follows that they are the first British team?! Pretty straightforward I think, unless one specifically wants to stress the Britishness of Celtic for emotional reasons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that being the first northern European team to win the trophy negates the need to include Britain. Hippo believes the reference is not reliable enough. If that's the case is there a more reliable reference out there? Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe that has anything to do with it. Having read the previous threads, it looks like Hippo just wants "British" included, and is prepared to edit-war to achieve this. The edit-summary is a pretty unconvincing excuse to me. Or maybe I'm being cynical. At any rate, even if he does care I don't think reasonable editors should, as all one needs to do is look over the previous winners ... previous winners come from Italy and Iberia. Chasing references to prove something everyone already knows is a game unbefitting of intelligent humans. :) @ Hippo, please see WP:Consensus can change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I too believe searching for a reference for something so obvious is not needed. I have no idea though (and wouldn't like to guess) why Hippo prefers "first British club". Jack forbes (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe that has anything to do with it. Having read the previous threads, it looks like Hippo just wants "British" included, and is prepared to edit-war to achieve this. The edit-summary is a pretty unconvincing excuse to me. Or maybe I'm being cynical. At any rate, even if he does care I don't think reasonable editors should, as all one needs to do is look over the previous winners ... previous winners come from Italy and Iberia. Chasing references to prove something everyone already knows is a game unbefitting of intelligent humans. :) @ Hippo, please see WP:Consensus can change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The crap ref is not an issue for me - I accept that it is true. However, the ref given was a copy of a previous version of this article! Reliable sources simply don't report that Celtic were the first Northern European team, because it doesn't matter to anyone. 'Northern European' is a strange phrase - where is Northern Europe? And so what? Celtic were only the fifth team to win the thing, and the first team from outwith Spain, Portugal and Italy to win it. They were also the first team not based in Madrid, Milan or Lisbon to win it. And the first/only Scottish team. And the first team who play in green...
- Previous consensus, after tedious discussion, was to include British, with more detail (since removed, but I'll put it back soon) in the history section. This is how reliable sources in English generally report it, so it seems a sensible choice to me. Particularly, on Celtic's own website [2] they say first "British (and non-Latin)", so I'd go with British, as 'non-Latin' isn't really an encyclopedic term. Deacon, you are the edit warrior in this case - you changed the text, then reverted my revert rather than discussing it, per WP:BRD. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but until it does, let's stick with the existing consensus version. --hippo43 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I actually haven't performed any reverts ... each time trying to accommodate yourself with adjustments. You have performed three and are one away from violating the WP:3RR. Are you seriously opening the idea of "Northern Europe" to question? Sorry for my lack of patience for bs just now, but unless anyone believes Iberia and Italy are in northern Europe (the north part of Europe), or Scotland is not, then this is just games. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why being the first British team to win it is any more important than the first Northern Europe team to win it. If we don't say first northern European team then why not just say Scottish team as the Scottish league has as much in common with any other league as they have with the Welsh or English leagues. Celtic don't represent Britain in football. Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with "Northern Europe" alone is it doesn't have a defined meaning that everyone can recognize and agree on (unlike "British" or "Scottish"). The point is not whether Italy or Iberia is in Northern Europe, the point is what countries were are including (excluding) in that statement (for example, will the reader know whether a German is considered Northern European.) Rockpocket 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Previous consensus, after tedious discussion, was to include British, with more detail (since removed, but I'll put it back soon) in the history section. This is how reliable sources in English generally report it, so it seems a sensible choice to me. Particularly, on Celtic's own website [2] they say first "British (and non-Latin)", so I'd go with British, as 'non-Latin' isn't really an encyclopedic term. Deacon, you are the edit warrior in this case - you changed the text, then reverted my revert rather than discussing it, per WP:BRD. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but until it does, let's stick with the existing consensus version. --hippo43 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- You carried on with this after being informed that there was a previous consensus reached via discussion, so your claims of "bs" and "games" on my part are horseshit.
- The reason, IMO, that 'British' is so widely used is because Scotland and England are part of the same British media market, so reliable sources in English (often based in England) make the point that Celtic were the first British team. Winning the European Cup before any team from the bigger English league is a significant achievement in that context. I agree with Rockpocket - Northern Europe is undefined - and it is not a term used in any reliable sources I have come across.
- The club itself uses 'British', so it's obviously significant to them. I'd have no objection to "first British team and only Scottish team" in the lead. In the later History section, there should be mention of this achievement, and in the past I supported something like "...which had previously been won only by Spanish, Italian and Portuguese clubs." I'd have no problem with a similar sentence in the History section now. --hippo43 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- "first British team and only Scottish team" is the best solution, fully support that sort of wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The club itself uses 'British', so it's obviously significant to them. I'd have no objection to "first British team and only Scottish team" in the lead. In the later History section, there should be mention of this achievement, and in the past I supported something like "...which had previously been won only by Spanish, Italian and Portuguese clubs." I'd have no problem with a similar sentence in the History section now. --hippo43 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a British team so its useful information to point out that they were the first British team to win it, that is far more clear than "Northern Europe" but i dont oppose that being included aswell. Although i must confess when you look at the flags many of their supporters wave youd be stunned to learn the team is from Great Britain. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hippo, if you want to highlight your misunderstandings of our policies, do it in your userspace. Rock, "Northern Europe" is not any more undefinable or ambiguous than "British", and is inclusive of the latter. That's where the argument starts and stops; the rest is just silliness, and I'm actually mildly insulted it was thought acceptable form of argument. ;) I mean ... "will the reader know whether a German is considered Northern European" ... seriously? With just "British", no-one will know if Northern Ireland is British, and it will still be up for question whether or not a Northern Irish side won it previously, nor will they know any more about the previous success or lack of it for German sides. This argument is a joke. And great, if people wanna be parochial and boast that Celtic beat the English by a year, northern Europe still does that. Trust me, no-one will doubt that England is in Northern Europe.
- Ah wikipedia .... I just love it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you disagree, there is no need to disparage other's comments as "silliness" or "a joke". I did you the courtesy of taking your opinion seriously, I would expect the same. I'm happy to rectify your misunderstanding by stating that it is not a joke on my part; I hope that clarifies the issue for you. If you are concerned about the ambiguity of "Great Britain" vis Northern Ireland, we could easily resolve that by using the term "The United Kingdom". Rockpocket 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon, I'm with Rockpocket - your rudeness is not going to help build consensus. I'll assume you were having a bad day. If you think I've misunderstood a policy, please explain. 'British' is the adjective relating to the United Kingdom, and the pipe-linked form British is widely used on Wikipedia without confusion. --hippo43 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think British produces any more confusion than northern European is contrived to. I'm sorry, I can't take this discussion seriously because I see ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments ... I'll just leave it and see if anyone else chimes in. But Hippo, please refrain from calling the current version "consensus". Just because you are prepared to revert more than the numerous people who've objected to this line doesn't mean the line has consensus. It certainly doesn't have consensus.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome. "Ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments" based on what? A single, justified expression of an opinion. You are doing a great job of convincing me of the merits of your argument. Guess what, just because we disagree doesn't mean our motives differ. Someone of your experience should have read WP:AGF by now. Rockpocket 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- In my last edit, I said that your rudeness would not help build consensus - clearly implying that we are trying to move toward consensus. I also suggested above that 'first British and only Scottish team' would be worth including, which should suggest I'm open to changes, and a new consensus. Further, the wording was stable for some time before your recent changes - other editors' silence on the issue is proof of consensus, per WP:CON. I've no idea what ideology you see here. --hippo43 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think British produces any more confusion than northern European is contrived to. I'm sorry, I can't take this discussion seriously because I see ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments ... I'll just leave it and see if anyone else chimes in. But Hippo, please refrain from calling the current version "consensus". Just because you are prepared to revert more than the numerous people who've objected to this line doesn't mean the line has consensus. It certainly doesn't have consensus.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) British is just as ambiguous as Northern European, First Northern European is a greater achievement than first British and therefore Northern European should be used.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- VK, your contribution to the last discussion on this subject made it clear your objection is personal (something about the word 'British' making your skin crawl) and has no basis in policy. I've reverted to British (adding '..and only Scottish') while this discussion is ongoing. Reliable sources do not generally use 'Northern European', so I can't see any good reason to do so here. --hippo43 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hippo, I don't see how admitting why one dislikes this phrase makes an opinion less valid. As you may or may not know Hippo, "British" is often a sensitive term in Scotland which is used according to taste, but especially so for an institution so closely connected with Irish nationalism. You wouldn't describe Alex Salmond as British, and certainly not Gerry Adams, even though both of them technically are. I must say, this is pretty much the only context where you could describe Celtic as British ... but I think this point should be respected as an additional one. And Hippo, I must respectfully restate my displeasure at the way you are edit-warring on the page. You don't have to act like that .... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say his opinion was less valid. I understand his view entirely but it's not a legitimate basis for making content decisions in an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be allowed to over-ride policy. I'm well aware that some people dislike the word, but it is still the correct adjective to describe people or things from the UK. Salmond and Adams are British - it's not "technically" the case, it's their legal nationality. I would certainly describe either as British if it was appropriate for the context. As for edit-warring, your criticisms don't have a lot of credibility. --hippo43 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Vintagekits never claimed in this section that skin-crawling was the basis for his dislike of this sentence here, so your response to this makes no sense and seems a bit provocative. The only difference to me is that he's fessed up to his ideology, whereas you haven't fessed up to yours. If I am wrong, I am very sorry. And "legal nationality" has no more validity in wiki "policy" than actual nationality ... in wiki practice, sometimes less so, as you'll discover by reading the appropriate wiki articles. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- VK has stated in other discussions on this point 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". I may be incorrect in assuming that his views remain the same, as those comments were made some time ago, but I doubt it. In any case, my response makes perfect sense. I don't know what ideology you think I should fess up to - perhaps you could let me know. Or if you assume everyone has some ideology, fess up to your own?
- I've no idea what you think is the diffence between 'legal' and 'actual' nationality. As far as I can tell, the guideline WP:MOSBIO states that "the country of which the person is a citizen or national" (ie their legal nationality) is generally used, and the essay WP:UKNATIONALS states that there is no consensus on how to refer to British people's nationalities. If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out? --hippo43 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out?
- You already know about WP:UKNATIONALS ... that sums it up. I suppose what I meant by actual nationality is the nationality people have on an individual and community basis, as held by themselves and any community. As a purely historical point, nationality predates the attempts by states to legalise it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out?
- I've no idea what you think is the diffence between 'legal' and 'actual' nationality. As far as I can tell, the guideline WP:MOSBIO states that "the country of which the person is a citizen or national" (ie their legal nationality) is generally used, and the essay WP:UKNATIONALS states that there is no consensus on how to refer to British people's nationalities. If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out? --hippo43 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody who knows football knows Celtic and their fans are extremely proud of being the first British winners of the Cup, and for pretty obvious reasons. They would never be so daft as to object to the word when used in this context, it would be tantamount to cutting off their nose to spite their face. And 'Northern Europe' from a football records perspective is utterly meaningless and made up, and would mean nothing to people who know about European football, let alone people who don't. MickMacNee (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh look, another editor with a "joke" opinion full of "ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments." (i.e. who has the temerity to disgree with Deacon of Pndapetzim) *rolls eyes* Rockpocket 06:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- " 'Northern Europe' from a football records perspective is utterly meaningless and made up" - whereas British is what? Do Celtic play in the "British League"? --Vintagekits (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to step in a minefield here and I'm not intimately familiar with the naming conventions and the related disputes, but what would be wrong with "... the first team from the United Kingdom...?"68.82.136.142 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also what would be wrong with "the first Northern European team and still the only team from Scotland"? - that pretty much sums it all up. Unless there are any objections to that then I propose that that is the preferred wording.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because the term "Northern European" is imprecise and is not recognised within the organisations and authorities of football. Nor does it have any political, cultural or even geographical significance. You'd be as well defining their European Cup win in terms of what bus the team arrived at the stadium in. It is an entirely made up definition that would appear nowhere other than in this article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "imprecise and is not recognised within the organisations and authorities of football" - its no less imprecise at "British" - a. there is an article on Northern European and once link there is no definition that doesnt include Ireland, Great Britain and other countries. b. Authorities in football dont recognise Britain either! Anyway it is a reference to a geographic area not a footballing term.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- VK, apart from the objections already stated above??
- 'First Northern European' is a spurious, made-up 'first' involving an undefined area, and which reliable sources do not use. 'British', on the other hand, is perfectly clear, has obvious significance (Celtic being the first club from the UK), and is widely used by reliable sources, including the club itself! In football sources, British records are often discussed, despite there being no British league - the British transfer record, for example.
- IP, 'British' means 'from the United Kingdom'. Re-wording the fact because some don't like 'British' is a form of censorship. --hippo43 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "spurious, made-up 'first' involving an undefined area" - wrong on all accounts. Why not say they were the first Glaswegian, Scottish, British and Northern European team? I'll tell you why because you would only include the greatest achievement of them all. Even the Scum agrees! or maybe you prefer non-Latin! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because the term "Northern European" is imprecise and is not recognised within the organisations and authorities of football. Nor does it have any political, cultural or even geographical significance. You'd be as well defining their European Cup win in terms of what bus the team arrived at the stadium in. It is an entirely made up definition that would appear nowhere other than in this article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also what would be wrong with "the first Northern European team and still the only team from Scotland"? - that pretty much sums it all up. Unless there are any objections to that then I propose that that is the preferred wording.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to step in a minefield here and I'm not intimately familiar with the naming conventions and the related disputes, but what would be wrong with "... the first team from the United Kingdom...?"68.82.136.142 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Wrong on all accounts"?? Because you say so? Or do you have an explanation? Did you even read the sources you just mentioned? The BBC source says "first British team" in its first sentence! And the Sun article is a list of British sporting achievements! --hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I gotta say, I'm really still with Vintagekits on this one. There is clearly no consensus for the current version, and the argument that "British" tells the reader more than "northern European" I find incomprehensible. I think it is important to say they are the first northern European club. Contrary to assertions above, there is a recognized difference in football terms between northern and southern (Mediterranean) European teams (the stereotype is that southern teams are small and slick, northern teams big and rough, and so on), and thus it is notable. Germany in this sense is definitely a northern country. The tricky ones are France and the countries in the Balkans, not Germany. As a compromise, how about "First team from the United Kingdom (precise and less counter-intuitive, which "British" isn't) and indeed from northern Europe to win ..." No Balkan team, French team ... nor even a German team ... won previously, so this shouldn't be an ambiguity issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- But it is a totally pointless distinction recognised by no-one. "Northern Europe" is not a political, cultural or footballing entity with any meaning to it. The stereotypes you speak of dividing the continent are exactly that; stereotypes that mean nothing and have dubious accuracy or value. Why stop at "Northern European"? Why not state that Celtic were the first team ever to win the European Cup... except for some teams in Italy, Spain and Portugal. That's more accurate than this imprecise Northern Europe definition, equally true, and just as ridiculous. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are exaggerating the imprecision of "northern Europe" and precision of "British", unrealistically and irrelevantly so. To me this point has already been established above. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- But it is a totally pointless distinction recognised by no-one. "Northern Europe" is not a political, cultural or footballing entity with any meaning to it. The stereotypes you speak of dividing the continent are exactly that; stereotypes that mean nothing and have dubious accuracy or value. Why stop at "Northern European"? Why not state that Celtic were the first team ever to win the European Cup... except for some teams in Italy, Spain and Portugal. That's more accurate than this imprecise Northern Europe definition, equally true, and just as ridiculous. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I gotta say, I'm really still with Vintagekits on this one. There is clearly no consensus for the current version, and the argument that "British" tells the reader more than "northern European" I find incomprehensible. I think it is important to say they are the first northern European club. Contrary to assertions above, there is a recognized difference in football terms between northern and southern (Mediterranean) European teams (the stereotype is that southern teams are small and slick, northern teams big and rough, and so on), and thus it is notable. Germany in this sense is definitely a northern country. The tricky ones are France and the countries in the Balkans, not Germany. As a compromise, how about "First team from the United Kingdom (precise and less counter-intuitive, which "British" isn't) and indeed from northern Europe to win ..." No Balkan team, French team ... nor even a German team ... won previously, so this shouldn't be an ambiguity issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- 'British' is precise - it means 'from the UK'. Not only is 'Northern European' a dubious stereotype, the supposed significance of different footballing styles is obviously original research. So it is not universally understood, and it is very rarely used by reliable sources. On the other hand 'first British team' is very widespread, and is used by the club itself. Per WP:NPOV, 'first British team' is preferable.
- Consensus was established when noone objected to the wording for months. While consensus can change, there is currently no such consensus to include 'Northern European' or anything similar. --hippo43 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. There may be no consensus for the current version, but there is even less of a consensus for changing it to "Northern European" either. I'm counting 3 editors who are pro-Northern European and 4 or 5 who are pro-Britain/Scotland/UK. Which leaves us with the option of coming up with some sort of wording that will achieve consensus. Of course, that presumes a desire to work with people whose arguments consist of rubbishing the opinion of those who disagree with them. Good faith works two ways. Rockpocket 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus was established when noone objected to the wording for months. While consensus can change, there is currently no such consensus to include 'Northern European' or anything similar. --hippo43 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- British has a precise meaning ... "from the UK"; it also has the meaning "from the island of Great Britain", and various others like "P-Celtic speaking". Northern European has a variety of precise meanings too. Like I said, the imprecision of "northern European" is being exaggerated as is the precision of "British". Come on ... we're not fools here. Accept this point and let's move on to the next one. Can you suggest a compromise solution Hippo? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whether "Northern European team" has a precise meaning or not is the point. So does "Team name starting with C". So does "Team managed by someone called Jock". The issue is that they are all not relevant. No-one defines Celtic in these terms, and doing so sounds very much like a case of defining your terms in a forced attempt to maximize the significance. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It should be using neutral terms and, above all, the terms used in the cites. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, doesn't make any sense. It's probably best to let Hippo speak for himself, as he understands his own argument. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I missed a "not" in that first sentence; "Whether "Northern European team" has a precise meaning or not is not the point." You are exaggerating the importance of the "precision" of the appropriate adjective. No-one cares how "precise" it is. The question is; is it sensible and suitable, and can it be cited? I can give you a dozen "precise" adjectives for the Celtic team that won the European Cup. That doesn't make them suitable or sensible. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, doesn't make any sense. It's probably best to let Hippo speak for himself, as he understands his own argument. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whether "Northern European team" has a precise meaning or not is the point. So does "Team name starting with C". So does "Team managed by someone called Jock". The issue is that they are all not relevant. No-one defines Celtic in these terms, and doing so sounds very much like a case of defining your terms in a forced attempt to maximize the significance. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It should be using neutral terms and, above all, the terms used in the cites. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- British has a precise meaning ... "from the UK"; it also has the meaning "from the island of Great Britain", and various others like "P-Celtic speaking". Northern European has a variety of precise meanings too. Like I said, the imprecision of "northern European" is being exaggerated as is the precision of "British". Come on ... we're not fools here. Accept this point and let's move on to the next one. Can you suggest a compromise solution Hippo? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Go with the sources. I think "British" is really clear and supported by the sources, so that concludes it for me. --John (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon, I think Escape Orbit understands my view and his comment makes sense to me. I'm not sure what you are asking me to accept (that British is imprecise or that Northern European is precise?) but, to me, it's not the main point here. John is right - go with the sources. The sources do not define what they mean by it, but they overwhelmingly use 'British'. My suggestion for a solution is to have 'first British and only Scottish' in the lead, and something like 'which had previously been the preserve of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese clubs' in the History section. This clarifies the club's wording ("non-Latin") and gives appropriate context. I don't see any value in having "first Northern European" anywhere as it is not immediately clear - my suggested wording gets the point across without any ambiguity - and it is not generally used by sources. We should be making decisions on significance based on the coverage within reliable sources, per WP:NPOV, not based on our own opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- When one group of people argue one thing, then another comes to claim it doesn't matter, I get lost. Look at it from my point of view. One thing is being argued, I respond, then after I've done so it's claimed it doesn't matter. I'm actually trying to follow the argument here, but it's not looking like there any coherent argument ... just some loosely connected assertions now. I don't think the conversation is gonna get anywhere if there's no coherence ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Couple of points here. First, your tone is still not constructive - your comments make you sound like a bit of a tool. If you're interested in reaching consensus, perhaps be less dismissive of others?
- Second, the arguments are clear enough. There are 2 main objections to your position so far. 1 - the phrase 'Northern European' is flawed; 2 - the sources say 'British'. You brought up 'Northern European' and others responded to you, rather than vice versa. It's obvious we are not all going to agree on point 1, so I don't see any reason to endlessly rehash why it's a bad idea. Your view is a valid one, but it's not shared by the majority here. Point 2 is absolutely clear in policy, and, irrespective of editors' personal preferences, is a compelling reason to use 'British'. --hippo43 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for Deacon of Pndapetzim; when I said it doesn't matter how precise a definition he had for Northern Europe I meant it remains imprecise in this context. Because it has no valid definition in this context. Because no-one ever defines Celtic in these terms and the term means nothing in the context of the European Cup. The fact that the only cites produced that mention Northern Europe only do so in a secondary nature, after British, demonstrates this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Poppycock! Northern European is no more of less defined in this context then "British" - FIFA dont consider Celtic a British club anymore than they do a Northern European club!
- Would you rather be the richest man in Britain or in Northern Europe?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for Deacon of Pndapetzim; when I said it doesn't matter how precise a definition he had for Northern Europe I meant it remains imprecise in this context. Because it has no valid definition in this context. Because no-one ever defines Celtic in these terms and the term means nothing in the context of the European Cup. The fact that the only cites produced that mention Northern Europe only do so in a secondary nature, after British, demonstrates this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, FIFA do... --hippo43 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- No they dont - "British" might be referred to in that report but it aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned, sure FIFA describe Celtic as northern European as well! I suppose that settles it for ya? - FIFA consider the 06, Scotchland, Ingerland and the Welshists all as individual nations - and dont recognise the UK. Even the British establishment are using northern European as does this Scottish football website--Vintagekits (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, FIFA do... --hippo43 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- VK, noone is denying that that some sources use that phrase. However, if your argument is based on what sources say, it's not a fight you can win - 'British' appears far more widely in reliable sources.
- And British "aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned" Says who? FIFA include it on their website, so presumably they know what it means! Your ramblings that FIFA "don't recognise the UK" are both nonsense (see [6] here, for example) and irrelevant - Celtic are still a British club. --hippo43 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Rambling?" - you are talkin shite mate! I suggest you actually read the source before you try and use it to your advantage! "Blats" states "four British associations are identified in Fifa statutes as being four different entities" - if the Olympics has a "British" team then that is yet to be seen! Yes, Celtic are still a British club, but they are also a European club! Which is the superior statement? 1. Celtic were the 1st Glaswegian. 2. Celtic were the 1st Scottish. 3. Celtic were the 1st British. or 4. Celtic were the 1st northern European?. You seem to be jumping from point to point to shoehorn the term into the article when there is a better term to use and whilst you have lapdogs such a Rockpocket and John enabling your agenda then this will carry on.
- Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon so is it necessary to state that he was also the first American, Ohian, Wapakonetan, university professor or alumni of the University of Southern California to land on the moon? No! Only the great of the achievements is noted. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And British "aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned" Says who? FIFA include it on their website, so presumably they know what it means! Your ramblings that FIFA "don't recognise the UK" are both nonsense (see [6] here, for example) and irrelevant - Celtic are still a British club. --hippo43 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- So - you'd have no objection to changing River Shannon to read "... is the longest river in the British Isles." then? Just to be clear... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- So - you'd have no objection to changing River Shannon to read "... is the longest river in the British Isles." then? Just to be clear... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's one that's "superior"; 5. Celtic were the 1st European (excluding Protugal, Italy and Spain). The purpose of this article is not to talk up Celtic's achievements, but to report them neutrally and accurately. And FIFA definitions are not the only consideration, as I've explained. Cultural and social definitions are just as important, and "Northern European" simply doesn't register in these. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- First British winner is more than notable considering the amount of times Liverpool and Manchester United have won it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- How is it more notable to be the first British winner when "Northern European" includes Britain - and the logic behond the Liverpool and Man U comment baffles be because neither of those teams had won it before Celtic and anyway Ajax and Bayern have won it just as many times as those to English teams combined.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- VK, you wrote "British aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned". The BBC/FIFA story shows that they understand exactly what British means. Nobody is denying that they treat the four associations as individuals - that doesn't mean British is not a "defined term".
- In any case, what FIFA thinks (or what you think they think) is not relevant here. Policy clearly supports using 'British', as that is what reliable sources overwhelmingly use. You have yet to address this point while you rant about various editors' supposed agendas. Not only is your 'argument' a rambling mess, your obnoxiousness makes it clear why you are involved in so much grief on wikipedia. --hippo43 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to go down the uncivil and personal attack route with me then I am perfectly adept at holding my own on that score - so watch yer mouth!
- FIFA also refer to Celtic as a "northern European team" so by your logic that "shows that they understand exactly" what that means - so its equally defined as British!
- You refer to my argument as a "rambling mess" - thats funny because I thought your argument was an opportunistic load of bollocks!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- In any case, what FIFA thinks (or what you think they think) is not relevant here. Policy clearly supports using 'British', as that is what reliable sources overwhelmingly use. You have yet to address this point while you rant about various editors' supposed agendas. Not only is your 'argument' a rambling mess, your obnoxiousness makes it clear why you are involved in so much grief on wikipedia. --hippo43 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- So still no reply on the issue of policy?
- As for your ability to be uncivil, that's not really in doubt, and it was you who introduced personal attacks into this debate. I don't see anything that could be taken as a personal attack in what I wrote. --hippo43 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would use northern european team rather than british, or say the first team outside of spain, italy and portugal to win it. something to that affect, because its a achieve bigger than just britain imo, (plus Celtic and British don't really go together do they?) Mbr1983 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Celtic themselves use the "first British team" line. Their way of saying that they were also the first club from outside Portugal, Spain or Italy to win the EC is "non-Latin". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter what the website editor of Celtic decides, we are trying to determine what the best description for the wikipedia is. The Celtic website is an piece of garbage for the most part that looks like a 5 year old made it. Britain isn't a country, The united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a is 3 countries and the occupied 6 counties which come under the same central government. They are part of the EU so I think Northern European makes the most sense or non latin as a comprimise.Mbr1983 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is getting nowhere and is now breaching policy on civility. I propose that unless one of the editors wishing this change can produce good solid cites that use "Northern Europe" foremost, and in preference to "British", then we have a case of original synthesis. The purpose of this article is to report neutrally Celtic's achievement in terms that the cites use. It is not the purpose of this article to attempt to find a definition that makes that achievement sound more significant. It is original synthesis to argue that Celtic is Scottish, Scotland is in Northern Europe, therefore Celtic were the first Northern European team to win the European Cup. Original synthesis to advance a new position is not permissible on Wikipedia. End of discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to burst your bubble, but WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with this issue. That covers academic matters such as adding A argues X, B argues Y therefore Z. It's just a fact that Celtic is in northern Europe, and there are references asserting the statement in question (removed by Hippo). My own opinion is that, however much we disagree, we should all be adults about this ... previous winners come from Italy and Iberia. Chasing references to prove something everyone already knows is a game unbefitting of intelligent humans. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your understanding of WP:SYNTH is incorrect. Please go and actually read the policy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Compromise?
- Reverted. You have no consensus here for even your basic assertion that 'British' in this context is disputed, or even wrong, so we are not going to start adding mangled compromises into the lede waffling on about the Iberian peninsula to fix something that isn't even broken. I will repeat one last time: Cetlic and their fans are extremely proud of being the first British winners of the European Cup, and for pretty obvious reasons that have nothing to do with their love of Britain, and thus the term has been widely disseminated through all third party references and the world of football when talking about the club's acheivements. If people are seriously going to carry on this thread without providing a shred of evidence to disprove this basic point, then it will have to start climbing the ladder of attracting outside comment, because this issue has moved on from amusing side-show of how these tedious 'disputed term' campaigns can go oh so very wrong, into actual disruption to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand, this was included in the article."Celtic became the first team from the United Kingdom" If any attempt to compromise is dismissed as "complete mangling for no purpose", then I can't see much that can be done. Probably the next step is to seek mediation ... ? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a compromise, there is nothing that is in dispute here that doesn't come from flat out non-policy opinions. 'British' is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed to 'from United Kingdom' for no reason, and 'Northern European' is in football terms, an irrelevance for mentioning in the lede, especially when its own definition has to be mangled into it for it to mean anything. Mediation is not requried, just more outside opinions from people who know football and policy, e.g. wp:football. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The FIFA source provided above referring to Celtic as a "northern European" team for starters!
- Its funny that Hippo likes to point out "my POV" but ignore the POV of many of "his backers". Mick -how is British anymore a football related term than northern European? --Vintagekits (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Point me to any evidence that even remotely suggests that anybody in football gives a toss about anything 'Northern European' beyond passing or trivial mentions, especially instances that don't also give equal or even more focus on 'British' or 'European' contexts. It is utterly meaningless. In Wikipedia terminology, it is a trivial intersection of dubious if not non-existent notability. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon of Pndapetzim, your last attempt to cite this is from a fan generated website, the majority of the content of which is a blatant unattributed copy of a previous version of this article. That is hardly a reliable source and Wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a compromise, there is nothing that is in dispute here that doesn't come from flat out non-policy opinions. 'British' is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed to 'from United Kingdom' for no reason, and 'Northern European' is in football terms, an irrelevance for mentioning in the lede, especially when its own definition has to be mangled into it for it to mean anything. Mediation is not requried, just more outside opinions from people who know football and policy, e.g. wp:football. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this, because the "first British club" line is by far the most commonly used. It is original research to argue that it shouldn't be used because Celtic allegedly don't identify as being British. If that was the case, why do Celtic use the term themselves, and why do they have a former British Government cabinet member as their chairman? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Who is arguing "it shouldn't be used because Celtic allegedly don't identify as being British"? The argument is that first "northern European team" is sourced and a greater achievement than "first British team".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand, this was included in the article."Celtic became the first team from the United Kingdom" If any attempt to compromise is dismissed as "complete mangling for no purpose", then I can't see much that can be done. Probably the next step is to seek mediation ... ? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted. You have no consensus here for even your basic assertion that 'British' in this context is disputed, or even wrong, so we are not going to start adding mangled compromises into the lede waffling on about the Iberian peninsula to fix something that isn't even broken. I will repeat one last time: Cetlic and their fans are extremely proud of being the first British winners of the European Cup, and for pretty obvious reasons that have nothing to do with their love of Britain, and thus the term has been widely disseminated through all third party references and the world of football when talking about the club's acheivements. If people are seriously going to carry on this thread without providing a shred of evidence to disprove this basic point, then it will have to start climbing the ladder of attracting outside comment, because this issue has moved on from amusing side-show of how these tedious 'disputed term' campaigns can go oh so very wrong, into actual disruption to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Who is arguing...?" You, the last time this was discussed here. Have you changed your mind since then about Celtic and the word 'British'?
- 'Northern European' is sourced, but is far less common in reliable sources than 'British'. (See WP:NPOV) Your view about what is the greater achievement is original research (see WP:NOR), not covered in these sources. Again, VK, feel free to address the issue of what policy supports. --hippo43 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
there is Celtic Captain at the time, former Club Manager and current Ambassador, Billy McNeill's take on it: "It (Winning the European Cup) might have been for Scotland, but it definitely wasn't for Britain...it was for Celtic."Mbr1983 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Talk about stating the obvious. By that logic it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the article whether Celtic were the first Glaswegian, Scottish, British, IONA, Northern European or whatever club to win the European Cup. The fact is that there are nearly 90,000 results on Google for Celtic "first British team", which hints at the notability of the fact. By way of comparison, there are less than 2,500 results for Celtic "first Northern European team".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmorrison230582 (talk • contribs)
- I agree with Jmorrison above. This issue has already been debated here several times. We go with what the sources say, not with the POV of a small group of partisan editors. My dad, a diehard Celtic fan, has no problem with calling them the first British team to win the European Cup, and neither should we. --John (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Celtic dont like being called a British team and it would be fair to call them the first team from Northern Europe that won the cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.188.113 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Proving the point above. It's an attempt by a small number of politically motivated editors to push their point of view over the substantively sourced fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're making a joke, right? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Leftist?
The article currently characterizes supporters of Celtic F.C. as "Leftist". I see no source for this, and I doubt it's accurate. To the extent that Celtic supporters identify with Irish ethnic nationalism, that is surely a right wing impulse?Irvine22 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Irish Nationalism is not a right-wing impulse. the goal of the Leaders of the 1916 uprising and of the Provisional IRA for many years was to establish a 32 county socialist Republic. Celtic, in footballing circles are generally regarded as a leftist time, their affiliation with clubs like St. Pauli, Barcelona and soon on support this fact. Celtic is a decidedly anti fascist football club. I find it somewhat odd that some many people who have very little knowledge about the Club have so much interest in it. Mbr1983 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Uncited and largely irrelevant. If there is any relationship between being a fan of Celtic and political leanings of any sort, then all that is required is a good cite to establish it and offer some explanation. Presently there isn't one, so this should be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why has it been allowed to stand on the article for so long then, with well established editors such as jack forbes and hippo not bringing this up. So you would say to change it to right wing? I would probably leave it with a citation required sig next to it for now until someone comes up with something better. (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- As I said above; I would remove it. I do not believe a person's affiliation to Celtic has any causal relationship to their politics, so it is irrelevant. Happy to be corrected if a good cite can be produced, but until then... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why has it been allowed to stand on the article for so long then, with well established editors such as jack forbes and hippo not bringing this up. So you would say to change it to right wing? I would probably leave it with a citation required sig next to it for now until someone comes up with something better. (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- Is it any different to the fact that rangers fans are all portrayed on their article about being unionists, but thats not the point here. It has been up there for a long time and Hippo has never said anything about it and still has not(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- As has been repeatedly explained to you; what is on the Rangers article plays no part in improving the Celtic article. I also believe that other editors can speak for themselves without you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I removed "Leftist". If someone wants to put in something sourced about traditional affiliations with Irish nationalism, that would be fine with me. But those impulses are not Leftist, by any means. Irvine22 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- As has been repeatedly explained to you; what is on the Rangers article plays no part in improving the Celtic article. I also believe that other editors can speak for themselves without you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it any different to the fact that rangers fans are all portrayed on their article about being unionists, but thats not the point here. It has been up there for a long time and Hippo has never said anything about it and still has not(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- i hope they can, but they seem to be awfully quiet(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- Your prob right but what i dont understand is how it was allowed to stand for so long thats all(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
- Monkey, while I am obviously the arbiter and supreme overlord of all Celtic and Rangers-related articles, I'm afraid I just haven't had time to fact-check every sentence. You're always here - why hadn't you noticed it?? I also have other things to do and can't always comment within a few hours! Escape Orbit is correct - this is unsourced speculation. It definitely shouldn't be changed to right-wing - that would be OR. --hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well you said it. I did notice it but thought that because it had been there for quite a while it must have gained consensus from the supreme overlords of the article. I did not mention to change it to right wing that was someone else, i only asked if they wanted to change it to that. You are right tho it has no place on a football clubs article wouldnt you agree(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
- No, I don't agree it has no place, if it is referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- So say a respected ref came out and said 'celtic fans are leftist' then it would be ok to put in the article, i disagree(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
- Not much point arguing over hypotheticals. --hippo43 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Respected refs" are not reliable sources for the political allegiance of football fans (unless they are also notable scholars of football and/or politics). Rockpocket 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok if a 'reliable source' mentioned that celtic fans were leftist then would that be ok, i disagree(being hypothetical)(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
- Let's wait and see if anyone finds such a source. We have enough real arguments going on without starting one over a hypothetical reference. --hippo43 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I would agree that Celtic's support would generally be more left leaning and Rangers more right wing - but finding a source which accurately described that is another thing.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason people in Glasgow are both catholic and socialist. No one has told them that the Pope is a Monarch. Anyhoo, Celtic is a leftist club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.220.22 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It must be mentioned to their defence, this match against Hapoel Tel Aviv. They wanted no problems with their own supporters booing the Israelis. It is my impression that no incident took place, or the media would have a field day. Does anyone have news that may confirm or disconfirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.220.22 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Even for the 50s or earlier, when religion had some degree of influence on voting and it's easy enough to find reliable sources saying so, it would require a leap of novel synthesis to get from there to supporting Celtic or Rangers as being a influence on politics or vice versa. But now the Orange Lodge is on record as calling on its members to vote for Labour in 2010 (Scotland on Sunday, 2009-10-18, page 1). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Danny Fox nationality
If McGeady is listed as Irish, shouldn't Fox be listed as Scottish, considering he is a scottish international?--81.96.125.232 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Celtic fan base
I do not agree with the notion that celtic has 9 million fans world wide. Where is the evidence for this? The link provided merely talks about a credit card released in the USA in 2003, and does not mention anything about, or relevant to, fanbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.102.122 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- that link does say what is mentioned in the article about half way down but it was from 2003 not 2008, so could be obsolete by now.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC))
Edit request
{{editsemiprotected}} |Assistant Manager || Johan Mjallby 194.35.205.229 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Chzz ► 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Not done
Celtic Symphony
In case this is of interest, there is now a redirect at Celtic Symphony (Wolfe Tones song) to Wolfe Tones#Notable_works Paradoctor (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Eyal Berkovich
Eyal Berkovich claims he was responsible for the highest transfer fee ever paid in the history of Celtic. Is that true? if it's true, should it be included? some clubs have notable players or trivia like this. Amoruso (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- was it not chris sutton, £6million(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
Celtic ownership/PLC
I came to this article because I was wondering who owned the club, and there's nothing in the article about it. After that I googled it and read somewhere that it was a public limited company, but that's as much info as I could find (and I don't even know if that's necessarily true). I think the article should definitely say something about the ownership structure of the team, so if anyone has info about this, it would be a good contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.119.78 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 95.146.55.66, 19 April 2010
The first team physios are Gavin McCarthy and Graham Parsons.
95.146.55.66 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks, Chzz ► 11:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done
Glasgow cup 2008
the article states Celtic have won the glasgow cup 30 times with the last being in 2008 which is nonsense considering the tournament hasn't operated for decades itshould be changed to 29 wins and 2008 removed 86.13.135.208 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- its still competed for but with the youth teams, so you might be correct in having this removed or edited to state that(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
but it is an entirely different competition and the article still states 2008 as a year celtic won the defunct Glasgow Cup this should definately be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.135.208 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- i agree having looked over the articles in question, but agreeing that with editors of the Celtic F.C. article might be difficult(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
- Why would it be difficult Monkeymanman? We can state that the tournament had a break and was then contested between youth teams. We could also make it clear in the infobox that youth teams participated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've all thought of this already, but there is a Glasgow Cup article, which might make the task of explaining easier/shorter. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have seen it, TFOWR. Basically it says what I've been saying. The Glasgow Cup was restarted as a youth team tournament. There shouldn't be any problem there as far as I can see. Jack forbes (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have added the information that the Glasgow Cup became an under 18 tournament from 2008. That should clear it up. Jack forbes (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, figured you'd probably seen it. Recent changes look OK to me, but I'm no expert (I watchlist the Old Firm solely because they're vandal magnets ;-) ). TFOWRpropaganda 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've all thought of this already, but there is a Glasgow Cup article, which might make the task of explaining easier/shorter. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why would it be difficult Monkeymanman? We can state that the tournament had a break and was then contested between youth teams. We could also make it clear in the infobox that youth teams participated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Mcmanus
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celtic_F.C.&diff=360161371&oldid=358405039 ]]This edit which put Stephen Mcmanus back in the first team squad should be reverted Adam4267 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Supercar15, 8 June 2010
Neil Lennon is offically the manager so you should take away the caretaker next to his name Thanks =] Supercar15 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to the BBC his appointment won't be confirmed until Wednesday. [7] When it is announced, caretaker can be removed from his job description. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Lewisbhoy, 8 July 2010 season 2010/2011
{{editsemiprotected}}
Celtic start the 2010/2011 season by signing, Left back Charlie Mulgrew from aberdeen on a free transfer,Right back Cha Du-Ri also on a free contract,
Lewisbhoy (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done here, by Monkeymanman (talk · contribs). TFOWR 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hugh Dallas
The discussion at Hugh Dallas may interest some editors here. Basically the article has recently recieved a major re-write and I'm concerned that sourced, encyclopedic material is now being removed by users who may have a pro-Dallas POV. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
{{editsemiprotected}}
The kit has been changed for the new season. Why hasn't it been updated yet? Can someone please update the kit or at least the home kit for the 2010/2011 season?
- Whats changed about the home strip? Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- This: [8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It says 'authentic'? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- They are authentic, if that's what you're asking. They've already played 3 times in those kits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was an attempt at humour, what i was trying to say was that there is not much diff between them, perhaps the black v around the neck but to show that on the small diagram pic might be difficult and could be misleading by the size of it, i dont know, but dont think its desperate. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rings on the socks would be noticable, and so would the collar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.52.163 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was an attempt at humour, what i was trying to say was that there is not much diff between them, perhaps the black v around the neck but to show that on the small diagram pic might be difficult and could be misleading by the size of it, i dont know, but dont think its desperate. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- They are authentic, if that's what you're asking. They've already played 3 times in those kits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It says 'authentic'? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- This: [8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 94.9.99.20, 16 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
It was reported that around 80,000 fans travelled to Seville but in truth it was more like between 40,000 and 50,000.
94.9.99.20 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done ... kind of. I've tagged it with
{{cn}}
- "citation needed". We'd need a source for the 40,000 - 50,000 claim just as much as we need a source for the (current) 80,000 claim. Either way, hopefully the{{cn}}
tag will pull in something useful. TFOWR 11:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, there a quite litereally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources which state that as being the figure, some of which state it as being even higher, approximating some 120,000. Please do not fall into the trap of giving credence to the deranged ramblings of bigoted huns. ☘HappyDude The Mad Tim☘ craic 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If there are "literally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources", then you will have no trouble with adding one to the article. – PeeJay 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite. I've fallen into the trap of requiring that claims are cited. For which I make no apology. TFOWR 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done! Pointer1 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks Pointer1. That's why references are so important - so that readers (and editors) can verify claims, and we don't fall into the trap of giving credence to partisan editors on either side of the sectarian divide. TFOWR 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done! Pointer1 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite. I've fallen into the trap of requiring that claims are cited. For which I make no apology. TFOWR 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If there are "literally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources", then you will have no trouble with adding one to the article. – PeeJay 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, there a quite litereally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources which state that as being the figure, some of which state it as being even higher, approximating some 120,000. Please do not fall into the trap of giving credence to the deranged ramblings of bigoted huns. ☘HappyDude The Mad Tim☘ craic 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from FTP1690, 18 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}} Can we add a section about the hatred towards the British armed forces?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjdE0b5Jhpk
and if this gets removed then extra copies can be sent on request.
FTP1690 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to right the section yourself (including refs), and I (or another confirmed or auto-confirmed user) can add it to the article for you. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request - 24 August 2010
Can Paul Slane be removed from the first team squad. He is an Under 19's player who has yet to be involved with the first team. mbsw67 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsw67 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
ladies team
http://www.celticfc.net/home/players/ladiesTeam.aspx http://www.celticfc.net/home/fixturesResults/LadiesFixtures.aspx
lets give the girls some air time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.9.30 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request - 11 September 2010
John Marsden is on loan at Hamilton Accies and Sean Fitzharris went out on loan to Morton today. GET IT FIXED ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.32.62 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- refs? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done, although neither are a first team player.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
eh, John Marsden is English and is a striker. Sean Fitzharris is a midfielder. Their both out on loan and count as transfers and Fitzharris has played in friendly matches for the first team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.146.147 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- reliable refs i could find from third parties on the matter were Greenock Telegraph and Evening Times, it is not that big a deal. Will take your word on their nationality and positions.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- These players have never been listed in the first team, so loans have been moved to Celtic F.C. Reserve and Youth squads. Pointer1 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request - 18 September 2010
Milan Misun, out on loan at Dundee FC. Get it fixed ! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/playerratings/football/match/3113425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.96.7 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- is there a ref which states it factually rather than a team list? Monkeymanman (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
oh I`ve hit a nerve, well heres a source for ye, good luck figuring it out ! http://www.eurofotbal.cz/clanky/obrance-misun-bude-mesic-hostovat-ve-druhe-skotske-lize-126698/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.96.7 (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think the "nerve hitting" stems from your tone. Every time I see "get it fixed!" here I think "nah, cannae be arsed" and leave it. Better folk than me eventually attend to your demands. You'd really get a faster response if you treated the volunteers here like human beings, and not ... well, whatever you think they are. TFOWR 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm just going to (continue to) ignore your demands. It's no skin off my back if your future requests go unfulfilled. You want things done quickly, be nice. You want things ignored, carry on as you are. TFOWR 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- its slightly confusing given the fact that he is still listed on celtics own website as a first team player here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Back at club now, so re-listed on squad Pointer1 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- its slightly confusing given the fact that he is still listed on celtics own website as a first team player here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Gjpm69, 20 November 2010
{{editsemiprotected}} these articles need removed as they are biased and false in nature-
- ^ "Minister unlikely to visit Celtic after sectarian chanting of fans". Times Online. 19 September 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4791281.ece. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
Mr Campbell is a known rangers supporter who takes every opportunity comment on a football team that is not in his home country. He has done nothing to comment on let alone crack down on the sectarianism and murder perpetuated by the fans of rangers fc.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/rangers-supporter-jailed-for-murder-of-celtic-fan-1120956.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1176023.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/453946.stm
52 ^ Foer, pp. 36–37 - this requires amending too to reflect the above
57 'Vile' sectarian songs embarrass Celtic The Scotsman, 27 October 2006
the same article stated-
"Lawwell later told the media, however, that some of the songs being sung have been wrongly identified as sectarian."
"Celtic are different, to the extent we have strong Irish roots and Irish links," said Lawwell. "A proportion of our fans celebrate those roots and links by singing Irish ballads. In no way could these ballads be described as sectarian, but I think in some quarters it is misinterpreted as sectarian. It is not sectarian behaviour. There is a difference there. We are a proud Scottish club, but with strong Irish connections. It's a fact and we don't want to hide it."
The songs sung are not sectarian in nature as they celebrate Catholics and Protestants struggling together to gain control of their own country, therefore, they are essentially political in nature - the point hammered home by Mr Lawell.
Gjpm69 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not done The majority of what you request is unrelated to this article. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Minor fan trouble
I removed two trivial examples of crowd disorder featured in this article, Monkeymanman restored them.
I don't see why two minor cases of minor crowd trouble are so significant. Football fans get arrested all the time, what's so significant about these? The first cite consists mainly of Police's praise for fans, with only 3 charges for sectarian offenses, but this article highlights the arrest of 3 out of thousands. The second example in particular, at the Lincoln City game, has a cite that doesn't even mention sectarianism, so what relevance has it to anything?
Personally I don't think it matters if these were cases of the most horrendous sectarian abuse, when taken into the context of the whole of Celtic's history and related sectarian baggage, they are but passing trivial examples that don't merit a paragraph each.
Could Monkeymanman please explain? Thanks.
I agree with you, if you look on the Rangers page they don't have any individual cases just a general overview of sectarianism and these are both quite minor incidents. Adam4267 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have been informed on this article, and others, that it is important to show how sectarianism manifests itself and it’s important to show incidents reflecting this. At the NPOV talk page it was gathered that individual incidents were the way to go regarding sectarianism at football clubs.
- so what relevance has it to anything / what's so significant about these.
- I quote ‘Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.’
- Both incidents are reliably sourced and show how sectarianism manifests itself with Celtic football club.
- Personally I don't think it matters
- This article is about the club and the fans are part of it.
- they don't have any individual cases just a general overview of sectarianism
- Really? That is selective reading. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- In that case incorporated them into the general article. Listing them as separate news stories makes for a poor article, as all that appears to the reader is a loosely connected series of trivial events. You also have to demonstrate the common thread (as I said, the cite for the Lincoln City game makes no mention of sectarianism and I'm unclear to the relevance of it) and why the action of just 23 fans is indicative of Celtic, the club. Otherwise they appear to be no different from news stories you could find every other weekend at any other football club's ground.
- And, lest before we go any further in that direction, what is in the article on Rangers is irrelevant. It gets really tedious when issues in either article degenerate into a childish tit-for-tat comparison. This is Wikipedia, the two articles are not in competition with each other. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- So no problems if I implement the above? Integrate the first story into the article as a whole, and remove the second of as its irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am intrigued how you propose to incorporate the first into the article? The second could be shortened, but still shows how sectarianism manifests itself, which as i have been told is very important.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I intend to make it a passing example, along with others, rather than a full paragraph to itself. It is simply not notable enough to have this kind of emphasis and the section just now reads like a disjointed newsreel of loosely associated events. If the second "shows how sectarianism manifests itself" could you indicate where the cite provided says this? Or is that your personal analysis? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- you can implement what you propose at the moment. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I have tried to pull the various events into something more cohesive, rather than a disjointed list of events, some of which are, relatively speaking, quite trivial. This also meant chopping a fair bit of dead wood consisting of unimportant reaction-quote "pile-ons". Please, if you disagree with anything in particular, please bring it up here, rather than reverting everything. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- okay, i have only made some very minor edits to what you have done, mainly grammatical. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I have tried to pull the various events into something more cohesive, rather than a disjointed list of events, some of which are, relatively speaking, quite trivial. This also meant chopping a fair bit of dead wood consisting of unimportant reaction-quote "pile-ons". Please, if you disagree with anything in particular, please bring it up here, rather than reverting everything. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- you can implement what you propose at the moment. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I intend to make it a passing example, along with others, rather than a full paragraph to itself. It is simply not notable enough to have this kind of emphasis and the section just now reads like a disjointed newsreel of loosely associated events. If the second "shows how sectarianism manifests itself" could you indicate where the cite provided says this? Or is that your personal analysis? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am intrigued how you propose to incorporate the first into the article? The second could be shortened, but still shows how sectarianism manifests itself, which as i have been told is very important.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- So no problems if I implement the above? Integrate the first story into the article as a whole, and remove the second of as its irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Definition of Sectarianism
I think most of the examples used in the Old Firm and Sectarianism are not actually sectarian. Celtic fans booing the minutes silence for 9/11 and the Queen Mothers death are definitely not sectarian and I don't think IRA chants or burning the english flag are either. Adam4267 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well the cites would disagree with you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, none of the references back-up the claims.
- No. 53 The BBC do not say these songs are sectarian, there are only quotes from Nil by Mouth.
- No. 54 This is definitely not sectarian the the word is not even mentioned in the article it is a purely political protest.
- No. 55 This cite does not work
- No. 56 The Daily Record do not even claim these songs are sectarian. They say Republican, these things are not the same.
- No. 57 Again the word sectarian is not mentioned in the article. Their are anti-poppy protestors from all different backgrounds this is a political protest not a sectarian act.
- No. 58 Again the word sectarian was not mentioned in the article.
- No. 59 This article was originally misqouted before you re-wrote it. 'Ten people were arrested, three for alleged sectarian-related breaches of the peace' the word 'alleged' was originally not included and it really changes what the sentence means.
- No. 60 This has nothing to do with Celtic.
Not one of the current references is adeqaute and new ones need to be found, preferably from the BBC. Some people seem to think that any political protest by Celtic fans is sectarian, this is wrong but was what you would think from reading our article. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what Celtic or their fans do that is sectarian, Rangers have never had an Irish player, Didn't sign Catholics and their fans have a whole history of songs, words and phrases that are offensive to Catholics. Celtic FC have never discriminated against Protestants, and I don't know of any songs that do either, their is even a song Those Protestant Men that celebrates them. I'm also yet to see a reliable reference stating that IRA songs are sectarian. Adam4267 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- * Please stop removing cited content while it is under discussion.
- * Please indicate where the cites state that these are "political protest".
- * As I have to unfortunately keep pointing out. Rangers, and what is in the Rangers article is of absolutely irrelevant. If you have a problem with that article, take it up there.
- I don't have time to go though your points at the moment. I will respond later. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can only apologise again for removing the content so quickly
- I wasn't quoting the cite I was making a statement, that opposing poppies isn't something that only Catolics do their are Muslim poppy protestors and I don't think they are sectarian.
- I agree except in the case of the sections about sectarianism because they both are supposed to lead into the Sectarianism in Glasgow page and have the same introduction which made me think their was supposed to be some similarity between the two pages.
- Thank you Adam4267 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would an acceptable compromise be to group both sectarian and political protests under a single section? While I agree that some of what is discussed could be regarded, by some, as not sectarian, the problem is that when it comes to Irish/UK troubled politics, the divisions between politics/religion/sectarianism can be very blurred and difficult to define. Are we in a position to decide what exactly motivates each individual in these protests? Especially when the connection of these issues to the football club is just as blurred and historically complex.
- Either way, these events are notable. It's just a question of how we chose to section them. And we should take the lead here from the terms used in the cites. Problem is, even the cites, as you demonstrate, are not entirely decided. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that we can't know what motivates these people but currently their is an assumption all these actions were for sectarian reasons even though it is not backed up by the references. By this same reasoning is it fair to assume Man U fans who don't like the Glazers are Xenophobic or would that be original research.
- The events are definitely notable but not relevant to the section, I'm not sure wether a new section should be made just for political protests by Celtic fans but any changes must show a clear distinction between sectarian and other actions. Adam4267 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Possible re-write:
To replace 'Sectarianism by portions of Celtic...troublesome supporters'.
Sectarianism has been a problem in Britain for hundreds of years[1], but Glasgow is the worst of all city's. Many Catholics suffered discrimination when they emigrated from Ireland to the UK. One form of discrimination was in the job market where their were signs stating 'No Irish Need Apply'[2] this was because some employers did not want Irish or Catholic people working for them.[3] Celtic and Hibs[4] were both founded as clubs that could represent the Irish community in Scotland and many Catholic and Irish fans did support these teams. This meant that Rangers, who were formed 15 years before Celtic as a club with no religious affiliation began to be seen as 'The Protestant Club' and many who did not want to associate with Celtic began to follow them.[5] In 1969 when the The Troubles in Northern Ireland started many Celtic and Rangers fans aligned themselves to the two opposing sides, with Celtic fans supporting the IRA[6] and Rangers fans supporting the United Kingdom.
During this period Rangers had an unwritten policy of not signing Catholic players, or recruiting Catholic staff[7]. Jock Stein said of this[8]
'If I had the choice to sign either a Catholic or Protestant, I'd take the Protestant because Rangers wouldn't take the Catholic.'
This policy lasted until 1989 when Graeme Souness, who had become manager of Rangers 3 years earlier, signed Mo Johnston a Catholic[9] who had previously played for Celtic.
Many Celtic fans still sing pro-IRA and anti-Queen songs and in March 2008[10] Uefa, who had recently fined Rangers for sectarian singing, launched an investigation into reported use of these songs, although no disciplinary action was taken. Adam4267 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry adam but that would not be an acceptable inclusion.
- This could be simply concluded by renaming the section Old Firm, sectarianism and political affiliations.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Monkeymanman, up to a point. For a start, your proposed replacement begins with a very definite claim that is uncited. It then goes on to spend more time discussing Rangers than Celtic. Clearly Rangers feature on the other side of this ugly coin and should be mentioned, but this article is not about them.
- However, I disagree with Monkeymanman's suggestion. "Political affiliations" would suggest that they're the club's, when they are, if any, those of some of the supporters. I suggest that Old Firm, sectarianism and political protests would be better. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Old Firm, Sectarianism and politiics. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I put a reference in for the first sentence, I don't really care wether you use my contribution or write up something else.
A problem I did encounter trying to write this was that their is very little actual sectarian events related to Celtic. All I could find was the 2008 investigation, and the Nil by Mouth statement[11] which says 'Hun' and 'Orange' are sectarian. I find it very hard to be convinced by this because their are so few other references. Orange is used in such a positive way by so many Protestants (or those perceived to be) that I don't see how it is sectarian and while Hun may be sectarian I still can't be convinced by Nil by Mouth because they claim Tim is sectarian which I find, quite frankly laughable. (These are interesting discussions from Hamilton and St. Mirren unofficial forums[12][13])
I would be unhappy if the section was simply changed to Old Firm sectarian and political because these are protests by fans many of which the club has distanced themselves from[14] but maybe a section or even a page for celtic fans would be more appropriate (google search for 'celtic fans' yields 765 000 results)Adam4267 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Old firm, sectarianism and fan politics? Disagree with a separate page. The club may have distanced themselves from them but it does not mean it should be ignored or swept aside. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I have a problem with the current section simply being renamed, their needs to be a clear distinction between sectarian and other incidents wether this is a different page/section/area it dosn't matter. Their also should be a re-write of the current section because it is not detailed enough and many of the references are bad. Adam4267 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the current format for the sectarian aspect of Celtic is poor and potentially misleading as the heading "Celtic fans" is too vague. It was better as it was before. People not familiar with this page, and even those that are, would struggle to find information on this subject easily due to the poor choice of headings. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the new revision is not perfect but I feel it is a lot less misleading than before when non-sectarian incidents were being portrayed as sectarian. I am open to discussion on the title but I feel the section could be expanded or made into a new page I think Celtic are bigger than a lot of the clubs who have supporters pages and the PSG page would be a good example to follow. Adam4267 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- it was better as it was before, your example of PSG fans is misleading. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it was better before, the examples are being portrayed as sectarian when they are not, and how is the PSG example misleading I said we should have a Celtic supporters page and the PSG page would be a good example to follow what is misleading about that. Adam4267 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- you are giving an example of a page that is about a quarter the size of this and is very poorly referenced. In effect there was consensus for the page the way it was before and would be better suited to having the section renamed. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood, that is the PSG supportters page and I wanted to make a Celtic supporters page with a similar layout. I think we have established the current format of the page has got to be changed I don't think it should simply be renamed. Adam4267 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- i dont think the current format does have to change. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The section needs to be altered so that non-sectarian events are not portrayed as being sectarian. None of the references in the section back up the claims that the events are sectarian so something needs to be changed. Adam4267 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have made a second attempt at addressing your concerns about this section. Happy to hear your thoughts on whether this improve matters. Please discuss your changes here rather than repeatedly blanking the section. It would be helpful if you could suggest how it may be fixed, rather than simply removing chunks of cited material. Thanks.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not the title, it's the content thats the problem have you actually read any of the sources, I have already shown earlier in this section none of them back-up the claims being made in the article. Adam4267 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The paragraph you disagree with no longer mentions "sectarianism". Therefore all they do is note the events as political activism and describe them. Is there a problem with describing them like this? Is so, do you have any suggestions of how they might be categorized? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bloostained
Hi Orbit. That is meant for text rather than pictures, but in any case this picture was used in numerous publications - here's one of them, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327697/Celtic-shame-fans-stage-bloodstained-protest-wearing-poppies.html, but in truth I could have sourced this from most national papers. As (I hope) you realise, the fifth letter in bloodstained is 'D', not 'S'. 'D' is clearly missing, as (I sincerely hope) you can see from the picture. If you're having trouble with this, check a dictionary. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem remains that you are adding what is your interpretation of the image, not what the cite itself says. I know what it appears to say in the photo, but if the source doesn't say it, you don't get to "correct" them. Wikipedia would regard this as original research. Please see if you can find a reliable source that points the error out, then we have something we can discuss and perhaps use.
- Please do not re-add until then. If you wish to change the article the onus is on you to get consensus on it first. Please read this guideline. It's not the case that your change stays until consensus is reached to keep or remove it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Orbit.I've found a "reliable" source, as I presume you would agree that Scotland's best selling evening paper is a reliable source. As for re-editing, it was you that originally edited my contribution without reference to the discussion page, so I'm not 100% sure you're in a position to give out lectures on that one. As for concensus, it's just you and me buddy, but as I've now satisfied your criteria, I guess a concencus has been reached now. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Orbit. Incidentally, and notwithstanding the fact that I have found a reliable text source, I've read the Wiki policy on use of pictures and original research and as I understand it the picture reference I gave was valid. Have a re-read of that page as I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this one as there was no caption included and no evidence of picture manipulation. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing that cite. That's much improved. Incidentally, if you read this guideline you will see that having your edit reverted is your cue to start discussion. Something you failed to do when it was reverted twice before. You wish to change the article, so the onus is on you to start the discussion.
- I'm not sure what policy you are referring to, but I assure you, citing a picture on a file sharing website that could have come from anywhere, be anything and have been the fabricated creation uploaded by anybody, is never considered a reliable source for a cite. You would have been better to cite the Daily Mail directly. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was referring to the image section on the original research guidelines page. My reading of it was that images are ok unless they can be proved to be manipulated and no captions are used, but I might be wrong. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I've put sic in square brackets as wiki suggests this is the correct style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic. bloo[d]stained is not the usually accepted format for a misspelling. I've also used square brackets, again as this is the standard format according to wikipedia. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand. The images talked about in the policy on original research is in reference to pictures that you have taken or made your self, and are uploading to Wikipedia to illustrate articles. This doesn't apply in this case, as the photograph is not yours, is copyright, and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. But the key point is again, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". So even if the photo was yours to upload, you'd still need the Evening Times cite, for example, to back it up. The photo alone could not be used. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks for that Mattun0211 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Bloo[d]stained v Bloodstained [sic]
Having looked at Sic it seems that inserting the missing letter inside the word seems more appropriate because it is only a small spelling mistake that is easily fixed and we know what the writers intended. Adam4267 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll go with that as long as you can reliably reference why that should be the case. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's normal to silently correct obvious typos. Unless there is a need to highlight the error with a sic, we should just correct it. --John (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- from the refs i have viewed they use the [sic] after the word. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC doesn't. --John (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- example to show it has been used that way round. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC doesn't. --John (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- from the refs i have viewed they use the [sic] after the word. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's normal to silently correct obvious typos. Unless there is a need to highlight the error with a sic, we should just correct it. --John (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
January 2011
Why has "Arrests have occurred for the offence of "sectarian breach of the peace"? been included in the article? This is a misquote from the source and has been revised accordingly. The comment also requires some context which I have provided. The sentence itself means nothing without context.
- Misquote, hmmm, i dont see how? It was included by another editor to show that sectarian related breaches of the peace have happened in relation to celtic fans. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not recognising a misquote implies one has not read the article Pointer1 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Care to give specific details? This is not a guessing game. Providing clear reasons when questioned, and reverted, saves everyone time and avoids misunderstandings. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not recognising a misquote implies one has not read the article Pointer1 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sky TV
I have removed an article regarding a claim which has no credibility or factual element whatsoever. No direct quotes, nor indeed any conformation of what has been claimed, just unnamed and second hand references of what may have happened. Please provide a credible reference or do not insert. Pointer1 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- hows this here, to add to the original, if both are incorrect then why are they both (yes 2 different newspapers, which are deemed reliable sources) not being held liable for the false claim? I shall revert the article now. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- "believes", alleges - nothing factual, nothing confirmed and certainly not encyclopaedic Pointer1 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about here or here or here or here? These sources are reliable by usual standards, including the original one. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pointer1 is now in breach of edit warring guidelines. I would strongly recommend that the latest removal of this content is reverted and the matter is discussed here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Inverness arrests
I've removed this obviously NPOV material. It transparently misrepresents the source. "a number" of fans arrested was actually three. The source (and headline) is clear - police praised both sets of fans. Given that it mentions arrests and not convictions, perhaps we should aim for something more concrete. It also refers to Rangers fans being similarly arrested. I wonder if the editor who trawled the internet to find this gem saw fit to add it to the Rangers article as well. --hippo43 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- reverted your inclusion, back to consensus. Sources uncheckable which is hardly appropriate for a controversial subject. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uncheckable? What do you mean? --hippo43 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cite was added as an example of the issue of sectarian behaviour which occurs, and how it is being tackled by the authorities. The problem is that the article cannot say that this behaviour occurs without producing a cite. This one isn't the best, perhaps you could source a better one?
- If you believe that "a number" is a misrepresentation of "three" then please propose an alternative.
- What is on the Rangers article is irrelevant. If you believe it should be on that article then please raise the matter on its talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Arresting someone is not evidence that a type of behaviour occurs, but convictions are. Shoehorning this source in as evidence for something which is not widely covered by reliable sources is not cool, per NPOV. The source would be a good source supporting the view that Celtic and Inverness fans are generally well-behaved - using it as a source to illustrate a suppposed pattern of sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans is dishonest, completely misrepresenting the thrust of the article. I have added the example of the Celtic fan being convicted for wearing a t-shirt. My preference for an accurate (and more concise) way of representing the number three is by saying "three". --hippo43 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- EO, my point about adding this to the Rangers FC article was rhetorical, referring to the endless comparisons made by other editors here and elsewhere. --hippo43 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Accepted, but they are equally tiresome there and best avoided if we are to have a constructive discussion. Otherwise we'd never progress beyond an endless cycle of "but the Celtic/Rangers article says..."
- What's significant here is that there is the offence of "sectarian-related breach of the peace" that is used to tackle sectarian behaviour at matches. There is nothing particularly significant about these three arrests in themselves, or whether they led to convictions. How about we say something along the lines of "Authorities have tackled sectarian behaviour at matches through the introduction of the specific offence of sectarian-related breach of the peace". That then could be suitably cited, and also include examples of it in action. These examples need not be confined to Celtic fans, but should include them to demonstrate the relevance to the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliably sourced examples of Celtic fans engaging in sectarian behaviour, I am in favour of including them. Hence, I added the t-shirt guy. I'm not in favour of presuming that a pattern of behaviour exists and finding examples which supposedly support that view.
- IIRC the legal wording is something like "aggravated by racial or religious prejudice". If there is a source which discusses the significance of the legislation, maybe confirms that the legislation brought in in 2003 is aimed at sectarian behaviour at football games, then we could perhaps include it. However, I'd be cautious about how we handle this - is it evidence that sectarian behaviour at football has increased? How much sectarian behaviour was covered by regular breaches of the peace pre-2003? I think sources which deal accurately with the extent of sectarian behaviour (both by and directed at Celtic fans) would be most useful here. I don't support finding individual examples to hint at a pattern which is not itself sourced. --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- This page gets worse every time I look at it. The section about sectarianism seems to have lost all sense of NPOV. Anyone that wants to make points about Rangers - please put it on the Rangers page. This is the Celtic page. There is no mention of Nil By Mouth, the leading anti-sectarian charity that works with Celtic. And now we have IRA-chanting under a section with a main title of Celtic fans, implying that this is the behaviour of all Celtic fans. Someone sort this out, for christ's sake. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- For starters - The football aspect of the old firm, lest it be forgotten, should be separated out from the sectarian and related aspects of the old firm rivalry. And surely there should be more detail on the football side. And surely the sectarian aspects shouldn't be scattered over the page. The way this is arranged at the moment is an absolute joke Mattun0211 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you suggest instead? I don't think the stuff about political protests is appropriate at all, but it has been pushed in by others. I created a section on fans in general to place it in some kind of appropriate context. What do you propose to include about Nil by Mouth? --hippo43 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a Celtic or Rangers fan, so I don't want to poke around too much in what is a page that really should be written by Celtic fans by-and-large. But the sectariansm section is embarassing from a Celtic point of view - it reads like an anti-Rangers diatribe in some parts at least. I just thought it was ironic that there is no mention of Nil by Mouth but plenty about another football club that should be on another page. There surely must be more to write on the football side - who's played the most old firm matches, scored the most old firm goals, famous matches etc. And then the sectarian aspects and all that goes with that should be under one section so that it's easy for the reader to find. So the Old firm section should be divided into two sections. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from. For me, the page should be written by people who know what they're talking about, irrespective of who they support. Wikipedia articles being used as uncritical fan pages is one of the biggest weaknesses of this site, IMO.
- Also IMO, the most significant aspect of sectarianism regarding Celtic is that Celtic fans are far more likely to be the objects of sectarianism than the perpetrators. The history of sectarianism in Scottish football is largely a matter of anti-Catholicism in Scottish society being mirrored in football. Having a handful of contrived examples here, showing supposed sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans with no accurate historical context was, to my mind, ridiculous.
- I agree the footballing side of the rivalry is more important, but it is also covered in the Old Firm article, as well as the History of Celtic FC article and the history sections here. Difficult to do it justice in the Old Firm section here as well, without becoming very repetitive, but I'll try to do something with it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just think the page is a bit scattered at the moment. The football and sectarian aspects of the old firm should be divided into two (and not more than two!) sections and I would have thought most of the details of the old firm football aspect should be here? And the whole section needs a radical NPOV revamp, taking out all the anti-Rangers stuff Mattun0211 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I completely disagree on your assessment of the sectarianism stuff. A section on sectarianism in the context of the Old Firm rivalry cannot maintain a neutral POV if it does not cover the stuff here that relates to Rangers. The current section, IMO, is entirely consistent with the coverage of the subject by serious sources. --hippo43 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just think the page is a bit scattered at the moment. The football and sectarian aspects of the old firm should be divided into two (and not more than two!) sections and I would have thought most of the details of the old firm football aspect should be here? And the whole section needs a radical NPOV revamp, taking out all the anti-Rangers stuff Mattun0211 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a Celtic or Rangers fan, so I don't want to poke around too much in what is a page that really should be written by Celtic fans by-and-large. But the sectariansm section is embarassing from a Celtic point of view - it reads like an anti-Rangers diatribe in some parts at least. I just thought it was ironic that there is no mention of Nil by Mouth but plenty about another football club that should be on another page. There surely must be more to write on the football side - who's played the most old firm matches, scored the most old firm goals, famous matches etc. And then the sectarian aspects and all that goes with that should be under one section so that it's easy for the reader to find. So the Old firm section should be divided into two sections. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you suggest instead? I don't think the stuff about political protests is appropriate at all, but it has been pushed in by others. I created a section on fans in general to place it in some kind of appropriate context. What do you propose to include about Nil by Mouth? --hippo43 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, it will be a miracle if this topic ever gets satisfactory coverage on either article. Any progress made has to over-come constant fiddling by hyper-sensitive fans on both sides, ever fine-tuned to the slightest possibility of a suggestion that their side may be worse than the other, ever eager to get a mention in of the other side's crimes. Perhaps the solution would be to remove all coverage of sectarianism from both and redirect to the shared Sectarianism in Glasgow Football? There is certainly scope for make that article more comprehensive, and taking it away from both football club articles would at least focus the issues in one place. As for the other content, I agree it shouldn't be over emphasised. But the fact is there is significant coverage when (some) Celtic fans stage stunts like their Poppy protests, and I can't think of many other clubs where this kind of thing happens. That makes it notable. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it makes it notable enough to include in this article, at least at any length, given how much weight is given to other topics in it. These kind of stunts certainly attract some tabloid attention, for a day or two at least, but how much coverage does this kind of stuff get in more serious, even scholarly sources? There's a danger of equating the Daily Record with the academic works that take a serious look at these issues.
- While we're talking about both articles, I can't support wholesale removal of this stuff at all, from either. These two clubs are not 'just' football clubs, they have a much bigger role in Scottish society, one which relates to the whole rivalry-sectarianism-politics thing. Having encyclopedia articles about these clubs which don't cover sectarianism etc would be a disgrace, an unencyclopedic whitewash. --hippo43 (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the article, taking out stuff where the main subject is Rangers. Perhaps this could be put in the Rangers page. I've added material that gives a more neutral point of view. I agree this could be used for the Sectarianism_in_Glasgow#Football|Sectarianism in Glasgow Football]] page as well and will use it there when I have time.Mattun0211 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the context of explaining the OF rivalry and sectarian baggage, Rangers' development of an anti-Catholic identity is appropriate to include here, in brief, with good referencing. Emphasising one study (see WP:UNDUE) and removing other sources covering the subject is not NPOV. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article, while not perfect, is more balanced now. The trouble with the Rangers stuff you cite is a/ it's primarily about Rangers and b/ Rangers claim that Celtic has always had an anti-protestant bias - so you would have to include that too. It's already clear that some supporters of both clubs think the other club is bigoted, or more bigoted. That stuff belongs on the general sectarisnism page, where it will get fairer treatment. By having a more balanced page here, we are doing Celtic a favour as they look a bit silly saying the other lot are bigots and we aren't. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do Rangers accuse Celtic of an anti-protestant bias? Where? In any case, what Rangers or Celtic claim is not relevant. What do reliable sources say? I don't believe the sources show an anti-protestant agenda or identity from Celtic, though I could be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- here, for instance - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/109290-scottish-footballs-sectarian-problem. There are plenty of sources on both sides saying one side is worse than the other. Their neutrality is obviously questionable. I think by using recent academic studies that have clearly taken a neutral point of view, I've improved the article. As I've said, one side saying the other are bigger bigots makes that side look silly. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why not put the Rangers stuff on the Rangers page.It will at least generate a response. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Honest question - do you think that it now better conforms with NPOV? Mattun0211 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do Rangers accuse Celtic of an anti-protestant bias? Where? In any case, what Rangers or Celtic claim is not relevant. What do reliable sources say? I don't believe the sources show an anti-protestant agenda or identity from Celtic, though I could be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article, while not perfect, is more balanced now. The trouble with the Rangers stuff you cite is a/ it's primarily about Rangers and b/ Rangers claim that Celtic has always had an anti-protestant bias - so you would have to include that too. It's already clear that some supporters of both clubs think the other club is bigoted, or more bigoted. That stuff belongs on the general sectarisnism page, where it will get fairer treatment. By having a more balanced page here, we are doing Celtic a favour as they look a bit silly saying the other lot are bigots and we aren't. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the context of explaining the OF rivalry and sectarian baggage, Rangers' development of an anti-Catholic identity is appropriate to include here, in brief, with good referencing. Emphasising one study (see WP:UNDUE) and removing other sources covering the subject is not NPOV. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the article, taking out stuff where the main subject is Rangers. Perhaps this could be put in the Rangers page. I've added material that gives a more neutral point of view. I agree this could be used for the Sectarianism_in_Glasgow#Football|Sectarianism in Glasgow Football]] page as well and will use it there when I have time.Mattun0211 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you serious? That bleacherreport source is garbage - please see WP:RS. If there are reliable sources to back up your perception, please cite them.
- You wrote "Both clubs accuse the other club of sectarian bahaviour." Where? Where is your source for this?
- You wrote "Celtic fans complain of some Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song," No, they didn't. Celtic FC, the Irish government, Scottish politicians and anti-sectarian groups complained about it.
- You wrote "Rangers fans, meanwhile, complain of the use of the word "Hun" used by some Celtic fans to describe their opposite numbers." The source, which I had added, says no such thing. Let the facts speak for themselves.
- After your five reverts this morning, I'm not going to revert you right now, as I have a history of getting drawn into edit wars, and don't fancy getting blocked myself. I'd be grateful if you did it yourself, or if someone else would revert your stuff - it would save me having to report it. --hippo43 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In answer to your 'honest question' - no, of course not. You have given far too much weight to one source, contrary to WP:UNDUE, you have misrepresented the findings of that report, and you have removed sources which detail the history of the issue and Rangers' history of anti-Catholic practices, without good reason or explanation. You have also included unsourced nonsense about what both sides apparently accuse each other of. --hippo43 (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep your hair on; I've cut that report, a recent neutral academic study into this subject, to one paragraph so I've dealt with that issue. How have I misrepresented it? I've largely quoted directly from it. Have you read it? I'm not as familair with sectariansim as you ; so apologies if that site is an odd one. How's this from an American source who sounds unbiased. “Celtic and Rangers have a history of sectarianism and violence as the two sides built their fan-bases by tying themselves to sides in the conflict of Northern Ireland.” http://www.prostamerika.com/2010/04/06/sounders-fans-unite-against-bigotry-22571/. Says it all really. In answer to why I deleted the references to "Rangers' history" the answer lies in your very words. Rangers history should be on the Rangers page. As regards the famine song, lets say Celtic and various other groups? Now don't you think its time we did something about the football side of things - that's currently one sentence. Which also says it all ; Mattun0211 (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- As regards the "unsourced nonsense", one of those came from your Rangers section, and the other was already on the page. Mattun0211 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In answer to your 'honest question' - no, of course not. You have given far too much weight to one source, contrary to WP:UNDUE, you have misrepresented the findings of that report, and you have removed sources which detail the history of the issue and Rangers' history of anti-Catholic practices, without good reason or explanation. You have also included unsourced nonsense about what both sides apparently accuse each other of. --hippo43 (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You've acknowledged not knowing much about the subject, and yet you have been willing to edit war over it. Why, exactly? The source you just suggested - prostamerika - is also not a reliable source nor an expert, whether or not you think it 'sounds unbiased'. To me it just sounds ill-informed.
- You've given that study undue weight by promoting it at the expense of the other sources you removed, and by giving a single source more space than any other paragraph in the section.
- You've also misrepresented the report because it isn't a study of football and sectarianism specifically. It is also only a small study - of 40 16-18 year olds in 2008. It is not directed at the extent of the problem or the history of it, simply the perceptions of a small group of young people at one time. Its first major finding is that territorial gang issues, not football-related sectarianism, were the respondents biggest concern.It goes on to specifically say "Young people explained that the gangs they were aware of or had been associated with in the past had both Rangers and Celtic fans within them, since they were formed on the basis of geographical territory and not on a religious or football basis" and "Some youth leaders felt that racism had become more of an issue than sectarianism, in light of the influx of asylum seekers, refugees and Eastern Europeans to Scotland in recent years," for example.
- If you think the Rangers history should be only on the Rangers page, you make it clear that you simply don't understand the subject. Sectarianism in the context of the OF rivalry stems at least partly from Rangers' development as an anti-Catholic club - not simply a Protestant club - even before Celtic existed. At least according to the sources you don't want to include. Moreover, the bahaviour of Rangers and Rangers fans is relevant to this article because Celtic and their fans are, according to the sources, more often the object of sectarianism.
- If you want to try to expand the football side of the rivalry, go ahead - I have no problem with it. IMO, the social context of these clubs and their rivalry is more significant than results on the field, so that's where I've directed my efforts.
- If you can't be bothered to actually research the sources on this, please leave it to people who will. Please at least read the works by Bill Murray, Giulianotti and Amrstrong, Tom Gallagher etc - the sources you inexplicably removed - before commenting further. You wrote "As I've said, one side saying the other are bigger bigots makes that side look silly" - in other words, rather than read sources cited already, you assume that the problem is the same on both sides. Please stop playing at something you evidently don't understand. --hippo43 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, quoting from an advocacy group (Nil by Mouth) is hardly NPOV, particularly as you have removed other respected sources which deal with the subject.
- Particularly inappropriate is editing that quote, omitting what the document actually said, to suit the point you want to make. --hippo43 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest, on Nil by Mouth. It's a reliable source dealing directly with the subject matter. Similarly, what you think of the study and the american article is irrelevant.They are reliable sources dealing directly with the matter in hand. On the academic study, I picked out areas that were related to the Old Firm. You're correct, the article had a wider remit looking at sectarianism in general. Perhaps you'd like to include those elements in the Sectarianism in Glasgow page? Can you show me the sources that say that Rangers was founded as an anti-Catholic club as I have honestly never heard that before. Then we could put it in the Rangers section where it belongs. There are plenty of references to Rangers in this section, so you need not let that issue trouble you. Mattun0211 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC) BTW I didn't edit the quote to suit my purpose - I just took out the reference to Hibs and Hearts as this is about the Old Firm, and its on Celtic's page - i.e. Having the Edinburgh clubs mentioned would be irrelevant and/or confusing for people not familiar with this matter. Using ... in that context is perfectly acceptable.Mattun0211 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having the sectarianism section on this page full of reference to Rangers and not celtic is a bit out of place. I would agree with both Mattun and Escape orbit, that having a Sectarianism in Glasgow Football article / section would allow an effective area to combine the two sections and show the causes and routes of where the sectarian aspect of the old firm comes from. It would not be an unencyclopedic whitewash as it would still be available but where both relate to each other directly removing all aspects of bias on these articles.
- This would also reduce edit warring and disruption on both clubs articles and enable them to reach GA status (which I strongly believe is possible for both articles) Monkeymanman (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mattun how can you say those sources are reliable, the bleacherreport is written by a random Rangers fan, and is completely bias and their is nothing to suggest that prostamerika is more reliable. Also nil by mouth 'claim' that words such as tim and orange are sectarian which is completely ridiculous as many fans use these words positively. Adam4267 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Monkey, you're wrong about bias, It's not bias to state, for example, that Aboriginal people in Australia were treated badly by white settlers, with good references - it's historically accurate. It's not bias to say, with good references, that there was a great deal of anti-semitism in 19th century Europe - it's historically accurate. It's not bias point out, with good references, that there many black and Asian immigrants to Britain have faced racist abuse - it's historically accurate. Do you see where I'm going with this? --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Monkey and EscapeOrbit - having the sectarianism on each clubs page will mean the pages will constantly be hijacked by sectarian extremists trying to make the other club look worse. These pages are better left to the football. Why don't we move all sectarian aspects to the page escapeorbit mentioned, and the two sides can battle it out there. It will be like Galsgow on a Saturday night after an Old Firm match, except with words instead of head butts ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know who you think the 'sectarian extremists' are, but there's nothing in policy, AFAIK, to support removing sourced, accurate material simply to avoid having to deal with disagreements. That's why we have page protection options, discussions etc.
- Also, Mattun, please don't make jokes about sectarian violence when discussing this topic. It makes it hard to take your comments seriously. --hippo43 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, just trying to enjoy myself; It's fine to have all that history about Rangers - on the Rangers page or the page that escapeorbot mentioned, because they are about that subject. This is the Celtic page. And this is why we need to move all the stuff about sectarianism onto one page. Or the Celtic page, as it has even now after its been improved, will have more material about Rangers in the old firm than it does about Celtic's Old Firm footballing history.If you look back through the talk page you may see I've explained this before. So shall we move all this onto another page. Then you can write about Rangers to your heart's content. Incidentlaly, I found an academic study (from Duke University in the US, oddly enough) that suggested your version of Rangers history needs some work doing to it by the way. When the "escapeorbit" page is up and running and I've got time, I'll add that in. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Monkey and EscapeOrbit - having the sectarianism on each clubs page will mean the pages will constantly be hijacked by sectarian extremists trying to make the other club look worse. These pages are better left to the football. Why don't we move all sectarian aspects to the page escapeorbit mentioned, and the two sides can battle it out there. It will be like Galsgow on a Saturday night after an Old Firm match, except with words instead of head butts ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The stuff about Rangers on this page is directly relevant to Celtic in the context of the Old Firm rivalry. There is a lot more to be said about sectarianism involving Rangers which does not directly relate to Celtic, and that is best left to other articles such as Rangers F.C.. If you have new source material about Rangers, consider adding it to the Rangers FC article? Or read the sources you removed first. You might learn something. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- So in effect your inclusion hippo shows that the 2 are directly related. This would then be better met with a section in the article escape orbit recommended where the situation can be brought together, rather than having fractured sections on each clubs articles which don’t give a proper perspective. As I have said IMO this section on both articles is the only thing holding them down from becoming GA or even FA.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The stuff about Rangers on this page is directly relevant to Celtic in the context of the Old Firm rivalry. There is a lot more to be said about sectarianism involving Rangers which does not directly relate to Celtic, and that is best left to other articles such as Rangers F.C.. If you have new source material about Rangers, consider adding it to the Rangers FC article? Or read the sources you removed first. You might learn something. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent)It goes without saying that sectarianism in the Celtic context and sectarianism in the Rangers context are related, that doesn't mean the content should be the same (and it isn't) or that all this material should be removed from the articles about the clubs. Monkey, as you and I have discussed at the Rangers talk page, there is enough material on Rangers and sectarianism to merit its own article, if that's the way you want to go. As is the case all over wikipedia, on all kinds of topics, there should be an appropriate section on each club's article, and info on both at various other articles - Old Firm, Sectarianism in Glasgow, Rangers and sectarianism (if necessary) etc. These subjects are obviously overlapping but are not the same. Although they cover some of the same ground, the story of Rangers and sectarianism is very different from the story of Celtic and sectarianism. It's really not that complicated. --hippo43 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a condensed version of Nil by Mouth and Univ. of strathclude report. Nothing deleted. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mattun, I've removed the Deuchar source again. The quote is unnecessary, and gives undue weight to a tiny study. Moreover, the source does not say what you claimed it said - its findings were misrepresented here. If anything, the study plays down the role of sectarianism in Glasgow youth culture, both compared to sectarianism in NI and compared to issues of territoriality and anti-immigrant sentiment in Glasgow. --hippo43 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Trophies etc.
A few points on the trophy section.
1/ Shouldn't the European Cup be first, and the fact that Celtic were runners up in 1970. i.e. also mentioned. 2/ The minor trophies (and some of them really are minor!;)) are spread out vertically and take up a huge section of space. They should be in a table. 3/ I though Celtic had won the UEFA cup, or at least were runners-up recently. Shouldn't that get a mention in the trophies section? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're right - go ahead and make the changes if you want. --hippo43 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Recentism
I have added this tag because it is faintly ridiculous that there is less written about the general history of the club up to 2007 (as if not much of note happened then) than the last four, fairly unremarkable, seasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think having the curent or most recent season makes some sense, but would happily bin the rest. If there's no objection I'll gladly get rid of it in a day or two. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now done! Pointer1 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Cymru.lass, 1 February 2011
{{edit protected}}
Can someone please remove {{pp-semi-indef}}
from the article? The article is fully protected and has a template indicating that, but someone forgot to remove the semi protection template. This is causing the page to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 07:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nil by Mouth
I do not think NilbyMouth should be used as a source it has some very dubious claims, contradicts itself, has an unknown author and generally doesn't seem to know what it is talking about. Adam4267 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Adam. The fact that you don't agree with Nilbymouth is irrelevant I'm afraid, as I've used a reliable source. As WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Nilbymouth is an independent registered charity and is not biased in favour of either Celtic or Rangers, so it meets the WP:NPOV criteria. And I'm quoting directly from them (the fact that there is no name is irrelevant by the way), so there's no original research WP:OR. You have got your way with having the political protests section in the Celtic Fans section, despite the fact that hardly anyone thought that was a good idea, so you really should compromise on this one. If you have issues with NilBy Mouth perhaps you'd like to develop that page, which needs some work if I remember correctly. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice that after your unsuccesful attempt to get me banned for edit warring you have reverted my good faith edit at the earliest opportunity without using the talk page (only for it to be undone by another editor who pointed you in the direction of the talk page). I think we both need to ensure that we don't end up in the same situation as last time. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even going to respond to your comments that don't relate to this topic.
WP:V does not state anywhere that registered charities are reliable sources, and as they are a relatively unkown charity who don't seem to have done much that does not help either. Also Nil by Mouth makes claims that differ from what most reliable sources do say which would make me think they do not know what they are talking about. Adam4267 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, quoting from NilByMouth is fine. Have a look at the Amnesty International page, for instance. Direct quotes/statements/reports from the organisation, which is an NGO/charity, are referenced on numerous occasions, as they are on numerous other pages dealing with political prisoners and related issues. On what basis are you claiming they are "relatively unknown". You've clearly heard of them. They have a page on wikipedia. They are an officially registered charity. The last point is obviously the key point. If you think that they "make claims that differ from what most reliable sources do say" then show us what you mean and we have something to work with. (By the way, the fact that you think they "don't know what they are talking about", as I've explained before, is irrelevant.) Mattun0211 (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The real point is that a long quote from them is unnecessary and gives undue weight to their source. What they're saying isn't really contentious - their source can be cited as a footnote, like others in that section. So people wave flags and shout stuff at Old Firm matches? What a surprise!
- Also, the group itself is hardly a neutral source - it is a pressure group, a lobbying organisation, not an authority on the extent or character of sectarianism. There are better quality sources which say more or less the same thing. --hippo43 (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Hippo. You've got to remember that Wikipedia is essentially a reference tool, and people who come here may not be familair with the topic, so shouting about "stuff" etc. is more than relevant. Those that are semi-familiar with the topic would associate Celtic FC sectarianism with IRA chanting - until I improved the page there wasn't even a mention of this. There is no undue weight - it's all condensed into one paragraph. I'd pass on the same message - I think you need to get over the fact that you don't happen to like the anti-sectarian charity NilByMouth, trying to spin it as a "lobbying organisation" etc. The value of it here is that it is neither Celtic or Rangers - far more neutral than your input in this section I might add. You say in your edit summary the Deuchars study is tiny! Forty is a perfectly acceptable sample. Have you got a bigger study to show us? And as I've said before (a point you never replied to so presumably accepted) I just took out the reference to Hibs and Heats in the quote, so using a few dots to shorten it to make it more relevant to this page is fine and does not misrepresent it.
- I think we really need to move on from where we were before the page protection came into place, and you going back into delete/revert mode isn't in the spirit of that. I've left your Rangers stuff alone, even though that is almost certainly undue weight given this is the Celtic page. If anything should be a footnote, it's clearly that. But let's try and move onwards and upwards. Please don't simply revert my stuff, particulalry as you've had seven bans for edit warring and it would be a shame to see you banned as you do good work elsewhere.Mattun0211 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just seen your more recent comment on the Strathclyde University report (best to keep new comments in more recent areas of the page or they will be lost.) I'm afraid your observation that the report "plays down the role of sectarianism" is simply wrong. You should actually read the report, it's quite interesting. Here are a few quotes which should give you a much better understanding of what the report actually says.
"Most respondents continue to see sectarianism as a current and prevalent problem in Glasgow. Only 9% of respondents agreed that “discrimination along sectarian lines no longer exists” and 68% disagreed."
"Equally importantly, perhaps, there was little evidence that respondents felt sectarianism is on the wane, with 67% disagreeing that “sectarianism is becoming a thing of the past”. Again this view was held consistently across the sample."
"Perhaps more alarmingly, around two-thirds (65%) of respondents felt that sectarian violence was very or quite common and a majority (58%) felt that sectarian threats and harassment were common."
"Perhaps of more importance, support for Rangers and Celtic is also seen as reflecting the sectarian divide in Ireland, which, again, is seen to be about much more than religious difference. Even in the face of pronouncements and action from the Clubs themselves, the Clubs’ histories, the symbolism surrounding them (the Union Flag versus the Irish Tricolour), the organisations and political movements that congregate around the Clubs and the highly visible activities of a small number of supporters, all help maintain the perception to some that Celtic is associated with Republicanism and Rangers with Loyalism."
hopefully you now see that the report did not domnplay sectarianism. I have obviously and understandably concentrated on the Old Firm aspect of the report, but perhaps th e whole report could be used more widely on the Sectarianism in Glasgow page. I was wrong about there being 40 respondents actually, it was actually 1,000. Incidentally, the report casts doubt on your claim that anti-Cathloicism is far more prevelant than anti-Protestantism - but I'm sure you'll ignore that bit :;
"Overall, most respondents in the survey took an even-handed view of sectarianism, with three-quarters saying that rather than being mainly anti-Catholic or mainly anti-Protestant, sectarianism in Glasgow tends to be equally aimed at Catholics and Protestants." Mattun0211 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, please try not to be patronising if you really want us to work together for a better article.
- I'm not objecting to including either of these as a source, but they need to be used in the appropriate way. It should be obvious that you don't have consensus for your addition of these sources, at least in the way you have used them. Per BRD, please discuss and wait for consensus before restoring them.
- On the Nil by Mouth article, it is inappropriate to include a long quote, for reasons of NPOV/UNDUE. (There are high quality print sources - the ones you don't seem to have read - used as references which are not quoted at length.) I don't object to it being included as a reference for what goes on at OF games, and have already used it as such.
- Nil by Mouth, whether you like it or not, is not a neutral organisation - it has its own POV. It is a lobbying group and charity whose existence depends on sectarianism being a problem, so it has a vested interest in all this. There is also some academic material out there which contradicts its view of sectarianism - the extent of the problem in Scottish society is somewhat contentious. Nobody, least of all me, is trying to say that sectarianism is not an issue which relates to Celtic FC.
- As for the Deuchar study, my discussion here was in the appropriate place and perfectly visible in the page history. Including a long quote from it, with no similar quote from any of the published sources which actually address the Old Firm itself, is obviously contrary to WP:UNDUE, and is both poor writing and poor scholarship. You have also quoted various parts of it here, but not the parts which contradict your view of it. In particular, its first major finding is that "Territorial gang issues were at the forefront of the young participants' minds", and it goes on to say "Although the activity associated with gangs was not seen as sectarian in terms of promoting open religious bigotry..." and "Some youth leaders felt that racism had become more of an issue than sectarianism ..." for example. So, while of course it confirms that sectarianism is an issue, it makes it clear that gang culture, territory and racism/xenophobia are part of the same mix (at least they were in 2008). Your inclusion of the study did not appropriately represent its findings, and gave far too much weight to a single source which does not directly examine the Old Firm. To afford the same weight of coverage to the other, arguably better, sources available, would make the article unmanageable.
- In terms of the details, can you point out where it says there were 1000 subjects in the study? I thought it said 40. Also, I don't see where it supports your statement "The clubs have attracted the support...intensified the rivalry in Scotland". If I've missed it, can you point it out in the study? Again, it can perhaps be used as a reference for some points, but we would need to reach consensus here first.
- Last, please take care to not misunderstand what I've written here - you mentioned my "claim that anti-Cathloicism is far more prevelant than anti-Protestantism." I don't think I claimed any such thing, though I don't see where the issue is settled by this study. (I did say that Celtic's role in the sectarianism/OF story was more as a victim of sectarianism than a perpetrator.) Also, you wrote above that I claimed "Rangers was founded as an anti-Catholic club" - I don't think I said that either. (I did say that Rangers were developing an anti-Catholic identity even before Celtic was founded, at least according to the reliable source I cited.)
- Not only have I read the study, I have read some of the sources it cites (and have cited one or two here). Perhaps you could do the same? As you raised the issue of edit warring, please be aware of WP:BRD. Your own edits currently constitute edit-warring. Mentioning that I've been blocked in the past for the same thing isn't fooling anyone. --hippo43 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hippo. I think you misunderstand WP:BRD. Here are a few quotes from the Wiki BRD page. "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." ... "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." ... "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods." Bearing in mind you have seven bans for edit warring, I would argue this isn't an avenue you should usbe going down. The Glasgow CC website that has the report is down at the moment, so I'll wait for that to come up before I respond on that. As a way forward, why don't you show the suggestions you want to include on the talk page, such as the newspaper articles quoting NilByMouth, and then we have something to work on. I would be more than willing to use them instead if they are appropriate. I don't think blanket deletes is going to get us anywhere. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to require anyone to follow BRD, but it is more or less accepted practice that editors should. In any case, you don't have consensus for including the material you want. My removal of your insertion was not simply because I "don't like it", but because it is flawed, for the reasons stated above. (You will see that I have in fact used the Nil By Mouth article as a reference later in the same section.) If you want to gain consensus for using this stuff, you will need to address these objections and get other editors' agreement. Refusing to discuss others' objections and simply adding this stuff again is edit-warring, just as it was edit-warring when you did it a few days ago. Referring to my being blocked in the past is, again, fooling nobody. --hippo43 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I've pointed out, editors are not required to follow BRD and, as it states, it works best with diplomatic skills that I don't think you possess - as evidenced by your seven bans for edit warring. It's not meant to be used for blanket dletions of perfectly well referenced material (I see no reference to Nil by Mouth BTW). The way forward is compromise - come up with a better alternative that we can discuss. Blanket deleting is not working towards compromise. The irony of this, of course, is that when I deleted your Rangers stuff on this page for rifing a coach and horse through Undue Weight and Neutral Point of View, you were coming up with the opposite argument, saying i couldn't touch it until we had concencus here. (I was right, but we'll ignore that; -and I've let you have your way on that one). The way forward is for you to suggest a form of words that you think will be acceptable to both of us, and we can work towards a mutual understanding (perhaps using the newsaper articles you mentioned). The reason I keep bringing up your seven bans isn't to have a go at you - it's to remind you that you need to try a bit harder to work with other editors. Blanket deletions is edit warring, however much you mention BRD.Mattun0211 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mattun stop bringing up Hippo's bans for edit warring, it's not helping with discussion and it doesn't relate to this, also stop saying you let people have their way that just makes you sound childish. Adam4267 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please give it a rest - you have shown no diplomatic skill at all in this discussion, and are now edit-warring for a second time. Removing inappropriately used source material is not a 'blanket deletion'. My preference is for none of the stuff you have inserted to be included in the text, for the reasons which I have stated above and you have not addressed to the satisfaction of other editors. If you have a compromise in mind, suggest it, and see if you can reach consensus with other editors. --hippo43 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've edited the Nil By Mouth and Univ. of Strathclyde stuff down to the bone and bare basics - there's nothing remotely controversial left. I've also cut down a lot of the elements that were more concerned with Rangers to the bare bone - perhaps we could have a footnote or two if you wish. The whole section is much tidier now - the Famine song stuff was really just a long ramble before. Remember - reach concencus here first rather than just put your stuff back in ;)
Mattun0211 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The material you have added overall has detracted from the section, the Univ of Strathclyde stuff you added basically just repeated what was in the first sentance of that paragraph, I've already stated that I don't consider Nil by Mouth a relliable source and you have completely glossed over the information about the Famine Song, not even including the offensive lyrics which caused an international incident. Adam4267 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusions about rangers is simply ott. Reflections on scottish society would be best included at sectarianism in glasgow, but not here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You only addressed one of the three concerns I raised and you have not given any reason for why the information on the Famine Song was wrong also what are the reflections on scottish society and why shouldn't they be in this article. How can you put all that information back in without having a reasoned argument against any of the three issues I raised? Adam4267 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusions about rangers is simply ott. Reflections on scottish society would be best included at sectarianism in glasgow, but not here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The material you have added overall has detracted from the section, the Univ of Strathclyde stuff you added basically just repeated what was in the first sentance of that paragraph, I've already stated that I don't consider Nil by Mouth a relliable source and you have completely glossed over the information about the Famine Song, not even including the offensive lyrics which caused an international incident. Adam4267 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask all involved to end the petty sniping and edit warring and stick to the problems with the article? Adam4267, the problem with the section as it stands (after your second revert) is that it has a paragraph about the sins of Rangers supports, but very little regarding Celtic fans, which, I would think, would be more relevant to an article about Celtic Football Club. If there remains a problem about Nil by Mouth's involvement (which in my view is a total red herring of an issue), the internet is not short of suitable cites from reliable sources that could be used to illustrate sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans.
Is it possible to produce a balanced (and concise) summary of the problem that exists on both sides without further pages and pages of he said/you said ? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have nothing against any 'sins' of Celtic fans being included as long as they are from a reliable source. All the sources you showed their are definitely reliable however none of them show sectarianism by Celtic fans. Adam4267 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help on that EscapeOrbit. Personally, I would be happy to use any of those cites instead, if someone wants to come up with a proposal, although there is clearly nothing wrong with the NilByMouth cite. Adam - all those cites make crystal clear links to sectarianism - we really shouldn't need to go through this again. Remember - verifiability is the key, not your opinion, so please try to be more constructive. Mattun0211 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Summary of the main points I would make: 1/ It should be focussed on Celtic - Rangers should be secondary. 2/ It should make reference to IRA chanting as this is what most neutral fans would associate with Celtic sectarianism. 3/ I think it reads better now that it is more concise.
Honours
I would think finishing second is an honour, remember the word is honour not trophy also almost every other football team list runner-up awards for all competitions not just europe;
Bayern Munich, SL Benfica, Inter Milan,Real Madrid Adam4267 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sectarianism
Much like the Rangers fc article, there is much made here of Rangers policy of not signing Catholics. In order to remain NPOV, and relevant, could we not amend the celtic fc artcile to include the fact (citations forthcoming) that Celtic FC were formed as a Roman Catholic club, with Irish Catholic Republican colours and symbology. They have had in place an unwritten policy of having only Catholics on the board of Directors, although like their sister club Hibernian, the policy of signing only Catholic players was preferable but not practical at this earlier time. Furthermore I'd like to point out that Celtic FC's opposition to the Royal Family is Sectarian in nature, much like rangers criticism of the Pope who is head of the Catholic Church, the Queen (and by extension the Monarchy) are figureheads for the Anglican Church, who while not a major religious grouping in Scotland, are a significant proportion of Northern Ireland, from where the sectarian culture ostensibly originates. PPS surely the (quote) 'worst case of racism at a British sporting event' (ie the treatment of Rangers player Mark Walters) is worthy of a mention in fairness, given the tendency for mudslinging and name-calling on the rangers page? Hachimanchu (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you back up any of those statments? Adam4267 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. He can't. Looking at his contributions, it seems he is interested in a fairly narrow field of study. --hippo43 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Its called specialization. And yes I can back up my statements of course, I just need to dig out the books with the relevant info. Hachimanchu (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the BBC would be a much better source than your books. Adam4267 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources which substantiate any of that, it would be interesting and valuable, whether from the BBC or printed sources. In my reading on the subject, I haven't come across that angle, but would be interested to know more. --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The esteemed followfollow.com seems to take that POV/point of view. Adam4267 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't read followfollow. It's not a reliable source on this, so its views, articulate as they are, are largely irrelevant. --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- These statements are fact, and only common sense, however unfortunately citations are few and far between. There are very few (if any) Unionist versions of Tim Pat Coogan et al and even less mainstream media writers, if any were found I am sure you would find some excuse to dismiss their reliability, and probably just vandalise the article to your own purposes anyway. I'll keep looking for sources however I strongly suspect I am wasting my time. Hachimanchu (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- So your position is "everyone know it's true, but there are no sources which say so, and even if there were, you'd dismiss them"?? How convenient. --hippo43 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-big-question-in-2006-are-catholics-really-being-discriminated-against-in-scotland-417777.html
- ^ http://www.irishhistorylinks.net/More_Links/Racism.html
- ^ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/05/19/nhs-racism-probe-86908-21371063/
- ^ http://www.123football.com/clubs/scotland/hibernian/index.htm
- ^ http://www.rangers-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/church_or_chapel_568165/index.shtml
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2264181.stm
- ^ http://www.heraldscotland.com/rangers-try-to-avert-title-nightmare-1.862066
- ^ If I had the choice to sign either a Catholic or Protestant, I'd take the Protestant because Rangers wouldn't take the Catholic.
- ^ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2005/09/03/graeme-souness-prayed-i-would-be-the-first-catholic-to-join-rangers-86908-15926094/
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/mar/29/newsstory.sport12
- ^ http://nilbymouth.org/?page_id=28
- ^ http://www.setbb.com/acciesworld/viewtopic.php?t=5833&sid=a9fac06bbbd4f7f46e003f2bbf9337d9&mforum=acciesworld
- ^ http://www.stmirren-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/saints_fans_accused_of_sectarian_singing_374660/index.shtml
- ^ http://www.celticfc.net/news/stories/news_081110091020.aspx