Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Definition of Sectarianism

I think most of the examples used in the Old Firm and Sectarianism are not actually sectarian. Celtic fans booing the minutes silence for 9/11 and the Queen Mothers death are definitely not sectarian and I don't think IRA chants or burning the english flag are either. Adam4267 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the cites would disagree with you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of the references back-up the claims.

No. 53 The BBC do not say these songs are sectarian, there are only quotes from Nil by Mouth.

No. 54 This is definitely not sectarian the the word is not even mentioned in the article it is a purely political protest.

No. 55 This cite does not work

No. 56 The Daily Record do not even claim these songs are sectarian. They say Republican, these things are not the same.

No. 57 Again the word sectarian is not mentioned in the article. Their are anti-poppy protestors from all different backgrounds this is a political protest not a sectarian act.

No. 58 Again the word sectarian was not mentioned in the article.

No. 59 This article was originally misqouted before you re-wrote it. 'Ten people were arrested, three for alleged sectarian-related breaches of the peace' the word 'alleged' was originally not included and it really changes what the sentence means.

No. 60 This has nothing to do with Celtic.

Not one of the current references is adeqaute and new ones need to be found, preferably from the BBC. Some people seem to think that any political protest by Celtic fans is sectarian, this is wrong but was what you would think from reading our article. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what Celtic or their fans do that is sectarian, Rangers have never had an Irish player, Didn't sign Catholics and their fans have a whole history of songs, words and phrases that are offensive to Catholics. Celtic FC have never discriminated against Protestants, and I don't know of any songs that do either, their is even a song Those Protestant Men that celebrates them. I'm also yet to see a reliable reference stating that IRA songs are sectarian. Adam4267 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

* Please stop removing cited content while it is under discussion.

* Please indicate where the cites state that these are "political protest".

* As I have to unfortunately keep pointing out. Rangers, and what is in the Rangers article is of absolutely irrelevant. If you have a problem with that article, take it up there.

I don't have time to go though your points at the moment. I will respond later. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can only apologise again for removing the content so quickly

I wasn't quoting the cite I was making a statement, that opposing poppies isn't something that only Catolics do their are Muslim poppy protestors and I don't think they are sectarian.

I agree except in the case of the sections about sectarianism because they both are supposed to lead into the Sectarianism in Glasgow page and have the same introduction which made me think their was supposed to be some similarity between the two pages.

Thank you Adam4267 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Would an acceptable compromise be to group both sectarian and political protests under a single section? While I agree that some of what is discussed could be regarded, by some, as not sectarian, the problem is that when it comes to Irish/UK troubled politics, the divisions between politics/religion/sectarianism can be very blurred and difficult to define. Are we in a position to decide what exactly motivates each individual in these protests? Especially when the connection of these issues to the football club is just as blurred and historically complex.

Either way, these events are notable. It's just a question of how we chose to section them. And we should take the lead here from the terms used in the cites. Problem is, even the cites, as you demonstrate, are not entirely decided. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we can't know what motivates these people but currently their is an assumption all these actions were for sectarian reasons even though it is not backed up by the references. By this same reasoning is it fair to assume Man U fans who don't like the Glazers are Xenophobic or would that be original research.

The events are definitely notable but not relevant to the section, I'm not sure wether a new section should be made just for political protests by Celtic fans but any changes must show a clear distinction between sectarian and other actions. Adam4267 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible re-write:

To replace 'Sectarianism by portions of Celtic...troublesome supporters'.

Sectarianism has been a problem in Britain for hundreds of years, but Glasgow is the worst of all city's. Many Catholics suffered discrimination when they emigrated from Ireland to the UK. One form of discrimination was in the job market where their were signs stating 'No Irish Need Apply' this was because some employers did not want Irish or Catholic people working for them. Celtic and Hibs were both founded as clubs that could represent the Irish community in Scotland and many Catholic and Irish fans did support these teams. This meant that Rangers, who were formed 15 years before Celtic as a club with no religious affiliation began to be seen as 'The Protestant Club' and many who did not want to associate with Celtic began to follow them. In 1969 when the The Troubles in Northern Ireland started many Celtic and Rangers fans aligned themselves to the two opposing sides, with Celtic fans supporting the IRA and Rangers fans supporting the United Kingdom.

During this period Rangers had an unwritten policy of not signing Catholic players, or recruiting Catholic staff. Jock Stein said of this

'If I had the choice to sign either a Catholic or Protestant, I'd take the Protestant because Rangers wouldn't take the Catholic.'

This policy lasted until 1989 when Graeme Souness, who had become manager of Rangers 3 years earlier, signed Mo Johnston a Catholic who had previously played for Celtic.

Many Celtic fans still sing pro-IRA and anti-Queen songs and in March 2008 Uefa, who had recently fined Rangers for sectarian singing, launched an investigation into reported use of these songs, although no disciplinary action was taken. Adam4267 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry adam but that would not be an acceptable inclusion.

This could be simply concluded by renaming the section Old Firm, sectarianism and political affiliations.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Monkeymanman, up to a point. For a start, your proposed replacement begins with a very definite claim that is uncited. It then goes on to spend more time discussing Rangers than Celtic. Clearly Rangers feature on the other side of this ugly coin and should be mentioned, but this article is not about them.

However, I disagree with Monkeymanman's suggestion. "Political affiliations" would suggest that they're the club's, when they are, if any, those of some of the supporters. I suggest that Old Firm, sectarianism and political protests would be better. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Firm, Sectarianism and politiics. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a reference in for the first sentence, I don't really care wether you use my contribution or write up something else.

A problem I did encounter trying to write this was that their is very little actual sectarian events related to Celtic. All I could find was the 2008 investigation, and the Nil by Mouth statement which says 'Hun' and 'Orange' are sectarian. I find it very hard to be convinced by this because their are so few other references. Orange is used in such a positive way by so many Protestants (or those perceived to be) that I don't see how it is sectarian and while Hun may be sectarian I still can't be convinced by Nil by Mouth because they claim Tim is sectarian which I find, quite frankly laughable. (These are interesting discussions from Hamilton and St. Mirren unofficial forums)

I would be unhappy if the section was simply changed to Old Firm sectarian and political because these are protests by fans many of which the club has distanced themselves from but maybe a section or even a page for celtic fans would be more appropriate (google search for 'celtic fans' yields 765 000 results)Adam4267 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Old firm, sectarianism and fan politics? Disagree with a separate page. The club may have distanced themselves from them but it does not mean it should be ignored or swept aside. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I have a problem with the current section simply being renamed, their needs to be a clear distinction between sectarian and other incidents wether this is a different page/section/area it dosn't matter. Their also should be a re-write of the current section because it is not detailed enough and many of the references are bad. Adam4267 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the current format for the sectarian aspect of Celtic is poor and potentially misleading as the heading "Celtic fans" is too vague. It was better as it was before. People not familiar with this page, and even those that are, would struggle to find information on this subject easily due to the poor choice of headings. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the new revision is not perfect but I feel it is a lot less misleading than before when non-sectarian incidents were being portrayed as sectarian. I am open to discussion on the title but I feel the section could be expanded or made into a new page I think Celtic are bigger than a lot of the clubs who have supporters pages and the PSG page would be a good example to follow. Adam4267 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

it was better as it was before, your example of PSG fans is misleading. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it was better before, the examples are being portrayed as sectarian when they are not, and how is the PSG example misleading I said we should have a Celtic supporters page and the PSG page would be a good example to follow what is misleading about that. Adam4267 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

you are giving an example of a page that is about a quarter the size of this and is very poorly referenced. In effect there was consensus for the page the way it was before and would be better suited to having the section renamed. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood, that is the PSG supportters page and I wanted to make a Celtic supporters page with a similar layout. I think we have established the current format of the page has got to be changed I don't think it should simply be renamed. Adam4267 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think the current format does have to change. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be altered so that non-sectarian events are not portrayed as being sectarian. None of the references in the section back up the claims that the events are sectarian so something needs to be changed. Adam4267 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a second attempt at addressing your concerns about this section. Happy to hear your thoughts on whether this improve matters. Please discuss your changes here rather than repeatedly blanking the section. It would be helpful if you could suggest how it may be fixed, rather than simply removing chunks of cited material. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the title, it's the content thats the problem have you actually read any of the sources, I have already shown earlier in this section none of them back-up the claims being made in the article. Adam4267 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you disagree with no longer mentions "sectarianism". Therefore all they do is note the events as political activism and describe them. Is there a problem with describing them like this? Is so, do you have any suggestions of how they might be categorized? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Why has "Arrests have occurred for the offence of "sectarian breach of the peace"? been included in the article? This is a misquote from the source and has been revised accordingly. The comment also requires some context which I have provided. The sentence itself means nothing without context.

Misquote, hmmm, i dont see how? It was included by another editor to show that sectarian related breaches of the peace have happened in relation to celtic fans. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not recognising a misquote implies one has not read the article Pointer1 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Care to give specific details? This is not a guessing game. Providing clear reasons when questioned, and reverted, saves everyone time and avoids misunderstandings. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sky TV

I have removed an article regarding a claim which has no credibility or factual element whatsoever. No direct quotes, nor indeed any conformation of what has been claimed, just unnamed and second hand references of what may have happened. Please provide a credible reference or do not insert. Pointer1 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

hows this here, to add to the original, if both are incorrect then why are they both (yes 2 different newspapers, which are deemed reliable sources) not being held liable for the false claim? I shall revert the article now. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"believes", alleges - nothing factual, nothing confirmed and certainly not encyclopaedic Pointer1 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How about here or here or here or here? These sources are reliable by usual standards, including the original one. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pointer1 is now in breach of edit warring guidelines. I would strongly recommend that the latest removal of this content is reverted and the matter is discussed here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Trophies etc.

A few points on the trophy section.

1/ Shouldn't the European Cup be first, and the fact that Celtic were runners up in 1970. i.e. also mentioned. 2/ The minor trophies (and some of them really are minor!;)) are spread out vertically and take up a huge section of space. They should be in a table. 3/ I though Celtic had won the UEFA cup, or at least were runners-up recently. Shouldn't that get a mention in the trophies section? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right - go ahead and make the changes if you want. --hippo43 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 1 February 2011

{{edit protected}} Can someone please remove {{pp-semi-indef}} from the article? The article is fully protected and has a template indicating that, but someone forgot to remove the semi protection template. This is causing the page to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Inverness arrests

I've removed this obviously NPOV material. It transparently misrepresents the source. "a number" of fans arrested was actually three. The source (and headline) is clear - police praised both sets of fans. Given that it mentions arrests and not convictions, perhaps we should aim for something more concrete. It also refers to Rangers fans being similarly arrested. I wonder if the editor who trawled the internet to find this gem saw fit to add it to the Rangers article as well. --hippo43 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

reverted your inclusion, back to consensus. Sources uncheckable which is hardly appropriate for a controversial subject. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncheckable? What do you mean? --hippo43 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The cite was added as an example of the issue of sectarian behaviour which occurs, and how it is being tackled by the authorities. The problem is that the article cannot say that this behaviour occurs without producing a cite. This one isn't the best, perhaps you could source a better one?

If you believe that "a number" is a misrepresentation of "three" then please propose an alternative.

What is on the Rangers article is irrelevant. If you believe it should be on that article then please raise the matter on its talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Arresting someone is not evidence that a type of behaviour occurs, but convictions are. Shoehorning this source in as evidence for something which is not widely covered by reliable sources is not cool, per NPOV. The source would be a good source supporting the view that Celtic and Inverness fans are generally well-behaved - using it as a source to illustrate a suppposed pattern of sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans is dishonest, completely misrepresenting the thrust of the article. I have added the example of the Celtic fan being convicted for wearing a t-shirt. My preference for an accurate (and more concise) way of representing the number three is by saying "three". --hippo43 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

EO, my point about adding this to the Rangers FC article was rhetorical, referring to the endless comparisons made by other editors here and elsewhere. --hippo43 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Accepted, but they are equally tiresome there and best avoided if we are to have a constructive discussion. Otherwise we'd never progress beyond an endless cycle of "but the Celtic/Rangers article says..."

What's significant here is that there is the offence of "sectarian-related breach of the peace" that is used to tackle sectarian behaviour at matches. There is nothing particularly significant about these three arrests in themselves, or whether they led to convictions. How about we say something along the lines of "Authorities have tackled sectarian behaviour at matches through the introduction of the specific offence of sectarian-related breach of the peace". That then could be suitably cited, and also include examples of it in action. These examples need not be confined to Celtic fans, but should include them to demonstrate the relevance to the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliably sourced examples of Celtic fans engaging in sectarian behaviour, I am in favour of including them. Hence, I added the t-shirt guy. I'm not in favour of presuming that a pattern of behaviour exists and finding examples which supposedly support that view.

IIRC the legal wording is something like "aggravated by racial or religious prejudice". If there is a source which discusses the significance of the legislation, maybe confirms that the legislation brought in in 2003 is aimed at sectarian behaviour at football games, then we could perhaps include it. However, I'd be cautious about how we handle this - is it evidence that sectarian behaviour at football has increased? How much sectarian behaviour was covered by regular breaches of the peace pre-2003? I think sources which deal accurately with the extent of sectarian behaviour (both by and directed at Celtic fans) would be most useful here. I don't support finding individual examples to hint at a pattern which is not itself sourced. --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This page gets worse every time I look at it. The section about sectarianism seems to have lost all sense of NPOV. Anyone that wants to make points about Rangers - please put it on the Rangers page. This is the Celtic page. There is no mention of Nil By Mouth, the leading anti-sectarian charity that works with Celtic. And now we have IRA-chanting under a section with a main title of Celtic fans, implying that this is the behaviour of all Celtic fans. Someone sort this out, for christ's sake. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For starters - The football aspect of the old firm, lest it be forgotten, should be separated out from the sectarian and related aspects of the old firm rivalry. And surely there should be more detail on the football side. And surely the sectarian aspects shouldn't be scattered over the page. The way this is arranged at the moment is an absolute joke Mattun0211 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So what do you suggest instead? I don't think the stuff about political protests is appropriate at all, but it has been pushed in by others. I created a section on fans in general to place it in some kind of appropriate context. What do you propose to include about Nil by Mouth? --hippo43 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Celtic or Rangers fan, so I don't want to poke around too much in what is a page that really should be written by Celtic fans by-and-large. But the sectariansm section is embarassing from a Celtic point of view - it reads like an anti-Rangers diatribe in some parts at least. I just thought it was ironic that there is no mention of Nil by Mouth but plenty about another football club that should be on another page. There surely must be more to write on the football side - who's played the most old firm matches, scored the most old firm goals, famous matches etc. And then the sectarian aspects and all that goes with that should be under one section so that it's easy for the reader to find. So the Old firm section should be divided into two sections. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. For me, the page should be written by people who know what they're talking about, irrespective of who they support. Wikipedia articles being used as uncritical fan pages is one of the biggest weaknesses of this site, IMO.

Also IMO, the most significant aspect of sectarianism regarding Celtic is that Celtic fans are far more likely to be the objects of sectarianism than the perpetrators. The history of sectarianism in Scottish football is largely a matter of anti-Catholicism in Scottish society being mirrored in football. Having a handful of contrived examples here, showing supposed sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans with no accurate historical context was, to my mind, ridiculous.

I agree the footballing side of the rivalry is more important, but it is also covered in the Old Firm article, as well as the History of Celtic FC article and the history sections here. Difficult to do it justice in the Old Firm section here as well, without becoming very repetitive, but I'll try to do something with it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think the page is a bit scattered at the moment. The football and sectarian aspects of the old firm should be divided into two (and not more than two!) sections and I would have thought most of the details of the old firm football aspect should be here? And the whole section needs a radical NPOV revamp, taking out all the anti-Rangers stuff Mattun0211 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree on your assessment of the sectarianism stuff. A section on sectarianism in the context of the Old Firm rivalry cannot maintain a neutral POV if it does not cover the stuff here that relates to Rangers. The current section, IMO, is entirely consistent with the coverage of the subject by serious sources. --hippo43 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it will be a miracle if this topic ever gets satisfactory coverage on either article. Any progress made has to over-come constant fiddling by hyper-sensitive fans on both sides, ever fine-tuned to the slightest possibility of a suggestion that their side may be worse than the other, ever eager to get a mention in of the other side's crimes. Perhaps the solution would be to remove all coverage of sectarianism from both and redirect to the shared Sectarianism in Glasgow Football? There is certainly scope for make that article more comprehensive, and taking it away from both football club articles would at least focus the issues in one place. As for the other content, I agree it shouldn't be over emphasised. But the fact is there is significant coverage when (some) Celtic fans stage stunts like their Poppy protests, and I can't think of many other clubs where this kind of thing happens. That makes it notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes it notable enough to include in this article, at least at any length, given how much weight is given to other topics in it. These kind of stunts certainly attract some tabloid attention, for a day or two at least, but how much coverage does this kind of stuff get in more serious, even scholarly sources? There's a danger of equating the Daily Record with the academic works that take a serious look at these issues.

While we're talking about both articles, I can't support wholesale removal of this stuff at all, from either. These two clubs are not 'just' football clubs, they have a much bigger role in Scottish society, one which relates to the whole rivalry-sectarianism-politics thing. Having encyclopedia articles about these clubs which don't cover sectarianism etc would be a disgrace, an unencyclopedic whitewash. --hippo43 (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the article, taking out stuff where the main subject is Rangers. Perhaps this could be put in the Rangers page. I've added material that gives a more neutral point of view. I agree this could be used for the Sectarianism_in_Glasgow#Football|Sectarianism in Glasgow Football]] page as well and will use it there when I have time.Mattun0211 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In the context of explaining the OF rivalry and sectarian baggage, Rangers' development of an anti-Catholic identity is appropriate to include here, in brief, with good referencing. Emphasising one study (see WP:UNDUE) and removing other sources covering the subject is not NPOV. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the article, while not perfect, is more balanced now. The trouble with the Rangers stuff you cite is a/ it's primarily about Rangers and b/ Rangers claim that Celtic has always had an anti-protestant bias - so you would have to include that too. It's already clear that some supporters of both clubs think the other club is bigoted, or more bigoted. That stuff belongs on the general sectarisnism page, where it will get fairer treatment. By having a more balanced page here, we are doing Celtic a favour as they look a bit silly saying the other lot are bigots and we aren't. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do Rangers accuse Celtic of an anti-protestant bias? Where? In any case, what Rangers or Celtic claim is not relevant. What do reliable sources say? I don't believe the sources show an anti-protestant agenda or identity from Celtic, though I could be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

here, for instance - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/109290-scottish-footballs-sectarian-problem. There are plenty of sources on both sides saying one side is worse than the other. Their neutrality is obviously questionable. I think by using recent academic studies that have clearly taken a neutral point of view, I've improved the article. As I've said, one side saying the other are bigger bigots makes that side look silly. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not put the Rangers stuff on the Rangers page.It will at least generate a response. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Honest question - do you think that it now better conforms with NPOV? Mattun0211 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? That bleacherreport source is garbage - please see WP:RS. If there are reliable sources to back up your perception, please cite them.

You wrote "Both clubs accuse the other club of sectarian bahaviour." Where? Where is your source for this?

You wrote "Celtic fans complain of some Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song," No, they didn't. Celtic FC, the Irish government, Scottish politicians and anti-sectarian groups complained about it.

You wrote "Rangers fans, meanwhile, complain of the use of the word "Hun" used by some Celtic fans to describe their opposite numbers." The source, which I had added, says no such thing. Let the facts speak for themselves.

After your five reverts this morning, I'm not going to revert you right now, as I have a history of getting drawn into edit wars, and don't fancy getting blocked myself. I'd be grateful if you did it yourself, or if someone else would revert your stuff - it would save me having to report it. --hippo43 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your 'honest question' - no, of course not. You have given far too much weight to one source, contrary to WP:UNDUE, you have misrepresented the findings of that report, and you have removed sources which detail the history of the issue and Rangers' history of anti-Catholic practices, without good reason or explanation. You have also included unsourced nonsense about what both sides apparently accuse each other of. --hippo43 (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep your hair on; I've cut that report, a recent neutral academic study into this subject, to one paragraph so I've dealt with that issue. How have I misrepresented it? I've largely quoted directly from it. Have you read it? I'm not as familair with sectariansim as you ; so apologies if that site is an odd one. How's this from an American source who sounds unbiased. “Celtic and Rangers have a history of sectarianism and violence as the two sides built their fan-bases by tying themselves to sides in the conflict of Northern Ireland.” http://www.prostamerika.com/2010/04/06/sounders-fans-unite-against-bigotry-22571/. Says it all really. In answer to why I deleted the references to "Rangers' history" the answer lies in your very words. Rangers history should be on the Rangers page. As regards the famine song, lets say Celtic and various other groups? Now don't you think its time we did something about the football side of things - that's currently one sentence. Which also says it all ; Mattun0211 (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As regards the "unsourced nonsense", one of those came from your Rangers section, and the other was already on the page. Mattun0211 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've acknowledged not knowing much about the subject, and yet you have been willing to edit war over it. Why, exactly? The source you just suggested - prostamerika - is also not a reliable source nor an expert, whether or not you think it 'sounds unbiased'. To me it just sounds ill-informed.

You've given that study undue weight by promoting it at the expense of the other sources you removed, and by giving a single source more space than any other paragraph in the section.

You've also misrepresented the report because it isn't a study of football and sectarianism specifically. It is also only a small study - of 40 16-18 year olds in 2008. It is not directed at the extent of the problem or the history of it, simply the perceptions of a small group of young people at one time. Its first major finding is that territorial gang issues, not football-related sectarianism, were the respondents biggest concern.It goes on to specifically say "Young people explained that the gangs they were aware of or had been associated with in the past had both Rangers and Celtic fans within them, since they were formed on the basis of geographical territory and not on a religious or football basis" and "Some youth leaders felt that racism had become more of an issue than sectarianism, in light of the influx of asylum seekers, refugees and Eastern Europeans to Scotland in recent years," for example.

If you think the Rangers history should be only on the Rangers page, you make it clear that you simply don't understand the subject. Sectarianism in the context of the OF rivalry stems at least partly from Rangers' development as an anti-Catholic club - not simply a Protestant club - even before Celtic existed. At least according to the sources you don't want to include. Moreover, the bahaviour of Rangers and Rangers fans is relevant to this article because Celtic and their fans are, according to the sources, more often the object of sectarianism.

If you want to try to expand the football side of the rivalry, go ahead - I have no problem with it. IMO, the social context of these clubs and their rivalry is more significant than results on the field, so that's where I've directed my efforts.

If you can't be bothered to actually research the sources on this, please leave it to people who will. Please at least read the works by Bill Murray, Giulianotti and Amrstrong, Tom Gallagher etc - the sources you inexplicably removed - before commenting further. You wrote "As I've said, one side saying the other are bigger bigots makes that side look silly" - in other words, rather than read sources cited already, you assume that the problem is the same on both sides. Please stop playing at something you evidently don't understand. --hippo43 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, quoting from an advocacy group (Nil by Mouth) is hardly NPOV, particularly as you have removed other respected sources which deal with the subject.

Particularly inappropriate is editing that quote, omitting what the document actually said, to suit the point you want to make. --hippo43 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest, on Nil by Mouth. It's a reliable source dealing directly with the subject matter. Similarly, what you think of the study and the american article is irrelevant.They are reliable sources dealing directly with the matter in hand. On the academic study, I picked out areas that were related to the Old Firm. You're correct, the article had a wider remit looking at sectarianism in general. Perhaps you'd like to include those elements in the Sectarianism in Glasgow page? Can you show me the sources that say that Rangers was founded as an anti-Catholic club as I have honestly never heard that before. Then we could put it in the Rangers section where it belongs. There are plenty of references to Rangers in this section, so you need not let that issue trouble you. Mattun0211 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC) BTW I didn't edit the quote to suit my purpose - I just took out the reference to Hibs and Hearts as this is about the Old Firm, and its on Celtic's page - i.e. Having the Edinburgh clubs mentioned would be irrelevant and/or confusing for people not familiar with this matter. Using ... in that context is perfectly acceptable.Mattun0211 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Having the sectarianism section on this page full of reference to Rangers and not celtic is a bit out of place. I would agree with both Mattun and Escape orbit, that having a Sectarianism in Glasgow Football article / section would allow an effective area to combine the two sections and show the causes and routes of where the sectarian aspect of the old firm comes from. It would not be an unencyclopedic whitewash as it would still be available but where both relate to each other directly removing all aspects of bias on these articles.

This would also reduce edit warring and disruption on both clubs articles and enable them to reach GA status (which I strongly believe is possible for both articles) Monkeymanman (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattun how can you say those sources are reliable, the bleacherreport is written by a random Rangers fan, and is completely bias and their is nothing to suggest that prostamerika is more reliable. Also nil by mouth 'claim' that words such as tim and orange are sectarian which is completely ridiculous as many fans use these words positively. Adam4267 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Monkey, you're wrong about bias, It's not bias to state, for example, that Aboriginal people in Australia were treated badly by white settlers, with good references - it's historically accurate. It's not bias to say, with good references, that there was a great deal of anti-semitism in 19th century Europe - it's historically accurate. It's not bias point out, with good references, that there many black and Asian immigrants to Britain have faced racist abuse - it's historically accurate. Do you see where I'm going with this? --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Monkey and EscapeOrbit - having the sectarianism on each clubs page will mean the pages will constantly be hijacked by sectarian extremists trying to make the other club look worse. These pages are better left to the football. Why don't we move all sectarian aspects to the page escapeorbit mentioned, and the two sides can battle it out there. It will be like Galsgow on a Saturday night after an Old Firm match, except with words instead of head butts ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you think the 'sectarian extremists' are, but there's nothing in policy, AFAIK, to support removing sourced, accurate material simply to avoid having to deal with disagreements. That's why we have page protection options, discussions etc.

Also, Mattun, please don't make jokes about sectarian violence when discussing this topic. It makes it hard to take your comments seriously. --hippo43 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to enjoy myself; It's fine to have all that history about Rangers - on the Rangers page or the page that escapeorbot mentioned, because they are about that subject. This is the Celtic page. And this is why we need to move all the stuff about sectarianism onto one page. Or the Celtic page, as it has even now after its been improved, will have more material about Rangers in the old firm than it does about Celtic's Old Firm footballing history.If you look back through the talk page you may see I've explained this before. So shall we move all this onto another page. Then you can write about Rangers to your heart's content. Incidentlaly, I found an academic study (from Duke University in the US, oddly enough) that suggested your version of Rangers history needs some work doing to it by the way. When the "escapeorbit" page is up and running and I've got time, I'll add that in. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The stuff about Rangers on this page is directly relevant to Celtic in the context of the Old Firm rivalry. There is a lot more to be said about sectarianism involving Rangers which does not directly relate to Celtic, and that is best left to other articles such as Rangers F.C.. If you have new source material about Rangers, consider adding it to the Rangers FC article? Or read the sources you removed first. You might learn something. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So in effect your inclusion hippo shows that the 2 are directly related. This would then be better met with a section in the article escape orbit recommended where the situation can be brought together, rather than having fractured sections on each clubs articles which don’t give a proper perspective. As I have said IMO this section on both articles is the only thing holding them down from becoming GA or even FA.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)It goes without saying that sectarianism in the Celtic context and sectarianism in the Rangers context are related, that doesn't mean the content should be the same (and it isn't) or that all this material should be removed from the articles about the clubs. Monkey, as you and I have discussed at the Rangers talk page, there is enough material on Rangers and sectarianism to merit its own article, if that's the way you want to go. As is the case all over wikipedia, on all kinds of topics, there should be an appropriate section on each club's article, and info on both at various other articles - Old Firm, Sectarianism in Glasgow, Rangers and sectarianism (if necessary) etc. These subjects are obviously overlapping but are not the same. Although they cover some of the same ground, the story of Rangers and sectarianism is very different from the story of Celtic and sectarianism. It's really not that complicated. --hippo43 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a condensed version of Nil by Mouth and Univ. of strathclude report. Nothing deleted. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattun, I've removed the Deuchar source again. The quote is unnecessary, and gives undue weight to a tiny study. Moreover, the source does not say what you claimed it said - its findings were misrepresented here. If anything, the study plays down the role of sectarianism in Glasgow youth culture, both compared to sectarianism in NI and compared to issues of territoriality and anti-immigrant sentiment in Glasgow. --hippo43 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

I have added this tag because it is faintly ridiculous that there is less written about the general history of the club up to 2007 (as if not much of note happened then) than the last four, fairly unremarkable, seasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think having the curent or most recent season makes some sense, but would happily bin the rest. If there's no objection I'll gladly get rid of it in a day or two. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now done! Pointer1 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nil by Mouth

I do not think NilbyMouth should be used as a source it has some very dubious claims, contradicts itself, has an unknown author and generally doesn't seem to know what it is talking about. Adam4267 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adam. The fact that you don't agree with Nilbymouth is irrelevant I'm afraid, as I've used a reliable source. As WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Nilbymouth is an independent registered charity and is not biased in favour of either Celtic or Rangers, so it meets the WP:NPOV criteria. And I'm quoting directly from them (the fact that there is no name is irrelevant by the way), so there's no original research WP:OR. You have got your way with having the political protests section in the Celtic Fans section, despite the fact that hardly anyone thought that was a good idea, so you really should compromise on this one. If you have issues with NilBy Mouth perhaps you'd like to develop that page, which needs some work if I remember correctly. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice that after your unsuccesful attempt to get me banned for edit warring you have reverted my good faith edit at the earliest opportunity without using the talk page (only for it to be undone by another editor who pointed you in the direction of the talk page). I think we both need to ensure that we don't end up in the same situation as last time. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond to your comments that don't relate to this topic.

WP:V does not state anywhere that registered charities are reliable sources, and as they are a relatively unkown charity who don't seem to have done much that does not help either. Also Nil by Mouth makes claims that differ from what most reliable sources do say which would make me think they do not know what they are talking about. Adam4267 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, quoting from NilByMouth is fine. Have a look at the Amnesty International page, for instance. Direct quotes/statements/reports from the organisation, which is an NGO/charity, are referenced on numerous occasions, as they are on numerous other pages dealing with political prisoners and related issues. On what basis are you claiming they are "relatively unknown". You've clearly heard of them. They have a page on wikipedia. They are an officially registered charity. The last point is obviously the key point. If you think that they "make claims that differ from what most reliable sources do say" then show us what you mean and we have something to work with. (By the way, the fact that you think they "don't know what they are talking about", as I've explained before, is irrelevant.) Mattun0211 (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The real point is that a long quote from them is unnecessary and gives undue weight to their source. What they're saying isn't really contentious - their source can be cited as a footnote, like others in that section. So people wave flags and shout stuff at Old Firm matches? What a surprise!

Also, the group itself is hardly a neutral source - it is a pressure group, a lobbying organisation, not an authority on the extent or character of sectarianism. There are better quality sources which say more or less the same thing. --hippo43 (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hippo. You've got to remember that Wikipedia is essentially a reference tool, and people who come here may not be familair with the topic, so shouting about "stuff" etc. is more than relevant. Those that are semi-familiar with the topic would associate Celtic FC sectarianism with IRA chanting - until I improved the page there wasn't even a mention of this. There is no undue weight - it's all condensed into one paragraph. I'd pass on the same message - I think you need to get over the fact that you don't happen to like the anti-sectarian charity NilByMouth, trying to spin it as a "lobbying organisation" etc. The value of it here is that it is neither Celtic or Rangers - far more neutral than your input in this section I might add. You say in your edit summary the Deuchars study is tiny! Forty is a perfectly acceptable sample. Have you got a bigger study to show us? And as I've said before (a point you never replied to so presumably accepted) I just took out the reference to Hibs and Heats in the quote, so using a few dots to shorten it to make it more relevant to this page is fine and does not misrepresent it.

I think we really need to move on from where we were before the page protection came into place, and you going back into delete/revert mode isn't in the spirit of that. I've left your Rangers stuff alone, even though that is almost certainly undue weight given this is the Celtic page. If anything should be a footnote, it's clearly that. But let's try and move onwards and upwards. Please don't simply revert my stuff, particulalry as you've had seven bans for edit warring and it would be a shame to see you banned as you do good work elsewhere.Mattun0211 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen your more recent comment on the Strathclyde University report (best to keep new comments in more recent areas of the page or they will be lost.) I'm afraid your observation that the report "plays down the role of sectarianism" is simply wrong. You should actually read the report, it's quite interesting. Here are a few quotes which should give you a much better understanding of what the report actually says.

"Most respondents continue to see sectarianism as a current and prevalent problem in Glasgow. Only 9% of respondents agreed that “discrimination along sectarian lines no longer exists” and 68% disagreed."

"Equally importantly, perhaps, there was little evidence that respondents felt sectarianism is on the wane, with 67% disagreeing that “sectarianism is becoming a thing of the past”. Again this view was held consistently across the sample."

"Perhaps more alarmingly, around two-thirds (65%) of respondents felt that sectarian violence was very or quite common and a majority (58%) felt that sectarian threats and harassment were common."

"Perhaps of more importance, support for Rangers and Celtic is also seen as reflecting the sectarian divide in Ireland, which, again, is seen to be about much more than religious difference. Even in the face of pronouncements and action from the Clubs themselves, the Clubs’ histories, the symbolism surrounding them (the Union Flag versus the Irish Tricolour), the organisations and political movements that congregate around the Clubs and the highly visible activities of a small number of supporters, all help maintain the perception to some that Celtic is associated with Republicanism and Rangers with Loyalism."

hopefully you now see that the report did not domnplay sectarianism. I have obviously and understandably concentrated on the Old Firm aspect of the report, but perhaps th e whole report could be used more widely on the Sectarianism in Glasgow page. I was wrong about there being 40 respondents actually, it was actually 1,000. Incidentally, the report casts doubt on your claim that anti-Cathloicism is far more prevelant than anti-Protestantism - but I'm sure you'll ignore that bit :;

"Overall, most respondents in the survey took an even-handed view of sectarianism, with three-quarters saying that rather than being mainly anti-Catholic or mainly anti-Protestant, sectarianism in Glasgow tends to be equally aimed at Catholics and Protestants." Mattun0211 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, please try not to be patronising if you really want us to work together for a better article.

I'm not objecting to including either of these as a source, but they need to be used in the appropriate way. It should be obvious that you don't have consensus for your addition of these sources, at least in the way you have used them. Per BRD, please discuss and wait for consensus before restoring them.

On the Nil by Mouth article, it is inappropriate to include a long quote, for reasons of NPOV/UNDUE. (There are high quality print sources - the ones you don't seem to have read - used as references which are not quoted at length.) I don't object to it being included as a reference for what goes on at OF games, and have already used it as such.

Nil by Mouth, whether you like it or not, is not a neutral organisation - it has its own POV. It is a lobbying group and charity whose existence depends on sectarianism being a problem, so it has a vested interest in all this. There is also some academic material out there which contradicts its view of sectarianism - the extent of the problem in Scottish society is somewhat contentious. Nobody, least of all me, is trying to say that sectarianism is not an issue which relates to Celtic FC.

As for the Deuchar study, my discussion here was in the appropriate place and perfectly visible in the page history. Including a long quote from it, with no similar quote from any of the published sources which actually address the Old Firm itself, is obviously contrary to WP:UNDUE, and is both poor writing and poor scholarship. You have also quoted various parts of it here, but not the parts which contradict your view of it. In particular, its first major finding is that "Territorial gang issues were at the forefront of the young participants' minds", and it goes on to say "Although the activity associated with gangs was not seen as sectarian in terms of promoting open religious bigotry..." and "Some youth leaders felt that racism had become more of an issue than sectarianism ..." for example. So, while of course it confirms that sectarianism is an issue, it makes it clear that gang culture, territory and racism/xenophobia are part of the same mix (at least they were in 2008). Your inclusion of the study did not appropriately represent its findings, and gave far too much weight to a single source which does not directly examine the Old Firm. To afford the same weight of coverage to the other, arguably better, sources available, would make the article unmanageable.

In terms of the details, can you point out where it says there were 1000 subjects in the study? I thought it said 40. Also, I don't see where it supports your statement "The clubs have attracted the support...intensified the rivalry in Scotland". If I've missed it, can you point it out in the study? Again, it can perhaps be used as a reference for some points, but we would need to reach consensus here first.

Last, please take care to not misunderstand what I've written here - you mentioned my "claim that anti-Cathloicism is far more prevelant than anti-Protestantism." I don't think I claimed any such thing, though I don't see where the issue is settled by this study. (I did say that Celtic's role in the sectarianism/OF story was more as a victim of sectarianism than a perpetrator.) Also, you wrote above that I claimed "Rangers was founded as an anti-Catholic club" - I don't think I said that either. (I did say that Rangers were developing an anti-Catholic identity even before Celtic was founded, at least according to the reliable source I cited.)

Not only have I read the study, I have read some of the sources it cites (and have cited one or two here). Perhaps you could do the same? As you raised the issue of edit warring, please be aware of WP:BRD. Your own edits currently constitute edit-warring. Mentioning that I've been blocked in the past for the same thing isn't fooling anyone. --hippo43 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hippo. I think you misunderstand WP:BRD. Here are a few quotes from the Wiki BRD page. "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." ... "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." ... "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods." Bearing in mind you have seven bans for edit warring, I would argue this isn't an avenue you should usbe going down. The Glasgow CC website that has the report is down at the moment, so I'll wait for that to come up before I respond on that. As a way forward, why don't you show the suggestions you want to include on the talk page, such as the newspaper articles quoting NilByMouth, and then we have something to work on. I would be more than willing to use them instead if they are appropriate. I don't think blanket deletes is going to get us anywhere. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to require anyone to follow BRD, but it is more or less accepted practice that editors should. In any case, you don't have consensus for including the material you want. My removal of your insertion was not simply because I "don't like it", but because it is flawed, for the reasons stated above. (You will see that I have in fact used the Nil By Mouth article as a reference later in the same section.) If you want to gain consensus for using this stuff, you will need to address these objections and get other editors' agreement. Refusing to discuss others' objections and simply adding this stuff again is edit-warring, just as it was edit-warring when you did it a few days ago. Referring to my being blocked in the past is, again, fooling nobody. --hippo43 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, editors are not required to follow BRD and, as it states, it works best with diplomatic skills that I don't think you possess - as evidenced by your seven bans for edit warring. It's not meant to be used for blanket dletions of perfectly well referenced material (I see no reference to Nil by Mouth BTW). The way forward is compromise - come up with a better alternative that we can discuss. Blanket deleting is not working towards compromise. The irony of this, of course, is that when I deleted your Rangers stuff on this page for rifing a coach and horse through Undue Weight and Neutral Point of View, you were coming up with the opposite argument, saying i couldn't touch it until we had concencus here. (I was right, but we'll ignore that; -and I've let you have your way on that one). The way forward is for you to suggest a form of words that you think will be acceptable to both of us, and we can work towards a mutual understanding (perhaps using the newsaper articles you mentioned). The reason I keep bringing up your seven bans isn't to have a go at you - it's to remind you that you need to try a bit harder to work with other editors. Blanket deletions is edit warring, however much you mention BRD.Mattun0211 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattun stop bringing up Hippo's bans for edit warring, it's not helping with discussion and it doesn't relate to this, also stop saying you let people have their way that just makes you sound childish. Adam4267 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please give it a rest - you have shown no diplomatic skill at all in this discussion, and are now edit-warring for a second time. Removing inappropriately used source material is not a 'blanket deletion'. My preference is for none of the stuff you have inserted to be included in the text, for the reasons which I have stated above and you have not addressed to the satisfaction of other editors. If you have a compromise in mind, suggest it, and see if you can reach consensus with other editors. --hippo43 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the Nil By Mouth and Univ. of Strathclyde stuff down to the bone and bare basics - there's nothing remotely controversial left. I've also cut down a lot of the elements that were more concerned with Rangers to the bare bone - perhaps we could have a footnote or two if you wish. The whole section is much tidier now - the Famine song stuff was really just a long ramble before. Remember - reach concencus here first rather than just put your stuff back in ;)

Mattun0211 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The material you have added overall has detracted from the section, the Univ of Strathclyde stuff you added basically just repeated what was in the first sentance of that paragraph, I've already stated that I don't consider Nil by Mouth a relliable source and you have completely glossed over the information about the Famine Song, not even including the offensive lyrics which caused an international incident. Adam4267 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusions about rangers is simply ott. Reflections on scottish society would be best included at sectarianism in glasgow, but not here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You only addressed one of the three concerns I raised and you have not given any reason for why the information on the Famine Song was wrong also what are the reflections on scottish society and why shouldn't they be in this article. How can you put all that information back in without having a reasoned argument against any of the three issues I raised? Adam4267 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask all involved to end the petty sniping and edit warring and stick to the problems with the article? Adam4267, the problem with the section as it stands (after your second revert) is that it has a paragraph about the sins of Rangers supports, but very little regarding Celtic fans, which, I would think, would be more relevant to an article about Celtic Football Club. If there remains a problem about Nil by Mouth's involvement (which in my view is a total red herring of an issue), the internet is not short of suitable cites from reliable sources that could be used to illustrate sectarian behaviour by Celtic fans.

Is it possible to produce a balanced (and concise) summary of the problem that exists on both sides without further pages and pages of he said/you said ? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against any 'sins' of Celtic fans being included as long as they are from a reliable source. All the sources you showed their are definitely reliable however none of them show sectarianism by Celtic fans. Adam4267 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on that EscapeOrbit. Personally, I would be happy to use any of those cites instead, if someone wants to come up with a proposal, although there is clearly nothing wrong with the NilByMouth cite. Adam - all those cites make crystal clear links to sectarianism - we really shouldn't need to go through this again. Remember - verifiability is the key, not your opinion, so please try to be more constructive. Mattun0211 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the main points I would make: 1/ It should be focussed on Celtic - Rangers should be secondary. 2/ It should make reference to IRA chanting as this is what most neutral fans would associate with Celtic sectarianism. 3/ I think it reads better now that it is more concise. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying Adam4267. Are you saying that when The Scotsman says "CELTIC chief executive Peter Lawwell admits that the club have little control over sectarian chanting at away grounds after the "embarrassing" events at Hearts last week" it is not illustrating sectarianism by Celtic fans?? If so, I would suggest you are entitled to your opinion, but that of both chief executive Lawwell and The Scotsman are far more notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Peter Lawwell states that this is not sectarian but political as I have already stated. It seems to be Angus Wrights opinion, I don't know who he is or wether he is neutral but considering that he thinks that this is football hooliganism I would say he is not neutral or knowledgable. I have already said I am not against putting in Celtic's fans sins but this is Original research. Adam4267 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you that. The Celtic chief executive splits hairs by saying that they are political. I would suggest that sectarian chants, by definition, are political. However, that's by the by. That just leaves The Scotsman, The Herald, The BBC, Scotland On Sunday, The Daily Mail, The Independent, The Daily Record (I could go on) who think they are sectarian. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How are you getting that, these sources are just qouting from other people/organisations who are not reliable or neutral. Adam4267 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

These are reliable, third party, sources. They're newspapers. Quoting other sources is what they do. Perhaps you could suggest where we might find people/organisations who are reliable or neutral? Right now it appears the only definition you're working to is "if I personally don't agree with them, then they're not reliable and not neutral". Are you really suggesting that four Scottish national newspapers don't know enough about sectarianism or Celtic to reliably comment?? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So if the BBC runs a story about Holocaust denial and qoutes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Nick Griffin does that mean that they have the same view as them? Adam4267 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hypothetical examples. If 4 national Scottish newspapers describe the behaviour of (some) Celtic fans as sectarian then that's good enough for Wikipedia. I still await your guidance on what might be regarded as a reliable and neutral source, if these aren't for some as yet undetermined reason. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are any sources reliable enough for you? Do you have any sensible reason why these otherwise reliable national papers are not to be trusted on this matter? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that Adam4267's silence on this is either realisation of the unsupportability of his position, or indication that there are no sources anywhere he's prepared to accept as reliable, which is equally unsupportable. So I will press ahead in using sources that Wikipedia generally believes are acceptable, as listed above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You can use whatever sources you want Escape Orbit as long as there's no Original Research. Adam4267 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Honours

I would think finishing second is an honour, remember the word is honour not trophy also almost every other football team list runner-up awards for all competitions not just europe;

Bayern Munich, SL Benfica, Inter Milan,Real Madrid Adam4267 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sectarianism

The club have traditionally been identified with and favoured by the Catholic and Republican community of Scotland, as well as the Republican community in Northern Ireland. For most of their history, Celtic have enjoyed a fierce rivalry with their cross-city opponents Rangers and the two are collectively known as the Old Firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.2.235 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Much like the Rangers fc article, there is much made here of Rangers policy of not signing Catholics. In order to remain NPOV, and relevant, could we not amend the celtic fc artcile to include the fact (citations forthcoming) that Celtic FC were formed as a Roman Catholic club, with Irish Catholic Republican colours and symbology. They have had in place an unwritten policy of having only Catholics on the board of Directors, although like their sister club Hibernian, the policy of signing only Catholic players was preferable but not practical at this earlier time. Furthermore I'd like to point out that Celtic FC's opposition to the Royal Family is Sectarian in nature, much like rangers criticism of the Pope who is head of the Catholic Church, the Queen (and by extension the Monarchy) are figureheads for the Anglican Church, who while not a major religious grouping in Scotland, are a significant proportion of Northern Ireland, from where the sectarian culture ostensibly originates. PPS surely the (quote) 'worst case of racism at a British sporting event' (ie the treatment of Rangers player Mark Walters) is worthy of a mention in fairness, given the tendency for mudslinging and name-calling on the rangers page? Hachimanchu (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you back up any of those statments? Adam4267 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No. He can't. Looking at his contributions, it seems he is interested in a fairly narrow field of study. --hippo43 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Its called specialization. And yes I can back up my statements of course, I just need to dig out the books with the relevant info. Hachimanchu (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the BBC would be a much better source than your books. Adam4267 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources which substantiate any of that, it would be interesting and valuable, whether from the BBC or printed sources. In my reading on the subject, I haven't come across that angle, but would be interested to know more. --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The esteemed followfollow.com seems to take that POV/point of view. Adam4267 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't read followfollow. It's not a reliable source on this, so its views, articulate as they are, are largely irrelevant. --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

These statements are fact, and only common sense, however unfortunately citations are few and far between. There are very few (if any) Unionist versions of Tim Pat Coogan et al and even less mainstream media writers, if any were found I am sure you would find some excuse to dismiss their reliability, and probably just vandalise the article to your own purposes anyway. I'll keep looking for sources however I strongly suspect I am wasting my time. Hachimanchu (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So your position is "everyone know it's true, but there are no sources which say so, and even if there were, you'd dismiss them"?? How convenient. --hippo43 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it's a bit late to add to this discussion; but if there are relevent and reliable sources avaliable to back this up then they should be presented and I'm sure the risk of vandalism is not a problem, since Wikipeadians put a great deal of importance on the truth so vandalism is often quickly reversed. If something which shows Celtic in a bad light is written here and it is truthful and backed up with credible sources then I'll do my best to make sure it stays here if it is relevant. Also, I doubt a website called followfollow.com is a credible source as it is going to have an obvious bias which violates Wikipedia:NPOV, one of the core principles of this wiki. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New 3rd Kit

Is anybody able to update the "bumblebee" to the new third kit that was officially unvield by the club yesterday (http://celticsuperstore.co.uk/stores/celtic/products/kit_selector.aspx?selector=54&nav=Replica&portal=G23SEPIM) (28th May 2011) I have no idea how to do it. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.97.51.34, 16 June 2011

Can you update the 'current season' link on the right-hand box to the 2011/2012 season? There is already a page for it on wikipedia.

77.97.51.34 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixtures are announced tomorrow so that would be an appropriate time to do that, not before. 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Current Squad

Freddie Ljungberg, Andreas Hinkel, and Ben Hutchinson are all out of contract and have been released. Also, Kelvin Wilson, Adam Matthews, and Victor Wanyama should be added to the squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All done, however Wanyama has not joined the club yet. He still has to pass a medical and get a work permit Adam4267 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C supporters

I think this would be a good page to create. It would mean that we could remove all the stuff about the Old Firm rivalry from this page, and possibly expand on it. There would be plenty of stuff to add to it seeing as Celtic's support is very large compared to many other clubs that have similar pages, Man City, West Ham, Seattle Sounders and P.S.G. What does everyone else think? Adam4267 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Crest and colours and stadium sections

These two sections, which are present on most clubs articles seem to be missing from Celtic's page. Were they there at some point and can be re-added from the history section or do they need to be written from scratch. This is a very good website which documents all of Celtic's kits throughout history and has information about the badge. Adam4267 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 2.123.60.195, 29 July 2011

Please put Celtic FC player Efrain Juarez into the loan section of the Celtic FC page. He has joined Real Zaragoza on a season-long loan deal.

http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=1320 2.123.60.195 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done Someone else has already added this information. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 26xbing, 6 September 2011

26xbing (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done I like that template, great work! Adam4267 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tichy1967, 20 September 2011

External Links

www.celticforums.net a forum for the fans by the fans

Tichy1967 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, external links need to meet our guidelines, and fanforums are generally not notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First British Team to Win the European Cup

I propose changing the statement to Celtic became the first Northern European team to win the European cup. That is a far greater achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death before here. Apparent consensus is first British. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know. I think it's stupid though to lessen the greatness of the achievement. Makes no sense to me and I'm not even a Celtic fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Nothern European" should be used, there are two problems with it; 1. Most people do not know where/what it is 2. Scotland isn't actually in Northern Europe [1]. I agree it should be mention that Celtic were the first team from outside certain countries to win it. So maybe "the first team from outside of Italy and Iberia" could be a better phrase. Adam4267 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is in Northern Europe. If you look it up here on wikipedia you'll see that. However I agree with changing it to Celtic were the first team outside Spain, Italy and Portugal to lift the trophy. That is an even greater achievement than being the first Northern European team to win it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. Scotland isn't actually in Northern Europe. If you click on the link I provided above it tells you that Northern Europe is basically Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. Adam4267 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem before was sourcing and clarity. First british is reliably sourced and is uncontentious. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your referring to it in cultural terms there Adam. This really annoys me. Scotland is a good deal further north than Denmark. Perhaps southern England/Ireland and Wales could be merged into the Western European category but (remember in foobtalling terms Scotland is an seperate and distinct country to the rest of the UK) geographically Scotland is Northern Europe. Besides I'm not getting into this argument. What's important is that we make the achievement sound as great as it can be. So how about Celtic becamse the first team, outside of Italy, Spain and Portugal to win the European cup. That can be reliably sourced and is certainly not contentious. I could contend that Celtic are in fact not a British team. In footballing terms such a thing as "British football" does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The current sentence states that In 1967, Celtic became the first British team, and only Scottish team, to win the European Cup.
If we are to change it we would have to decide what changes to make to it. Apart from, obviously, removing the redundant first repitition of team. Adam4267 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken as to the purpose of Wikipedia. "Making the achievement sound as great as it can be." is exactly what we do not do. Wikipedia describes the achievement neutrally and in line with reliable sources.

But we are treading over old ground that has been discussed before. "First team in Northern Europe" is a totally made-up criteria. It means nothing in relation to Celtic, the European Cup, SFA, UEFA or FIFA or football. It has no political significance. It has very little cultural significance. Geographically it is vague. As a cite it is poorly sourced. It does nothing other than attempt to inflate the significance of Celtic's achievement (an achievement that does not need inflating) in a manner that actually just sounds a bit desperate. If anything it diminishes it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We have already decided not to use Northern Europe, partly because Scotland isn't in Northern Europe and also because of all the other reasons you pointed out. The discussion has moved on, if you would like to state your opinion on the current proposed term then that would be more helpful. Adam4267 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. I recommend - In 1967, Celtic became the first team, outside of Italy, Spain and Portugal to win the European Cup. Obviously with correct punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Although there is nothing wrong with that It should still be mentioned that Celtic are the only Scottish team to have won the cup. Adam4267 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That is almost quote for quote what is written in the main body of the article. So what is the problem? Monkeymanman (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"In 1967 Celtic became the first team outside of Italy, Spain and Portugal to win the European cup. They are also, to date, the only Scottish team to have lifted the trophy" ?

It just makes the achievement larger than simply saying they were the first British team (which doesn't technically apply as Celtic nor any other Scottish/English team are British as in football terms Britain doesn't exist).195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually held off on commenting on the above as I suspected you were maybe being sarcastic. Indeed, I used pretty much exactly this suggestion sarcastically previously. Is this a serious suggestion??? Because I have to say it's ludicrous. If you want to start picking and choosing your criteria then every winner of the European Cup could claim to be the First winners in some way or other. Why not just come out and say that Celtic were the very first team to win the European Cup (if, for not apparent reason, you exclude all those who won it before them)? I'd like to congratulate Barcelona for being, once again, the first winners of the European Cup this year (if we exclude all previous years). I also have to say, attempts at claiming ever greater and more selective "firsts" just look desperate and diminish the ones that actually mean something. I also need to point out, again, that construction of these kind of things is original synthesis. If we don't have a reliable source that awards this "first", then it shouldn't be here.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add; please keep in mind that the purpose of this article is not to "make the achievement larger". Wikipedia does not talk up its article subjects. It reports them neutrally. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And British does actually mean something ? Why not just say Celtic were the first and only Scottish team to win the European cup and be done with it. If it's not a question of achievement then there is no point in adding in the British statement is there ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The argument would be that Celtic are politically and culturally in a well recognised and significant division called "Britain". It can therefore be argued that this played a role in making Celtic the team that it was at the time. It's not as sound a definition as "Scottish" in terms of UEFA, but reasonable, and, more significantly, well sourced and cited. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with that statement. I think it contradicts a previous comment in which someone (I think it may have been you) argued that changing it to becoming the first team outside Italy/Spain/Portugal was effectively glory hunting. Of course I'm biased here as a Scottish Nationalist so perhaps you're right. I think it takes away from the fact that a Scottish team won the European Cup when you mention before it that they were the first British team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

While, being a Scottish Nationalist also, I would usually avoid using the description like the plauge, using the word "British" in this context is something I pretty much agree with, since it gets up Man U fans (I was on a tour of Old Trafford once where the tour guide tried to claim that Man U were the "first British team" to win it; swiftly corrected you'll be pleased to hear). What's wrong with "Celtic were the first British team to win the European Cup and are currently the only Scottish team to have acheived this" or something to that effect? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So whats wrong with the sentence in the intro as it is? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. We weren't just messing around when we agreed on it the last time! There is nothing new being brought to the discussion and proposals to change it are misguided in exactly the same ways as last time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Already discussed and rejected; also seems to be just a Wikipedia user's opinion, rather than being based on reliable sources. --John (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well both the BBC source provided in the article and Celtic's own website comment on Celtic being the first British AND non-Latin team to win the European Cup. Those sources are reliable and mention the fact that Celtic were the first team from outside that area to win the cup. Clearly the term non-Latin should not be used as it is an undefined area, so saying the first team from outside of Italy and Iberia (or Spain and Portugal) is a better option. It can still be mentioned that Celtic were the first British team to win it. If certain editors are desperate, for whatever reason, to use that term. However, in my opinion that would be redudant because Britain is obviously not in Italy or Spain or Portugal. Adam4267 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't cite a source to support your statement, and then decide you do not like what the source says, so replace it with your own definition, while still using the same source. Did you know that in 1993 Marseille were the first team to win the European Cup, outside of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Romania & Serbia? I could say they were the first French team to win it, but that would be too simple and not half as silly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources say British and non-Latin. You cannot dismiss sources just because you dislike what they say. You do realise that not everyone will know which teams had previously won the Euorpean Cup (Inter, Milan, Benfica, Madrid) or which countries Latin refers to? Clearly the sources are referring to these particular countries, but readers may not know that so actually saying the countries rather than the term "Latin" makes sure that readers actually know what you are talking about. However, maybe a compromise would be to say non-Latin and just put the countries in brackets. Would you prefer that? Adam4267 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are the teams that won it previously even relevant? If we want to play "define the geographical area", isn't it far, far better to describe Celtic as as "within Britain", rather than "outwith some other places you may not fully understand"? Did you know that Celtic were the first team to win the European Cup with a manager called Jock? Yet another first. Do we state this, or list the names of the managers of previous teams, cos not everyone will know them? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than delve into the realms of sarcastic, hypothetical fantasies. Why don't we just stick with what the sources say? Adam4267 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was illustrating just how ridiculous these attempts to create "firsts out of nothing" appear. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

EscapeOrbit - Why not just put Celtic were the first and only Scottish team to win the European Cup if that is the case. I've seen statements similar to "first team outside of Italy, Spain and Portugal" many times on wikipedia and elsewhere. Saying that rather than British highlights the fact that Celtic won the European cup before German, Dutch, French, Russian etc. etc. teams. It's actually a far more accurate statement giving more education on the team. And it's pretty clear what the first team outside of Italy Spain and Portugal means. Anyone looking for a reference to that need only look up the champions league website for confirmation that Celtic were in fact that. I don't know the rules and guidelines for sources etc. or I would do it myself. The last few times I've put references in they've been removed.88.104.197.62 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In 1967, Celtic became the first British team, and only Scottish team, to win the European Cup. Already in article and reliably sourced. Celtic thus became the first British team, and the first from outside Spain, Portugal and Italy to win the competition. Already in article, unfortunately not sourced at all. Perhaps we should be discussing finding reliable sources to back this statement up. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article which is already on the page and the Celtic website. Adam4267 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Celtic's own website is not considered a reliable source for Celtic's achievements. --John (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with it not being reliable. Yes its primary so a secondary source would be better but it is reliable. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted of course, but policy disagrees with you. For anything beyond the barest factual details, we rely on secondary sources; can you imagine if fans were allowed to source opinion about Simple Minds to the band's own website? I loved that band, but we use reviews from NME and the like to source opinion about them, not their own published opinion. --John (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC article already provided is fine. Adam4267 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't use the secondary source if its available then we should just that the club one is reliable on this case and that if the secondary isnt available which it isnt always then there is no harm in using it rather than leaving un sourced. Also there is no harm in both sources being there to back up the point given. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The champions league website could be used as a neutral source. It clearly shows that Celtic were the first team outside of Italy, Spain and Portugal to win the European cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)