Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Master of Ninja, please refrain from your factually incorrect subjective prejudice, when speaking of Celtic and Rangers. For instance, Celtic also sing bigoted songs, as "IRA" chants and "F the Q and Davie Cooper" chants, as well as others have been well documented even this season. Also, MON is from Northern Ireland whether you wish him to be or not. This is a VERY CLEAR abuse of Wikipedia. Please stop this immediately. (Your spelling and grammar is also terrible.)

Reply: I completely disagree with your analysis - I merely reverted a change which in itself was biased, with a revision comment I hoped would allow the author of the changes to try again, without taking out the major portion of the history that he did. I do not know, and do not particularly care, what the actual situation 'bigot-wise' between Rangers and Celtic is at the moment: I believe that is for other contributors to decided as long as they do not disrupt the article. The situation about MON being Northern Irish was part of the previous revision, and it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater unfortuantely as I do not have the time or expertise to vet the correct factual changes, along with the subjective changes. Maybe once this protection has been lifted you can change it? - Master Of Ninja 20:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective, vandalizing this page is utter lunacy. I'm a San Francisco Giants fan, but you don't see me (or my fellow Giants fans, for that matter) vandalizing the Los Angeles Dodgers' page. I'm just doing a little research on soccer, and when I see that people would do this, I find it hilarious. A word to the person(s) vandalizing this page: Get a life. User:R'son-W 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect to R'son-W, the long and complicated history of the Old Firm is incomparable to the rivalry that exists between San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers, or any other American sports teams, for that matter, which by comparison are totally free from the sectarianism and ethnic conflicts that tarnish Scottish football.--Nicholas 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

well said nicholas Rangers first Roman Catholic was not Mo Johnston in 1989. There were others, but I do not have the proof (pre WW1 there would be plenty) but recently there is one I can prove: John Spencer.

Reply: Is this page about Rangers or Celtic?

Further reply: If this page mentions Rangers it should be accurate. I did not add the Rangers aspect, it should not be there, but if it is included it should not be false. Agreed?

Is there a specific reason why the club's name is pronounce 'Seltic' and not 'Keltic'?????? 16:13, 24 Mar 2004 81.86.4.217 "Seltic" was the pronunciation used at the time the club was founded. "Keltic" has since supplanted the old pronunciation when used to describe Celtic culture, peoples etc. 19:17, 30 Jun 2004 81.152.194.26 (uniform) Clubs having uniforms identical Celtic's green-white hoops

• Sachsen Leipzig (Deutschland)
• Shamrock Rovers (Ireland)
• Belfast Celtic (Irish League, now defunct)
• Buckie Thistle (Scotland, Highland League)
• Donegal Celtic (Irish League)
• Sporting Lisbon (Portugal)

Do you know any other?137.205.8.2 21:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yeovil Towm (England League 1)
• T.N.S. (Wales)
• Real Betis Balompié (Spain) Although not identical as those are vertical stripes, instead of the horizontal hoops.
• Shamrock Rovers(Ireland)

Added by Paddy 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection and reversion

I have protected this page due to vandalism from several anon IPs and User:Egils. I may possibly have have caught some valid edits amongst the vandalism upon reverting this page. I have no idea whther the allegations regarding a member of the Club's staff are valid. If you believe these edits are justified, please discuss them here. Mintguy (T) 11:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page and Rangers F.C. have been protected because of vandalism from a large number of anon IPs (many of whom have been given 24 hour bans). The protection will remain in place until it is judged safe to remove it. -- Arwel 17:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The protected version seems to have caught an act of vandalism. Rather than reverting back to Demiurge (who it seems has been trying to stem the anon IP changes), it is reverted to 82.40.9.6. 82.40.9.6 changes "Celtic was founded in 1888 by Brother Walfrid as a way to raise money for terribly deprived" to "Celtic was founded in 1888 by Brother Walfrid as a way to ensure that there was no dilution of the Catholic religion amongst Irish immigrants". The original would appear to be the correct version, see e.g. [1]. --stochata 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We'll stick with the version as-is for the moment - as the header says, the protected version isn't taking sides. I was hoping a freeze of both pages for a few hours would be enough, until someone came up and edited this page nearly half an hour after Rangers was protected, so maybe I'll leave them protected until tomorrow to be on the safe side. - Arwel 18:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough.--stochata 18:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for once protection has been lifted - give contributors a "Analysis of rivalry between Rangers and Celtic" page so that they can try and write a reasoned analysis of the situation. I'm a bit annoyed at being flamed for what I thought was a reasonable (and explained revert) - Master Of Ninja 20:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice suggestion but sadly unlikely to work. These guys would much rather throw insults around than points of argument as the (mostly insulting) pro and con edits demonstrate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It might still be worth starting History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football, with a link from this page in place of all references to chants and who had which Catholic / Protestant players. I would suggest following the example of the Hibs page, which prominently mentions the Catholic history, without then reverting to further discussion later on. Oddly enough, I notice that the Sectarianism page doesn't even mention Scotland. --stochata 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice this little edit war was spotted by the Sunday Herald -- [2] -- Arwel 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This protected version contains a number of inaccuracies

? This is a very strange comment to come from anon user 128.240.229.65, who edited the article 2 hours earlier and therefore knows perfectly well that the article is no longer protected (and indeed hasn't been since last Saturday afternoon). -- Arwel 20:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It has been proven that no song that Celtic supporters sing whilst watching their team at Celtic Park contain any sectarian lyrics whatsoever

I take it you've never attended a Celtic match. If you have, then you'd know that Sectarian rhetoric can be heard eminating from the stands at Celtic games. These include "North men, south men, comrades all, soon there'll be no protestants at all" and "We're off to Dublin in the Sun, F*ck the Huns!" Hun being a derogitory, disparaging and Sectarian term for a Protestant. Plus, let's not forget that Celtic supporters can be often heard chanting "Dirty Orange B*stards" at, not just Rangers fans, but fans of many other Scots teams. Bazton

I've removed the last of "193.133.113.141, 16:18, 5 August 2005 (season updates)" changes, as they were mostly vandalism. However, I've toned down the sentence about Celtic fans calling for Strachan's head - some of the more vocal fans weren't happy about the season's start. CS Miller 13:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Could be worth directing readers to a separate 'Sectarianism in Scottish football' (or whatever) page and protecting THAT page if it becomes impossible. Hippo43 14:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

As the author of the previous anon comment I had assumed that the page was protected as any editorial changes I had made were removed on subsequent viewings. A number of points are incorrect and offensive, In particular the failure of the Irish Scots to integrate. Would someone please point out to me how this non-integration is apparent in day-day Scottish life? 195.92.168.177 20:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)Lord of the Dance

I'm sorry -- I think I may have been overly hasty in reverting other changes and catching yours at the same time (if you were 128.240.229.65). I have just reinstated your changes. --stochata 20:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rangers revisionism keeps returning

I notice that "Rangers would not sign Catholics" is continually changed to "Catholics would not sign for Rangers". While undoubtedly Catholics may have been averse to signing for Rangers if they could, the fact remains that Rangers barred them from doing so -- for example, see this report [3]. --stochata 11:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Either way it's a fact that's irrelevant, this page being a NPOV piece about Celtic.

How does stochata's point violate NPOV? It seems to be a fact-based point. City 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit war March 2005

Hi - I think we need everyone involved to actually have a discussion of what should be on the article page. The amount of reversions is quite unbelievable. I personally feel that the edit on 27 March, at 13:18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celtic_F.C.&oldid=11577398) is quite acceptable. Any ideas on this? - Master Of Ninja 18:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Master Of Ninja. I am actually in favour of the style of changes made by 217.42.x.x (I am assuming this is a session based IP address, and the person is the same). 217.42.x.x is gradually toning down and removing some of the more strongly vocalised discussion of sectarianism. However, I do think he/she goes too far in attempts to remove all references. At times it is important to note the differences with Rangers (particularly, the long standing acceptance of protestant players). This time I have actually tried a compromise rather than a blind revert. Of course, it would be preferrable if 217.42.x.x were prepared to discuss rather than slowly change the article, and to avoid misleading edit summaries. --stochata 13:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Celtic & the Media

RE: Celtic Quick News. This section of the article looks suspiciously like an advert. Is it absolutely necessary? Maybe add the link to external links at the bottom of the article?--Nicholas 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected I'm gonna delete that link.--Nicholas 11:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Images

Surely someone could bring a digital camera to the stadium??? SeanMack 16:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There are some pictures on the Celtic Park article but in saying that I do agree with you.

PalX 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Celtic are not sectarian?

It has been proven that no song that Celtic supporters sing whilst watching their team at Celtic Park contain any sectarian lyrics whatsoever

I take it you've never attended a Celtic match. If you have, then you'd know that Sectarian rhetoric can be heard eminating from the stands at Celtic games. These include "North men, south men, comrades all, soon there'll be no protestants at all" and "We're off to Dublin in the Sun, F*ck the Huns!" Hun being a derogitory, disparaging and Sectarian term for a Protestant. Plus, let's not forget that Celtic supporters can be often heard chanting "Dirty Orange B*stards" at, not just Rangers fans, but fans of many other Scottish teams as well. Bazton

Those aren't the words to those songs - "North men, south men, comrades all, Dublin, Belfast, Corke or Donnegal" and "We're all off to Dublin in the Green, in the green, where the helmets glisten in the sun". You clearly don't know anything of what you're spewing. And Rangers fans are Dirty Orange Bastards - an instrumental version of "Hello Hello" plays before every homegame at Ibrox. Isn't that just a song about how brilliant it is slaughtering catholics?

Sadly there are a few (thankfully it is only a few) that engage in this sort of chanting but to be fair it has largely been eradicated in recent times. I attended last week's OF game and didn't hear any sectarian songs or chants with religious content. 'Go home ya Huns' was belted out at one stage but that was the extent of the directly aimed derogatory stuff and it's debatable I suppose if the word 'Hun' is in itself sectarian. Offensive yes but sectarian I am not sure. Sectarian or republican songs are in fact banned today by Celtic and this seems to be having the desired effect. Early days but the signs are promising. In fairness to Rangers, they have also improved somewhat in moving away from this stuff too. The sooner this ridiculous side to the OF disappears the better. It has no place in today's world. Palx 08:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Many Rangers supporters believe that songs swayed towards the IRA and Sinn Fein are sectarian. Although it can be said that both of these organisations are sectarian, most Celtic supporters firmly state that although the IRA have commited atrocities, it is the IRA's cause that they stand for, and not their actions. It has been proven that no song that Celtic supporters sing whilst watching their team at Celtic Park contain any sectarian lyrics whatsoever, although the political visage they give could be confused as such.

PaddyC, where has this been proven? This argument carries on below and mentions '...soon there'll be no protestants at all'. Is that not a sectarian lyric? Hippo43 16:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hippo43, I am terribly sorry But the "Added by Paddy 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)" is the final part of what I added, I added the four football teams above this signature, which play in Green and White. The paragraph under my signature is not mine. I apologise If I caused any misunderstandings.

Even though, may I produce my opinion on that paragraph, I totally agree, "...soon there'll be no protestants at all" I never heard this at Celtic Park, any evidence to prove me wrong?? In fact Celtic have always welcomed protestants into our Club, some of our main heroes are Protestants, Examples such as Mr. Jock Stein and other Lisbon Lions.
It has been mentioned on this page, but by someone not providing any evidence, so it could be a good start and an Idea, if evidence was provided, Sincerely Paddy 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Paddy, apologies - my mistake reading that anonymous comment. On the subject of 'soon there'll be no protestants at all', I have heard it at the Park, and as it crops up on this page I'm obviously not the only one. A straw poll of people I know reveals the same thing. Obviously it's near impossible to 'prove' this either way, short of providing a video recording of it being sung! I am not in any way suggesting that Celtic is a sectarian club, and as such I don't even consider it necessary to cite well-known 'non-catholics'. My view is that of course there are prominent Celtic players who aren't/weren't catholics - or even players who aren't/weren't hindu - why on earth wouldn't there be? As far as I know, noone has seriously accused Celtic of having any kind of sectarian employment policy.

However, I find it absurd that a contributor has claimed that 'it has been proven...' Where has this been proven? By who? Even leaving aside 'political' songs which, if not specifically sectarian, will obviously be offensive to some, clearly there are some fans at Celtic Park, perhaps only a small number, who sing lyrics which protestants would find offensive. Only the most one-eyed Celtic fan could deny this, or the singing of 'dirty orange bastards' or various references to huns... I confess, I'm not above a bit of that myself, and I'm definitely not a catholic.

Hippo43 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem Hippo, I do recognise that there is a minor section of the Celtic fans, that do not grace the name and reasons of being of Celtic FC.

But songs derogatory and insulting toward opponents are just part and parcel of football, millions of clubs round earth have insulting terms and songs toward their opponents, which in many countries are just taken as general banter. But there are political issues surrounding the oldfirm which make every minor incident a big sectarian one. And even the big sectarian issues are always bombarded by the media, when in fact we do get trouble at football all round Europe and most of the time this is not even documented. And here I am not condoning this behaviour or issues.

I have for year now opposed political songs being sung at football matches (Even though I don't oppose the songs), there is a place and a time for everything, and Celtic FC should do without these songs, I do understand these songs might offend people, yet I do not believe they could be branded as sectarian.

Hopefully our society will learn how to draw a line on what is acceptable as ordinary banter and part of football, and what is harsh and not acceptable, and sure we will root sectarianism and racism out of both football and our society as a whole.

Thank you for the way you tackled this mistakes, It is a pleasure having a discussion with you and it is only natural that we will disagree on certain things, but that is what makes discussion and this world worth wile, wouldn't be boring if we where all the same? Hopefully on the near future our society will learn how to deal and live with this differences without there being an issue. Paddy :-) 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Celts

By no means of imagination could Eyal Berkovich be considered a great celt. He was rubbish at Celtic. Also, why is John Hughes listed here? Okay the boy had fire in his belly, but he was pretty mince!--Nicholas 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, i was thinking about the wrong John Hughes (silly me).--Nicholas 08:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lisbon Lions

" 30 miles from Celtic Park" Celtic F.C. " 25 miles from Glasgow" The Lisbon Lions. Any sources ? as they don't match the following[4]

Seville

The flowery section about fans travelling to Seville (and so on) was removed because it meandered and discussed unsubstantiated anecdotes that don't really belong in a general article about Celtic Football Club - otherwise, we'd be here for the rest of our lives recounting all sorts of memorable Celtic matches, which probably belong on some other website. This item is supposed to inform people about the club, its history, the players, achievements, records and so on - not individual accounts or personal experiences about the club. If you want to start a "Celtic in Seville" page, go ahead - but I don't think overly long items about what was ultimately a failed enterprise on Celtic's part belongs here any more than stories about fans travelling to the San Siro for the 1970 European Cup Final do.

User:Copydeskcat 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Regards. 

PalX 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find your tone and attitude offensive. I am one of the regular editors of this page, and if you had bothered to bother to check, you would have seen that I am responsible for adding most of the content over the past six months or so.

I have never claimed that I am the sole owner or editor of this page, although I have done my best to maintain a presence here to ensure that it is not repeatedly vandalised or populated with incorrect or biased information. The discussion page is significantly absent of any challenges to the edits I have made, and the other regular contributors seem happy with the content that has been added over the past few months, often adding to it, correcting it or modifying it. If you properly understood the topic (ie. Celtic Football Club and British football) you would understand that the "effort" on the part of other so-called editors of this page is often surreptitiously designed to undermine Celtic Football Club by adding incorrect, offensive or otherwise dubious material which has no real place in any documentation of the club history - which I have continually attempted to keep to a minimum. Most of the edits are made by unregistered users, often containing contrary information or content which does not belong in this entry - for example, the entry on Celtic's Uefa Cup Final match in Seville, which added little to the overall information about the club, other than anecdotal and unsubstantiated stories - which I discussed with you above.

You have made repeated made edits yourself which followed this pattern, pointing out that the Irish tricolor flag flies at Celtic Park and not the Union Flag (you incorrectly refered to it as the "Union Jack") - which has little or no relevance on this page and only serves to deliberately infer that Celtic actively promote themselves as an Irish club, when this is clearly not the case. The Union Flag does fly above Celtic Park.

You also made an edit from the following text:

"The club play their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater stadium"

to

"The club plays their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater stadium"

It is accepted journalistic writing style to refer to British football clubs as collective entities in the context of the sport, not as singular entities - unless you are referring to them in a business sense, as an active company in business matters. For example, you would say "Celtic have announced their latest signing", not "Celtic has announced their latest signing". However, you would say "Celtic PLC has released information about a new share option", not "Celtic PLC have released information about a new share option".

You also made an edit about the club name, which has not changed in over 100 years - only the business operating name has changed for the purposes of the London Stock Exchange - the registered details with the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Premier League still list Celtic as "The Celtic Football and Athletic Club" - which also remains the name on the club crest and badge.

You also made an edit from "stadia" to "stadiums" - which is essentially the same thing, although "stadia" is usually the more appropriate term to use when referring to the plural or collective term for a stadium.

You also added the word "ostensible" to this entry:

"Celtic Football Club was formally constituted at a meeting in St. Mary's church hall in East Rose Street (now Forbes Street), Calton, Glasgow, by Marist Brother Walfrid on November 6, 1887, with the ostensible purpose stated in the official club records as "being to alleviate poverty in Glasgow's East End parishes"."

whhich suggests, to me, that you do not believe that Celtic were founded for the reasons as stated in the official club records, since the very meaning of the word "ostensible" is "to represent or appear as such". That particular entry was tagged "inproving [sic] grammar and removing ridiculous mention of religion".

Additionally, the edit in question did not actually include the removal of any content relating to religion.

You also made a contradictory edit, from this:

"Additionally, Celtic remain the only Scottish club ever to have reached the final, and are the only club ever to win the trophy with a team comprised entirely of home-grown talent; all of the players in the side being Scottish in origin, and all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park in Glasgow."

to this:

"Additionally, Celtic remain the only "Scottish" club ever to have reached the final, and are the only club ever to win the trophy with a team comprised entirely of home-grown talent; all of the players in the side being Scottish by birth, and all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park in Glasgow."

The quote marks around "Scottish" suggest, to me, a dubious attitude to the use of the word Scottish, and the change to the trailing statement: "all of the players in the side being Scottish by birth, and all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park in Glasgow." is tautological.

If the players are Scottish by birth, then they were natually born in Scotland. The original statement was fine as it was, so the change was wholly frivolous.

You also made several changes to football club names throughout the article - adding "F.C" to every football club reference, which is poor journalistic style. In the context of British football, all clubs are generally refered to by their known name - ie. Arsenal, not Arsenal F.C; Manchester United, not Manchester United F.C; Motherwell, not Motherwell F.C.; Rangers, not Rangers F.C. The links contained under each club name sufficed to lead users to the appropriate entry for each club.

If you are a Celtic fan, then everyone who contributes to this page welcomes your input and effort. Personally, I am a life-long Celtic fan and a season-book holder - and it is my intention to make sure this page contains accurate and appropriate information about the subject - Celtic Football Club.

User:Copydeskcat 01:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I offer my apology if the tone was offensive. Perhaps it was. I withdraw the comment and tag.

Regarding your above accusations of contradictory and questionable edits, I must inform you that you have erred. I didn't make those edits. Please look again. you need to scroll back through the older edit link to see where things orginate. I did do the Celtic plc edit. You are correct in that and I have changed it back as I agree with your explanation. After that, your post falls apart. I did not make those changes. You looked up the history incorrectly. Oops.
Here's an example to assist you. You say I am responsible for the Scottish Saltire entry. Some guy called 70.19.47.9 did that one. He's your stadium/stadiums editor too! Bingo ! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celtic_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=24668604
The rest of your post I regret to say is equally wrong. Regards, PalX 09:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

PalX, if I made an error on the edit history, I apologise. However, if you look at this history comparison:

[[5]]

it indicates that a change was made, by you, from this:

"Celtic's home kit is green and white hooped jerseys, white shorts and white socks (although it is also not uncommon for them to wear green and white hooped socks). The club play their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater stadium Celtic Park in the east end of Glasgow, which is widely regarded as one of the most famous stadia in Europe."

to this:

"Celtic's home kit is green and white hooped jerseys, white shorts and white socks (although it is also not uncommon for them to wear green and white hooped socks). The Irish tricolor flies at Parkhead stadium, not the Scottish saltire or the Union Jack. The club plays their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater stadium Celtic Park in the east end of Glasgow, which is widely regarded as one of the most famous stadiums in Europe."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

That's how I established the edits...

User:Copydeskcat 14:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the wealth of detail on this page is impressive but the tone of the page is un-objective and openly partisan (and the omission of any mention of sectarian troubles is very un-professional). It read like a fan-site. This isn't proper for an encyclopedia article. I don't intend to get into a debate, just thought the editors of this page should know how it reads to someone who's not a Celtics fan.

Answer: I've tried my best for this page to reflect Celtic's history, based on fact. If the page contains fan-based references, it's because that's what football is like. Teams are supported by like-minded people - not dispassionate bystanders. Additionally, sectarianism has no place in the history of the club, which this article is about. Celtic have never identified themselves as a sectarian organisation (unlike Rangers, who excluded people from certain religions), although many fans have.

User:Copydeskcat 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Ever heard that Jock Stein quote?

If there were two great football players, and one was catholic and the other was protestant - i'd sign the protestant, because Rangers wouldn't sign the catholic

Answer: The quote is largely mythical - Stein actually said he would choose a player based on his ability to play football, not on his religion - but if another team chose to exclude players from a certain religious group, it would give Celtic more choice in the market.

User:Copydeskcat 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Club Name

I removed 'and Athletic Club' from the full name as the club site lists 'The Celtic Football Club'. (http://www.celticfc.net/aboutus/default.aspx) As far as I can tell, the Company is called Celtic PLC (see eg http://www.hemscott.com/equities/company/summary/c02718m.stm) and was previously The Celtic Football & Athletic Company Ltd. I can't find any reference to the club name ever being The Celtic Football and Athletic Club, but will happily be corrected if someone gives a decent source. Hippo43 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As it seems to be Pedantry Month, I'd like to point out that in point of detail, the club's former name was The Celtic Football & Athletic Coy. Ltd., coy. being at that time the usual abbreviation for company.

Nuttyskin 04:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuttyskin, it's always Pedantry Month here. You're right that the abbreviation Coy. was used, particularly on the club badge. However, the club's name in full was The Celtic Football & Athletic Company Limited - this company still exists, and is now a subsidiary of Celtic FC Limited which is itself a subsidiary of Celtic plc. The club's annual report [[6]] helps clear this up a bit and this page [[7]] shows the old name in full.Hippo43 13:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

I have made several edits today - all, I feel, with good reason. Copydeskcat, if you disagree with anything you find 'frivolous' please feel free to take your own advice and discuss removing others' work before blindly undoing several edits at once. Hippo43 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous edits

Hippo43 - you have joined this page following many months of debate and editing of the content, and you have proceeded to make sweeping changes to content which has long-since been agreed. Granted, some of the edits have been monir grammatical or style points, but in other areas, you have made trivial edits which contribute almost nothing to the overall content of the item. I'm going to ask the mods to protect this page once I've reverted the edits back. Copydeskcat 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

CopydeskCat, please feel free to suggest alternatives/justification for calling my edits frivolous. Are they frivolous and 'minor grammatical or style points' or are they 'sweeping changes'??

I have made a series of minor edits, any of which can be discussed/edited on an individual basis. The only sweeping chnage I have seen in this article is where you reverted numerous edits by me and deemed them frivolous without any explanation.

You haven't explained why you think any of my edits are frivolous, or given any sources for your reverting my factual corrections. IMO every change I've made has been well justified and I have tried to respect the previous discussion on this article. That I have only recently started to edit this is of no relevance to the validity of my edits - this is surely intended to be an encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, and not set in stone simply because someone wants to protect their earlier entries.Hippo43 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Copydeskcat, I've reverted to my earlier changes. Please discuss anything you disagree with in specific terms - maybe I have got something wrong. However, you don't own this page, nor can you claim to represent the consensus of what this 'encyclopedia article' should contain. I hope that when you discuss these changes in detail with the mods they will perhaps see a fresh pair of eyes making some factual corrections and some style/grammar/spelling improvements as a good thing, rather than reacting like someone whose toes have been stepped on. Hippo43 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"discussing" changes

Fair enough - point 1: pronounciation of "Celtic" link restored - "seltic" would be correct, since "k" is generally only used in pronunciation to differentiate between "c" and "k" sounds.Copydeskcat 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I used seltik as, bearing in mind this article may well be read by people who don't know the club like we do, we need to differentiate between the 2 sounds of the letter C in Celtic - the first one is an S, the second one a K [don't know how to produce phonemic characters with my PC, but the phonemic spelling is Seltik] - therefore Seltik avoids any ambiguity. Hippo43 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why I linked it to the article on the pronunciation of the word. Copydeskcat 18:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article you linked to doesn't affect which spelling we should use in this article for clarity. The second C is phonemically a /k/, and /seltik/ is the correct spelling for pronunciation - /seltic/ is an incorrect explanation of the word's pronunciation.Hippo43 19:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

However, anecdotally, Σελτικ seltik is the usual transliteration into Greek characters for the purposes both of foreign reportage and graffiti. I would surmise an analogous tranliteration into Cyrillic thus селтик. A corresponding transsyllabification into Japanese kana would thus be セルチック serutiku.

Nuttyskin 05:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Park

Celtic park is a football stadium, it is widely regarded as one of thew most famous in Europe - please refute thse facts before re-editing the page. Copydeskcat 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'The club play their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater football stadium Celtic Park in the east end of Glasgow, widely regarded as one of the most famous stadia in Europe.'

2 points here - stadium is repeated unnecessarily - if we say 'one of the most famous stadia in Europe', then using the first instance of 'football stadium' is redundant. I will remove the first instance and insert 'football' in the second, hence -

'The club play their home matches at the 60,830 all-seater Celtic Park in the east end of Glasgow, one of the most famous football stadia in Europe.'

Second point is that something is not 'regarded' as famous - it is either famous or it isn't. It may be regarded as being one of the best, or perhaps one of the most beautiful, but it either is or isn't famous. I know I'm a pedant, but again, I'm trying to keep this article as professional as possible, trying to leave out partisan exaggeration, as tempting as that is.Hippo43 18:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of the word "famous" is "well or widely known". Therefore, Celtic Park can quite easily be "regarded as one of the most famous stadia in Europe."

Not everyone believes it is "famous", so therefore its fame can't possibly be ubiqitous. It's not a case of "it either is or isn't famous".

Some people regard is as famous, some don't. As such, I've returned part of the phrase to the article. Copydeskcat 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous - among football stadia, Celtic Park is well-known, AND widely-known. As someone who knows football,either of us is qualified to state that Celtic Park IS one of the most famous... Similarly, I could say that Johan Cruyff is one of the most famous players in the world. I do not need to qualify the statement. Celtic Park, as home to a winner of the European cup and, for a large part of the 20th century, one of the biggest grounds in the world, IS one of the most famous football stadia in Europe. For example, Celtic Park is featured in Simon Inglis' book 'The Football Grounds of Europe' (Collins Willow, 1990) as the author critiques a few of the most well-known grounds from most countries in Europe. The likes of Brockville, Turf Moor etc - in my opinion, not among the most famous in Europe - are left out.

I changed the use of English in this sentence for the better, yet you seem terrified of even one of your precious words being challenged. Why? If you want to air your own views without them being edited, you are free to publish whatever you like on your own website. Hippo43 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Club nickname

I'm a Celtic fan - and every Celtic fan I know pronounces the club nickname as "B-hoys", not "Boys". Please refute before reverting. Copydeskcat 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I too am a Celtic fan and have never heard anyone pronounce the H, other than when taking the p#ss. However, I might be deaf, so I will ask around and will wait for others' input. Quick internet search reveals both pronunciations listed on different sites. I could likewise say 'Please refute before reverting' but will try to avoid pettiness. Perhaps you could wait until we have discussed a point before changing it? Might save us both some typing.Hippo43 18:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out the contested pronunciation until we get some more conclusive input. Hippo43 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing contested about it: the spelling is Bhoys (no hyphenation), intended originally as imitative of (at the time generally believed) Irish over-emphatic plosives.

Nuttyskin 05:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuttyskin, the pronunciation is contested because Copydeskcat and I disagree - seems obvious from our comments above.

Noone disagreed over the spelling of Bhoys, just the pronunciation - read the discussion above and check the relevent edits to the main article.

As it's difficult to be clear about this pronunciation in type, without any audio, it remains unclear, at least to me. Your opinion is useful, but doesn't amount to a definitive answer - your comment doesn't give any sources, and doesn't clarify how you believe the word is pronounced.Hippo43 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Historic victories

Celtic's victory agains St. Mirren in 1985 to snatch the league from Hearts was a historic win, not a "memorable" one. Historic means it takes its place in Scottish football history - memorable would mean it's not easily forgotten. Copydeskcat 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Call it historic if you want - I don't mind. I didn't call the win 'memorable', I just removed 'historic'. Like many of my edits, it was part of an attempt to remove some of the hyperbole from the history - I tried to tone down legends, heroes, historic, legendary etc as the style was too partisan, too tabloid - this should be a professional, measured article, not a boastful fans' site. By your definition of 'historic', every match could be so-called. I also factually changed the number of goals required. Source - http://www.sporting-heroes.net/football-heroes/stats_football/scottish_league_tables/scottish_league_tables_80s.htm Hippo43 19:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

By my definition, not every match could be called "historic". Historic matches are ones that change the face of the game (at least, in Scotland) or makr themselves apart from every other match. Examples would include the Inverness Caledonian Thistle defeat. Celtic's 7-1 win over Rangers. The 5-1 and 6-2 games against Rangers. Winning the league against St. Johnstone to stop Rangers reaching 10-in-a-row. The 7-0 match against Aberdeen in the SPL.

However, a memorable match would be one where something interesting (but not deemed for the history books) happened - like a player debut, or a player reaching a goal-milestone or scoring a hat-trick. Copydeskcat 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Whose definition? What history books are you referring to? You have created your own distinction between the words 'memorable' and 'historic', with only yourself qualified to distinguish between them. Again, I didn't insert the word 'memorable', I just removed 'historic'. As above, call it what you like. More broadly, I have tried to improve the way the article reads by reeling in some of the unncessary hyperbole you seem so attached to. This is, again, an encyclopedia article presumably most useful to people who don't know the Club's history well - one of the principles of this site is NPOV, and your comments above seem to suggest you think this article is for, and by, Celtic fans only. From the comments in the discussion section and in the edit summaries, I am not the first contributor to consider this article partisan. Hippo43 01:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears from your entry above, dated 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC), in the Seville section, that you consider the UEFA Cup Final in 2003 to be a 'memorable' match. By your contrived definition, that means you believe it was a less significant match in the history of the Club than that league game at Love Street. And less significant than a 7-0 win over Aberdeen in the SPL, right? Hippo43 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Away Goals or away goals

Why would "away goals" be capitalised? I can't find any reference on the Uefa site to suggest capitalisation. Emphasis would be more appropriate. I've linked to the WikiPedia page for away goals - which doesn't captialise the reference either. Copydeskcat 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalised or not - I couldn't give a flying trapeze. I corrected the previous entry which had 'on aggregate', and capitalised it cos I figured it was the title of the rule, hence would be capitalised. Good call on linking to the relevant article. FIFA and UEFA both use lower-case, hyphenated - I will correct your mistake.

Their/Celtic's is neither here nor there grammatically - both are repeated repeatedly.Hippo43 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wim Jansen / Jock Brown

It's a fact that Jansen was the first foreign head coach appointed to a professional team in Scotland, therefore it forms part of Celtic's history and their part in the history of the game in Scotland. Copydeskcat 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we splitting hairs over what a head coach/manager is? Both Ivan Golac and Liam Brady preceded Jansen, and did essentially the same job. If you are saying that head coach and manager are not the same, then your 'first' is trivial. In order to back that claim up, can you cite a source which accurately records all previous managers/head coaches of Scottish professional teams, their official job titles and their nationalities?

Perhaps of note is the fact that Jansen was Celtic's first 'boss' from outside the UK or Ireland. Hippo43 00:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jock Brown's appointment was, I believe, somewhat controversial for 2 reasons - that he did not have any experience in the type of position he took on, and that he was supposedly not, in the phrase of the day, 'Celtic-minded'. He left after only around a year in the job with neither issue having really disappeared. Hippo43 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Caley Thistle game and roof guttering

The Caley Thistle match was due to take place on a Saturday, but was postponed around 1pm on the day of the game because of guttering breaking loose at the stadium due to a bad rain storm (Chick young "exclusively" broke the story on BBC Radio Scotland that afternoon). Copydeskcat 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I just don't see how this is relevant to the game itself or its consequences - seems trivial to explain why the game had been postponed. Let me know if I am missing some significance. Hippo43 02:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim Farry

Let's discuss the facts here: Farry was found guilty of misconduct for witholding Jorge Cadete's registration papers. He could give no valid reason why he had done so, therefore his actions could only have been deliberate (or absent-minded). Additionally, almost every newspaper and observer of the game - neutrals included - recognise that Celtic's below-par performances were the result of a lack of a quality striker, which changed when Cadete was eligible to play.

Why was this section of the article edited?

Copydeskcat 19:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This section was edited because it claimed that there were numerous 'well-documented' cases of 'persecution' and that the Jim Farry story was part of that series. That Farry was guilty of delaying Cadete's registration is simply not evidence of an anti-Celtic campaign even in this case alone. Absent-mindedness aside, 'deliberate' could mean many things - for example, he may merely have disliked Jorge Cadete, or Portuguese people, or been a mean-spirited weasel in general. Who knows?

As a Celtic fan, I believe Celtic would have performed better with Cadete in the side, as he became an excellent player for us. However we cannot claim to know for sure. The facts are that Celtic improved after Cadete appeared in the team (only a few minutes after), but there is no way of proving that we would have been better in those earlier games. By all means say that we were deprived of an excellent striker for a period, but we can't claim more than that without appearing ridiculous.

Changed the heading to 'An Anti-Celtic Agenda?' as this is clearly a matter of conjecture, and although your preferred edit claimed several 'well-documented' instances, you mentioned only one and didn't offer a single document. I am trying to maintain the NPOV of this article. Hippo43 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

More minor edits

Removed redundant 'allegedly' from Fergus McCann/8 minutes sentence and cleaned up.

Also changed SPL reference in Burns era to Scottish Premier Division - SPL didn't exist until 1998 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Premier_League GrammarPolice 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsy Gallacher

Could someone here please take a look at the article Patsy Gallacher. The article was created a week or so ago by someone on a vandalism spree, and seemed intended to make fun of this Celtic player. I would have had the article deleted, but it seemed to be about a real and notable person, which makes the article viable. I removed the smears, but what facts remain are doubtful, given their source. It would be helpful if someone who knows something about this player could take a look at this article and at least make sure that what is there is accurate. Even better would be to improve and expand the article. If the article is not viable, submit it for deletion or let me know and I'll do it.--Srleffler 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the article with verifiable info. Camillus^talk 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

I have nominated this article for peer review so express your views using the comments at the top of the page. --Chazz88 15:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Defeat by Clyde

84.217.3.121, Celtic were defeated by Clyde. Restoring facts that were deleted isn't vandalism. Your deletion of them is. I'll keep restoring this as long as there is a 'Recent Achievements'/'Recent Seasons' section. Guinnog 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of non-achievments from an achievments section is not vandalism. You addition of them is. The section was only renamed to accomodate this one result. This is not a results page. There are other places for that. Treats of repetead reversion are NOT the way to reolve disputes.

I added the sentence about the defeat to the page just after the final whistle the other day...and yes, I'm a Celtic fan. Somebody removed it saying "it's hardly a Recent Achievement". I added it in the current season section. You can't wish away bad results by not including them. Should we remove the mention of the Caley Thistle defeat? How about some Rangers fans take the hint and remove the 1957 League Cup Final result from their page? It has to go in, otherwise those hostile to our team will keep adding it anyway. How does it go? "We don't care if we win lose or draw"... Camillus (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but just a simple statement of facts will do. --Speedway.Moz 05:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what we have currently. Guinnog 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The result was added to 'Recent Achievement' section NOT 'Recent Seson' section. That was why it was removed. GraemeL repeatedly reverted inspite of this error. When the penny dropped the section was suddenly renamed to 'Recent Seasons'. The 1957 result HAS been repeatedly vandalised on the Rangers page even though it is a highly approriate addition to the Scot Symon years - as is the result of the Eintracht match. This is supposed to be an encyvlopedia not a results service or a fanzine. Camillus your alleged allegiances are of no relevance to the discussion.User:84.217.3.121

If you look at the history of the article [8], I added it under "The Strachan Era". I stated the fact that I am a Celtic fan to reinforce the fact that I was wanting to add the result before hordes of non-Celtic fans added it (probably using less neutral language). I take offence at your "alleged allegiances" - there's a good chance I was going to Celtic games before you were out of nappies. I also note that though you entered User:84.217.3.121, the history shows that the above comment was added by someone with the IP address 212.247.182.60. Of course, you may have just been using another computer. Wikipedia has a policy of "no personal attacks" WP:NPA. I take your slur against my allegiance to Celtic as a personal attack. Camillus (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

it makes no odds who you support. As if that gives some credence to the inclusion which is what you are trying to say. I could easily say I'm a Rangers fan and I think it should be removed. The section was only renamed to accomodate this result - a ridiculous state of affairs. As for the slur there is a good chance I was going to Rangers games before you were born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.3.121 (talk • contribs) .

Guys, let's all calm down. The section was badly titled in the first place - a defeat to Artmedia is not an "achievement". "Recent Seasons" is a better section heading IHMO. That Celtic lost to Clyde is a major event in this season, but definitely not an "achievement". Whether it remains relevant for this season, only time will tell. Let's leave it in place for now, because it is current, and if it becomes irrelevant it will be removed over time. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a results service. Not a fanzine. The section was not badly titled. It was the later content that was misplaced.

That sounds reasonable to me, which is why I left it in place originally Guinnog 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The title was changed solely to accomodate that result. Not a reasonable practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.3.121 (talk • contribs) .

See next section Guinnog 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seasons vs Achievements

I really think seasons is better. Please let's discuss here if there is a good reason why 'achievements' should be here. Isn't there a standard form for SPL teams?!

Guinnog 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - should be "Seasons", obviously. Camillus (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this obvious? It only became an issue when some people were very keen to get the clyde result in. Recent 'seasons' is a very dull title. Might as well refer to a results service. There is no template. The SPL pages are as chalk and cheese. Please discuss why this section absolutely had to be changed to 'seasons'. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.3.121 (talk • contribs) .

As you say - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - so articles are supposed to be from a Neutral Point of View. "Seasons" is neutral, "Achievements" is not. Losing the league last year wasn't an "achievement". I was "keen" to get the result in before those hostile to our team did, with less neutral language. Please sign your comments with ~~~~, otherwise it's difficult to see where one user's edit ends and the other starts. Camillus (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is obvious because 'Achievements' (NB correct spelling!) is POV. 'Seasons' is NPOV. HTH Guinnog 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

'Recent' is also POV. So the whole lot should go. Why would you have to get in first? you could always have edited out 'less neutral language' when it appeared like you claim to be doing here. You never bothered about the 'achievement' ,'season' thing until now. only the result.

There are many who claim allegiances just to get there point in. So there is no point banging the drum about being a celtic fan, nobody can be sure and it is not relevent.84.217.3.121 ~~~~

the last bit was obviously directed to camillus84.217.3.121 ~~~~

No other spl page has a recent seasons section. They almost all have history, records and achievements. This is not a fanzine and result service.84.217.3.121 ~~~~

Seasons is the better title, otherwise losing the league title in 2004/05, losing Martin O'Neill, Larsson leaving, losing to Artmedia, losing nine goals in Strachan's first two matches and losing to Clyde will all have to go since these can hardly be considered 'achievements'. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree lets remove all those references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.5.191 (talk • contribs) . [9]

Not so fast my friend. They were club records, therefore they can be considered achievements.--ChicosBailBonds 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 'Recent History'? Seems relevant and neutral to me.Hippo43 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Future signings

My feeling is that you should make a new section for this, if you think it important to have. Not in the current squad table! Guinnog 21:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. There are a few players that have signed but are not currently part of the squad and so don't belong in the squad section. It would stop the constant addition and removal of them from the squad section. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to insert Kenny Miller and Gary Caldwell in the section titled Transfers 2005/2006, alongisde the details of the transfer: "Free - Joins Celtic at the end of season (2005/2006)". However certain wikipedians have continually removed this information, for some reason. This 'Transfers' section is the most appropriate section for these players; once inserted please do not remove until the end of the current footballing season.--Nicholas 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a 'Future signings' section, which is more accurate. Guinnog 12:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How can they be "Future signings" if the signings have already been concluded? These transfers have already been done and dusted. Maybe you would like to rename that section? Personally, I think that including them in the section titled "Transfers 2005/06" is better, with the caveat stating further details such as the joining date.--Nicholas 13:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

They are future signings in that they have been signed now for the future. Will they be playing for Celtic this season? No. I've made a further small edit in the section title anyway. Guinnog 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian violence

I updated the Sectarian violence page to include information about Scotland and the role the OF play in this. Would anyone object to a link from this page (and obviously one from Rangers' page too!)? Guinnog 12:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is necessary. To write encyclopeadia articles on the Old Firm without mentioning sectarianism, is like writing a history of fashion without discussing the social, historical and cultural contexts surrounding the clothes that have been worn throughout the ages. --Nicholas 13:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If I don't hear otherwise I'll enact this later today.Guinnog 13:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, on both OF teams' pages. Guinnog 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I think this is necessary, I'm not sure that a simple link is the answer. When I have time I will try to work on a section devoted to the issue of sectarianism, in both Old Firm pages. Does anybody have any ideas about how to start the ball rolling? --Nicholas 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored until we come up with something better Guinnog 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've written the following:

The term sectarian refers to someone who relates to or belongs to a sect and displays a hatred or disliking of others who do not belong to that same sect. Sectarianism is an issue that extends well beyond football, it is rooted in social, cultural, historical and religious circumstances and manifests itself in discrimination at an institutional level - sectarianism is not an issue which is exclusive to the Old Firm. Nevertheless, both Celtic and Rangers accept that they have a problem with sectarianism. In large part, this problem is pandemic to Scotland, but both sides of the Old Firm admit that a proportion of their supporters have and continue to be guilty of perpetuating sectarianism and intolerance.

In recent times, both Celtic and Rangers have taken extensive measures to combat sectarianism. Working alongside the Scottish Parliament, church groups and community organisations, the Old Firm has clamped down on sectarian songs, inflammatory flag-waving, and troublesome supporters using increased levels of policing and surveillance.

What you think? --Nicholas 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think that the efforts by both clubs are mainly made in fear of what the Scottish Executive will force on them and also as a marketing effort, I do think your wording is closer to catching the reality of the situation. The previous wording with "not uncommon" was pretty ambiguous. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve this, Nicholas. Some points:

• The explanation of sectarianism is superfluous; maybe add it to the existing article on sectarian violence
• The problem is not pandemic to Scotland. Only in the West have people recently died on a regular basis after football matches because of the scarf they were wearing or the song they were singing.

All i meant was sectarianism is an issue which extends above and beyond football; it can even result in discrimination in the workplace and at an insitutional level (i.e. with the police). It is important to convey this message so I've added the phrase 'it [sectarianism] is beyond the control of any individual football club'. --Nicholas 10:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whether the measures taken by both sides are 'extensive' I don't see much evidence that they are effective.

I see both sides going through the motions here of being seen to be doing something, without wanting to offend the majority (or large minority) of their fans who subscribe in one way or another to this silliness.

I'll try to synthesise something out of our contributions. I think a short mention early on is more effective than a section later on too.

Finally, I carefully put exactly the same words onto the Rangers entry; I think it important to recognise that both sides bear an equal responsibility to eradicate this from Scottish football.

Guinnog 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

With regards to fighting sectarianisn, use of the phrase "Progress has been slow" is POV without references.--Nicholas 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem with content of section on sectarianism, but I don't think it should be at the top of the page - the sectarian supporters of Celtic and Rangers are the minority, and it's dying out. I used to work in a college and I used to laugh when so often I'd see two rival supporters slagging each other to death, with the most disgusting sectarian language, and then see at the end of the day that they travelled together, and find out that they were actually great buddies - so many times I saw this. Putting the section at the top is not on, in my opinion. Camillus (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it has been stated many times before that The Arctic Monkeys support the Sheffield teams. Just beacuse one of their roadies supports them, doesn't mean they do. I suggest this link is removed from the website.

I think Sean Connery can be removed too. Martine McCutcheon can stay though.

What about the child abuse scandal at parkhead by Celtic Youth Coaches Jim Torbett and Frank Cairney, why are these details missing? people have a right to know about these undisputable facts.

sean connery

Currently listed here as a Celtic fan. I'm not going to change this (I'm a Bluenose, and I have no intention of starting an edit war, or of being thought of as vandalising this page) this but you might want to look at Talk:Rangers F.C. for a quote from Connery in which he discusses both Rangers and Celtic. You may also want to look at the Champions League section of uefa.com for the profile of Brahim Hemdani "He was persuaded to join Rangers by James Bond actor Sean Connery, who took Hemdani to visit Scotland at the prompting of club owner David Murray." Make up your own mind as to which club (if either) Connery supports. Neil Leslie 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was Wayne Rooney deleted?

...from the famous Celtic Supporters? Need prove that he is?

Picture of Wayne Rooney at the Celtic V Rangers Match on Sunday, 12 February 2006 at Ibrox —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs)

That's just a tiny picture of some guy who appears to look like Wayne Rooney (it may be him) surrounded by some people wearing Celtic scarves. It proves absolutely nothing. Information should be verifiable. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a valid claim that he is a Celtic fan or not (wasn't he just there to watch an old team mate play for his new club??), his attendance at the game was certainly widely reported and surely easily verifiable - see [10] (Ok, its the daily record, but...) and [11] Or am I missing something? Nevertheless, I agree with the comments below that the section doesn't seem to belong in the article, but just wanted to give my tuppence worth! Gourlg9a 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous Celtic fans

There are some pretty dubious looking entries here:

• Martin Scorsese ??????
• Snoop Dogg ?????????
• Arctic Monkeys ??
• Kasabian ??
• Ziggy Marley ????
• Alan Shearer ???
• Michael Owen ???
• Peter Beardlsey ???
• Ryan Giggs ???
• Wayne Rooney ???

... to name a few. Without any verifiable evidence I think these, at a minimum, need to be removed. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this entire section can be deleted, it's too unwieldy and largely unverifiable. Nevertheless, while we're on the subject, Snoop dogg is defo a Celtic fan. He was once pictured proudly wearing the hoops:)--Nicholas 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with deleting the entire section. But let's get some more input here first. I would be intrigued to see a photo of Snoop Dogg wearing the hoops though :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

bin them all. it's rubbish Palx 13:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick sample of articles for teams in the SPL and the Premiership. The only other article that I found with a "famous fans" section was Rangers, and some of the entries there look pretty dubious as well. This section probably should go, as Nicholas says it's pretty much unverifiable. It's also not supported by precedent, and the WikiProject Football MOS does not include this as a recommended section, so let's give it a day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article status

I've checked at WP:GOOD and found that the {{good article}} template (the green dot at the top-right corner of the article) was not applied in accordance with the proper procedure, and therefore have removed it for the time being. The proper procedure would be to first apply {{GA}} to this talk page and add it to WP:GA/N --Pkchan 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Meat puppet

What is a meat puppet??'

Still waiting for an answer!!

See Internet sock puppet. It's quite clear now that all the rampant POV being inserted into this article on a regular basis is coming from User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who uses IP 216.194.60.39, among others. I suspected that multiple users ("meat puppets") were making the same contentious edits, but it's clear to me now that Rms125a and 216.194.60.39 (and others) are one and the same. Camillus (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Have any of you read Campbell's Celtic's Paranoia - Is It All In Their Minds??, I guess you don't dare since you keep deleting it.

Robert, (Rms125a), it appears to me that you live in the states, and have no real knowledge of Celtic, or Scottish society. You previously stated that Celtic "refuse" to fly the Union Jack, but "reluctantly" fly the Union Flag, which kind of highlights your ignorance. Now you've changed this to "apparently" fly the Union Flag (though there's "apparently" no evidence of this on the internet. Any visitor to Celtic Park can see it with their own eyes. The statement that Celtic "reluctantly" fly the Union Flag is hopelessly POV. How do you know the minds of the authorities at Celtic?

Yes, I live in the U.S. where unfortunately I have been relentlessly exposed to Irish-Americans, and I am afriad I may have been scarred for life, so perhaps that affects my syntax. I admit I made a mistake and I was under the impression that the Union Flag and the Union Jack were two different things. And as far as proof goes, since I do not live in Scotland, as you have figured out, I rely on the Internet and I have not any pictures that show the saltire or the Union Flag, flying at Parkhead. If I am wrong; please direct me by link.

You also add "stuff" about Scottish nationalists and British Unionists being "understandably" offended by the flying of the Irish tricolour (one of about 12 flags flown at Celtic Park). This shows your ignorance of Scottish politics. Many Scottish nationalists are more offended by the flying of the Union Flag over government offices. Find a single reference for a reputable Scottish Nationalist being offended by the flying of the Irish flag.

I don't have to, it is common sense, just as if I were at Lansdowne Park wearing a Rangers jersey or a carrying a Union Jack, I think you understand what the consequences would be.

You stated that not everyone in Scotland is a "Scot", certainly not a "Caledonian". Please drag yourself into the 21st century.

That is correct-- e.g. Mick Derrig, Packie Bonner, anyone associated with the GAA, Sam Maguire Cup, Scottish Dalriada, et al, anyone who reads the Irish Post, anyone who carries an Irish passport (hint, hint), et al.

Who in modern Scotland calls themselves by the old Roman word "Caledonian"? The Scots themselves were a tribe called the "Scoti" who came to Scotland in the fifth century. Before that, the "Picts" were known as "old Irish". Scotland and Ireland, England, Wales have people from all over Europe, their peoples have intermingled for millenia, and now-a-days Scotland is firmly a multi-cultural society.

Firstly, the word Scot is an ugly and offensive Irish word meaning thief or raider; you know that full well, because that is what the Irish were before and after Patrick--slave traders and raiders. That is why Ireland had to kidnap its own patron saint. Thus I do not accept that word and I use the word Caledonia.

Secondly, Irish Catholics are either unwilling or incapable of assimilation and boast of that fact (even in those countries to which they genuinely are loyal, like the US, much less in others like Scotland or England). There would never have been an Easter Rising if it weren't so.

I understand that anyone who came over with or after the Normans are regarded by true Hibernians as thieving parvenues, hardly the true descendants of Brian Boru.

Your vision of "Olde Caledonia" is like something out of "Brigadoon", and your vision of Celtic being supported by a bunch of Irish "fifth columnists" while Rangers are supported by the "true Scots" is just a fairy tale.

Caledonia is a fairy tale name, but Hibernia isn't (e.g. The Ancient Order of Hibernians)?? Pls. clarify.

You'd probably wouldn't believe it, but 3 of the 4 guys I go to see Celtic with are protestants.

Really, do the 3 protestants fly the Irish tricolour or only you? It is obvious from your pages and your own username signature (or whatever the hell you call it) that that is the flag that gets pride of place in your heart and on Wikipedia, both in quantity and in quality. I am a lot older than you, but you know it perfectly well.

You also introduce your "original research"/clairvoyance/rampant POV into the "real reasons" for the founding of Celtic. How the hell do you know what was in the minds of the founders? All an encyclopedia can do is report the facts as laid down.

I have a special insight into pre-Ne Temere Irish Catholic priests' mindsets. what can I say?

For your information, Dundee Hibernian became Dundee United F.C., so they are not "defunct".

Defunct, changed names, changed essence, whatever, who gives a shit??!!

What is this "ancient nationalist rivals Rangers"??? Rangers and Celtic were founded 133 and 118 years ago respectively. In the UK, we don't consider that "ancient".

Who's "we"??

And what's this about "nationalist" Rangers? Rangers have been associated with "Ulster" loyalism and Unionism, but never "nationalism".

Most Rangers are Scottish or British nationalists, except for their hired foreign players, and their token Catholics (like Chris Burke).

Anyway, both Rangers and Celtic are football teams, not some kind of political organisation.

Ah, that is not true, and you know perfectly well that Rangers and Celtic represent far more than soccer.

While the problem of sectarianism still exists in Scotland, it is most definitely on the wane. We don't need to have it re-introduced from a land far away, thank you very much.

The reason for the sectarianism in Scotland is because of the disloyalty of those of Irish Catholic extraction; a disloyalty abetted by de Valera and subsequent Irish governments' nationality and passport provisions, and by the unique nature of Irish Catholics, who refuse to assimilate into even those countries they are loyal to (the USA), much less those they are not loyal to --Scotland, England, etc.

If you continue to vandalise this article, I will be seeking a WP:RfC. Camillus (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And I warned you at the time (this is backposting) never to threaten me again. It's good you learned your lesson.

I've noticed that this user has vandalized the Celtic page on numerous occasions. He's beginning to annoy me also.--Nicholas 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I already told Nicholas what he could do with my red, white and blue c**k if he has a problem with me.

Love and kisses Brandubh Blathmac 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy for real or editing from New York, in the 1850s? Rockpocket 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody delete his misinformed bold ass the hell off this page. He doesn't even know what he thinks he's talking about. BTW, I have read Celtic's Paranoia, and it is certainly about paranoia - but precious little of that is Celtic's. I don't doubt the immigrant Irish in Scotland have absorbed and internalised much paranoia, but not in a vacuum.

Nuttyskin 05:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

/\ /\ /\ /\ WTF was that all about /\ /\ /\ /\

Isn't this the talk page for the Celtic FC article?

Reverts

I have replaced the text that was indiscriminately reverted by User:Al17. As there was no justification offered for the removal of sourced material. The reverts reinstated dates that were in the correct format and also reverted a list that I had had standardised. I'm perfectly happy to discuss whether the material i added is an improvement or not, but please do not revert changes that are made to bring the article in to line with style guidlines. Rockpocket

Famous Celts - who decides?

Looking at this section, it looks a slightly random selection of choices, particularly in the 2000's - Bobo Balde a Famous Celt? Zurawski & Nakamura? Is there any agreed definition on 'Famous'? Until they came to Celtic most Celtic fans would have never heard of these players. Each of these players will have been well known in their own countries, but that does not seem enough to constitute fame IMO. In questioning their inclusion I am not making any comment on their value to the club, but merely highlighting the difficulty in including this section at all. There are names there that are unquestionly famous (as the recent coverage of Jimmy Johnstone's death demonstrated, for example), but as there is no way of quantifying fame in any way the section generally appears to be a bit subjective. Gourlg9a 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis re sectarianism by Celtic F.C.

A full tally of the history of the Celtic Football Club, its sectarian underpinnings and its strident allegiances to the/a unified Republic of Ireland despite political events which make such allegiances tantamount to disloyalty or fifth columnism, make it impossible to dismiss the claims of sectarianism which loyal Scottish and British people have levelled against the club.

However, ultimately, the fact that such clubs continue to exist is the fault of loyal British and Scottish teams for continuing to compete against fifth columnist football clubs (Glasgow Celtic, Edinburgh Hibernian, and Dundee Harp aka Dundee Hibernian), and the fault of loyal British and Scottish people for patronizing Parkhead and the other fifth columnist "stadia". Had such teams and stadia been ostracized as they would have been anywhere else in Europe, they would no longer be a problem.

Regrettably, the lack of leadership (particularly from the Labour Party) mitigated against such a principled stand, as of course, did fears of being labelled "anti-Catholic", for far too many years.

Brandubh Blathmac 08:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating insight. However, would you - in the guise of your numerous proxy IPs and sockpuppets - please stop inserting non relevent POV comments on Scottish-Irish relations in this article about a football team. Thank Rockpocket 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And again. This continual vandalism is irritating, and makes us less likely to accept your (very specialised) POV Guinnog 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

I have removed all of the crap from this page which doesn't relate to Celtic FC by reverting to an earlier edit.--TheMadTim 12:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that there are more vandals on here again today. (Or more likely, the same person using an anonymous proxy) Perhaps we should protect this page so that only registered users can edit it?--TheMadTim 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the same person changing IPs and using multiple registered accounts. One of his accounts has been blocked indefinitely and I blocked the latest IP for evading a 3RR block. There has been an arbcom case started and it has been mentioned on WP:AN/I. I've had a look at several of his IPs and as far as I can tell, they are not open proxies, he's just changing IPs within those allocated by his ISP. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

'An anti-Celtic agenda?' section adds nothing to this article.

I am going to remove this section from the article, as I feel that it has no place. While it is certainly the case that some sections of the Celtic support have in the past felt that there was an anti-Celtic agenda within the SFA and media generally (and some may continue to feel there is), unless the argument is based on more than a single incident 10 years ago, the claim (or suggestion) that any such agenda exists just seems ridiculous to any casual reader. Gourlg9a 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I find it embarrassing. Guinnog 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded (or thirded). Its subjective and, quite frankly, borne out of traditional sectarian paranoia in the West of Scotland. Rockpocket 05:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The Head of the SFA was sacked for Gross Misconduct because he wilfully delayed the registration of a Celtic player. I can't think why this wouldn't be mentioned. --TheMadTim 01:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that section smacked of paranoia. The head of the SFA incident tells you one thing: that he was guilty of gross misconduct. It doesn't tell you anything about supposed institutional anti-Celtic agenda then or now. Mentioning it in that context simply gives it significance it doesn't merit. Rockpocket (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, can't it simply say that some Celtic fans point towards the incident of Jim Farry being sacked for Gross Misconduct, beacuse he wilfully delayed the registration of Jorge Cadete, as evidence of there being an anti-Celtic agenda? --TheMadTim 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could, but is that any more justifiable than adding that some celtic fans point to the decisions of some referees / articles in some newspapers / comments made by policitician are evidence of an anti-celtic agenda? As there are plenty of fans the believe than nonsense too. Football fans are notorious conspiracy theorists and Old Firm fans are no different. Is the paranoia of the Celtic fans any more notable than any other team's fans? Rockpocket (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that point. Every football team (especially big football teams) and their fans love to think they are victims of a grand overarching conspiracy and Celtic are certainly not exceptional or unusual in that respect. Al17 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the feeling behind getting rid of the Anti-Celtic agenda bit but given that it has formed such an important part of the Scottish footbal psyche and has had several books written on the subject i think there is a legitimate case for a section dealing with it. Im not too bothered either way though tbh. An Siarach

It is not a question of being 'justifiable', it's simply a question of stating the facts. --TheMadTim 10:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jim Farry/Jorge Cadete incident cannot, in isolation, be used as evidence for an anti-celtic agenda, despite it being a statement of fact. Concluding that there is any such agenda without repeated evidence over a significant timescale is just embarrassing. Even the facts around the Jim Farry incident does not allow for the conclusion that Jim Farry was necessarily anti-celtic - maybe he didn't like portuguese people, or bad haircuts, or any number of things. The facts only point to him being at fault, for whatever reason, for the non-registration of the player. But even if it were for anti-celtic reasons, it certainly doesn't merit a section in the article. Gourlg9a 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gourlg9a, stop recycling my comments! :) I don't agree with Al17 Rockpocket and that Celtic's fans are like every other club's in this regard - Celtic fans are definitely renowned for being 'paranoid', and huge numbers of Celtic fans resent the treatment the club gets from the Scottish media. Whichever side you believe, this subject needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. Hippo43 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to ask those who want to include this to list more examples of perceived anti-Celtic behaviour by the football establishment, with sources, but I guess that would just turn into a long list of one-eyed grievances.Hippo43 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hippo43, didn't see that other section - i thought they sounded familiar! You are right that Celtic fans have more of a reputation of paranoia than fans of other clubs, but I dont feel it merits a section that panders to it. Unless there is unequivical evidence of anti-celtic incidents, it doesn't belong in a encylopedia. Gourlg9a 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it doesn't warrant its own section, and I've said b4 that it shouldn't be in at all without a number of examples and sources. However, I think it should be recorded that many Celtic fans think they are victimised and that many non-Celtic fans think that they are paranoid whingers - it's a real issue and has existed for years. Personally I feel it belongs with sectarianism in some broader heading, like the club's social context - to me, Celtic fans' 'paranoia' is connected to a wider anti-Catholic sentiment that many Celtic fans have experienced in Scotland, not just at football matches.Hippo43 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What Hippo43 is suggesting is somewhat different that the proposal that we use the Farry incident to illustrate that there is (or may be) an anti-celtic agenda. If there is independant, verifiable information out there that Celtic fans are notable in their paranoia or perceived systemic victimisation then i have no problems with that being mentioned (as it certainly is related to the wider social context the club operates within). Citing the Farry incident as an example of that is perhaps appropriate, but i think there is a subtle, though discrete, difference between the contexts proposed. Rockpocket (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that a reference could be made to the Farry incident in the Fergus McCann section of the History of Celtic F.C. article (but not here), as it was quite a big deal at that time, and it could be argued that it was a factor in Celtic (narrowly) failing to catch Rangers that year. However, I'm glad that someone has finally had the guts to remove it from here - yes, I feel it is a bit embarassing. Mention it in the History article, just the facts, let the reader make their own conclusions. Camillus (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done.--TheMadTim 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for this being in the article in some form, and I don't think individual exmples should be scattered throughout the History article. I just feel that those who support the existence of a real 'agenda' must be able to cite numerous instances of real substance, not just an ill-defined atmosphere of anti-Celtic feeling - this view certainly existed well before the Farry/Cadete incident. This is an encyclopedia article, presumably of most use to people who don't know much about the club - where are they supposed to look for information on Celtic's persecution/paranoia if not here? To someone who knows nothing of the situation, I think it is misleading to include this without explaining the context of more general anti-Catholic attitudes - it is important that people understand that the club and its fans are viewed by many as Catholic, whether they are or not. Hippo43 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While i'm not adverse to a more definite assertion of Celtic's Catholic associations here, i would have thought a detailed examination "that the club and its fans are viewed by many as Catholic" would be more suited to the Old Firm article. The religious connotations of being either a Celtic or Rangers fan is firmly entrenched in the eyes of the other. Without Celtic, Rangers Protestant associations would be inconsequential and vice versa. What assumptions a rival fan someone may make about me, as a fan, from their own sectarian perspective isn't particularly encyclopaedic. If those assumptions are widespread enough to warrant a mention, then surely Old Firm is the place for it. Rockpocket (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct on much of that - however, irrespective of what is in various other articles [Old Firm, sectarianism, religious rivalry etc], which this page could certainly have links to, this article had no mention of Celtic being known as the 'Catholic' half of the Old Firm - surely a ridiculous situation. I think there is a danger of being mealie-mouthed about this - although someone who knows the situation well can give a much more nuanced explanation than 'Celtic = Catholic', this article still needs to paint a clear picture to an uninfomed reader.

I don't fully agree that "Without Celtic, Rangers Protestant associations would be inconsequential and vice versa. " - Celtic (and their fans) in particular are widely seen as Catholic (by fans of other clubs, for example), irrespective of Rangers' nature. Also, there is a long history of anti-catholicism in the UK, not just in the west of Scotland, and not just related to football, which surely impacts upon Celtic's 'paranoia'/persecution. I'm not trying to advance a particular point of view on this, just that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Hippo43 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. And i agree that it is odd that there is not a clear statement that Celtic is strongly associated with Catholicism. Regarding the symbiotic nature of Celtic and Rangers' associations with religion - I think their iconic status is very much feverently maintained by the existance of the other. Other clubs were born from religious and social associations (Spurs, Coventry, Hibs and Dundee for example), but none have maintained those to the extent of the Old Firm, because they do not have a polar opposite rival to reinforce it. Its a bit like an arms race - the religious association is notable in relative, not absolute, terms. I have no objections to briefly mentioning the points you make in this article, i just think the details of the religious associations are so wrapped up in both Celtic and Rangers that anything of substance may as well be the Old Firm article, leaving the club articles more focused on football. Rockpocket (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is important that we mention sectarianism and Celtic's historic association with Ireland and Catholicism, it is also crucial that we remain impartial in our choice of words. We should avoid reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating the illusion that football fans from either side of the Old Firm have irreconcilable differences. We should use the type of language that is commonly used by reputable sources, such as the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Parliament, the Protestant and Catholic churches in Scotland, the popular press, and the Old Firm themselves. If it is absolutely necessary to mention religion, in the sectarianism section, then maybe we could replace the first sentence in that section with a sentence that reads “Celtic have had a historic association with the peoples of Ireland and the Catholic church. As a consequence, the club and it’s supporters have been embroiled in issues surrounding sectarianism. At its worst extreme this sectarianism has manifested itself in sectarian violence; the reproduction of cultural prejudices; and a perceived anti-Celtic bias (see History of Celtic F.C.), which many perceive to be a part of an anti-Catholic bias in Scotland (see Scots-Irish)”. I dunno if this makes things any better? --Nicholas 22:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, Nicholas. That gets thumbs up from me. Rockpocket (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - the previous situation was laughable with a section attempting to define sectarianism but no explanation of the Celtic/catholic connection - why would there even be a sectarianism section without it being "absolutely necessary to mention religion"? FTR I don't believe my earlier edit wasn't impartial, or that it reinforced stereotypes or suggested irreconcilable differences. I think there is a danger of sounding too academic about all this - these stereotypes do exist, however misguided or unpalatable they are, and the information needs to be here for less well-informed readers. The language used here should surely serve to inform, a slightly different purpose to that of the SFA, churches, Scottish Executive etc. Hippo43 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Section

What in the world has Charles Haughey's college education got to do with Celtic Football Club? Whoever changed the article is just a time-waster. Dogfood 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the Bhoys

Can someone add a line explaining where this name came from (Gnevin 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

I take it no one knows? (Gnevin 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

There are few conflicting explanations, and no-one really knows for sure. The most widely accepted theory is that the team was originally referred to as the "bold boys" back in the late 1800s and, at some point, the "h" was used to phonetically indicate the soft Irish pronunciation of the word. Rockpocket (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Celtic in Europe

I was thinking that it may be worth detailing Celtic's past European exploits, much like Barcelona's are in FC Barcelona in Europe, in a seperate article so that this article can be kept to the point, concise (obviously covering the very important points, ie. 1967) and so that those who want to find out about Celtic's history in more depth have the opportunity to do so without having go offsite.

I would be happy to research the article myself if need be and if anyone is willing to pre-empt me (assuming of course others would be happy about this) then I believe quite a bit of information is available on the Celtic website.

Would like to know your thoughts. :)

Sounds good to me. If you start the ball rolling, I'd be happy to help.--Nicholas 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Players

I notice the famous players list is expanding rapidly. We could end up with a list of every player that has ever played for the first team. That "fame" is essentially arbitrary notwithstanding, might it not be prudent to establish some sort of criteria for inclusion here. For example, i would suggest the current players need not be included (seeing as they already listed) and surely players without a current article of their own could also be excluded. Thoughts? Rockpocket (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Current players need not be included, but red links serve as a reminder of work needing done. --Nicholas 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then where do we draw the line per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information? As one could (and might) add a red link to whichever ex-Celtic player they wish with the argument: they are notable and so can also be considered famous. I would propose - in an equally arbitrary manner - that if they are genuinely famous (as opposed to simply being notable) then they should already have an article. Rockpocket (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Player Nationalities

Why is there dispute over the flag representing Neil Lennon? This isn't a political issue, it simply represents the country of his birth and/or his nationality. This clearly is Northern Ireland (based on the fact that he played for their national team). Please stop reverting the flag to the Irish flag. Thankyou Rockpocket (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris Ward

I have hidden this player from the recent transfers and squad tables, as i can find no Ghits, reports in the press or at Celtic's website confirming the existance of this player. Thus i'm assuming it might be a hoax unless anyone can provide a verifiable source. If there are no takers, i will delete the info presently. Rockpocket 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

League Cup Years / Seasons

Currently, the articles on Celtic and Rangers both claim they won the League Cup in 1970, 1975, 1983 and 1998. What's the score? In the Scottish League Cup article, the years listed for the finals don't match the years listed by club below. I know some seasons' finals were played in the first half of the season, but surely there should be a consistent scheme. I can't think of anything better than listing seasons in full everywhere - ie 1998/99 etc. Hippo43 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. see http://www.cis.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123829648999&pagename=CISv2/Page/tplCISv2PageStandard&c=Page Hippo43 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Full name, again

I removed 'and Athletic Club' from the full name as the club site lists 'The Celtic Football Club'. [12] The company is called Celtic PLC (see eg http://www.hemscott.com/equities/company/summary/c02718m.stm) and was previously The Celtic Football & Athletic Company Ltd, a private company, from 12 April 1897 until 13 December 1994. The Celtic Football & Athletic Company Ltd is now a subsidiary of Celtic F.C. Limited, which is a subsidiary of Celtic PLC. [see http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2005_Report.pdf]

DC United match?

Worth mentioning? I don't see many other friendlies listed. --Awiseman 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's worth mentioning.--Nicholas 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it was simply a preseason friendly, hardly notable in the grand scheme of things. Rockpocket 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning. Truth speaks volumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.203.4 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what you mean by that, but the fact that various people have now reverted your additions suggests that your opinion is not shared. Please consider whether a single, meaningless pre-season friendly result is notable enough for this encylopaedia article. Thank you. Rockpocket 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)