Jump to content

Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Sectarianism

The first Old Firm match was won by Celtic and there have been nearly four hundred matches played to date. The Old Firm rivalry has fuelled many assaults and many deaths on Old Firm derby days; an activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, admissions to hospital emergency rooms have increased ninefold over normal levels[citation needed] and journalist Franklin Foer noted that in the period from 1996 to 2003, eight deaths in Glasgow were directly linked to Old Firm matches, as well as hundreds of assaults.[91] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daymac786 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA probe over 'hate songs'

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3931165/Celtic-UEFA-probe-over-hate-songs.html I thought I would bring this up here before attempting to add this information to the page. I know the Old Firm pages can lead to heated exchanges. --BadSynergy (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we wait and see the outcome of the probe and then decide whether to add anything to the page or not. Adam4267 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I have been informed before Adam that the most up to date information should be included in wikipedia. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Treading a fine line here, with regards to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The tabloids are being their usual selfs and having a field day with this before anything is actually handed towards Celtic. The complaint was made by an ex-police officer not any kind of UEFA or FARE representative that was present, so that lends even less credibility to this story; but, UEFA still need to follow it up with an investigation. Wait until a decision has been reached, if the fans are found guilty, put it in the "Sectarianism in Glasgow" article or something. Also, the complaint is against a chant about a player (namely "Paddy McCourt's F***** Army") not exactly a "hate song". --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a classic example of double standards on wikipedia. I repeat the most up to date information goes into the article. That is not acting like a newspaper. A similar situation happened with celtics old firm rivals rangers last year where by 'the most up to date info went into the article'. Your argument about including such information in the "Sectarianism in Glasgow" article has some weight. But until there is an agreement on both articles then i dont know how you can argue that.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
the complaint was made by a current police officer. This has occurred in plenty of matches not just in this one. The bare facts should be mentioned without the media spin. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in the article, however is it not better to wait and see the outcome. If Celtic are not given into trouble then it is really not meritious of being in this article. If they are then we can add it in, with the full version of events once that happens. Adam4267 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Managers

Wim Jansen was manger for only 1 year entry in managers section is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.216.214 (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Celtic F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

User:Haldraper performed a bit of a tidy on the lead sentence, which was reverted. I am in agreement with what was done. Specifically;

  • "based in the Parkhead area of Glasgow". The district of Parkhead means absolutely nothing to most readers, so telling them this in the lead leave them any the wiser. Nor is it particularly relevant that Celtic are based here, rather than in any other part of Glasgow. But mention of it in the lead implies that it is. What is far, far more significant and informative is that they are based in Glasgow. So the detail about Parkhead is largely irrelevant, distracting and should be removed.
  • "currently plays in the Scottish Premier League". "currently" here is completely superfluous verbiage that doesn't tell the reader anything useful. Time relative references should be avoided in Wikipedia. The reader does not know when "currently" was written, so does not know if this is still accurate. It could also be inferred that this status is in a state of change, or liable to. It would be better if this simply said "plays in the Scottish Premier League". Should this fact ever change I'm sure it will promptly be updated.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the based in Parkhead bit which i specifically object to being removed. Its informative Glasgow is fairly big and it identifies the clubs location. Whether it means anything isn't the point we are an encyclopaedia its easily referenced and it links to the article to tell people where parkhead is. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between telling the reader everything, and telling them detail up front before other far more important information. Frankly I doubt most readers give two hoots which part of Glasgow Celtic are based in and will skip over this in search of something more informative. It's simply not that important and could easily be left to later. But if it must be there, then can it not be abbreviated to "Parkhead, Glasgow"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"Together with their Glasgow rivals Rangers, they form the Old Firm, one of the most famous and fierce rivalries in sport. The club's traditional playing colours are green and white hooped shirts with white shorts and white socks."
The first part of the section above is both unsourced and not required in the lead. Why not just state "Celtic have a fierce rivalry with their cross-city opponents Celtic; the two are collectively known as the Old Firm" The old firm article and other areas of the Celtic article have the details.
The second part is dubious because it shows the clubs colours in the info box with further details in the article.
"were all born within a 30-mile radius of Parkhead." Extra information stated in detail in the main body of the article.
"An estimated 80,000 Celtic supporters travelled to Seville for the occasion. Celtic fans received awards from UEFA and FIFA for their behaviour at the match. In April 2003 the club was estimated to have a fan base of nine million people, including one million in North America."
First part of above is undue for the lead to include how many fans travelled to a one off game. Explained in extensive detail in main body and the celtic fc supporters article. Same with award, what relevance does this have above others, suitable for match article, main body and supporters article. Second part about the nine million fans is seriously outdated and questionable to its factuality. Suitable for the main body as a statement of that time period and supporters article. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{editconflict)Celtic is (should it not be are?) a Scottish football club based in Parkhead, Glasgow. They compete at the highest level of football in Scotland, the Scottish Premier League, and have done so since top level football was established in 1890.
My proposal for a better introductory segment. I personally think the whole lead needs a re-write, it reads sort of like an advertisement and does not comply with MOS:LEAD. Adam4267 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Im really not bothered in which way or form Parkhead is mentioned but it should be there.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Adam4267's proposal above is good, can we do this?
The whole is/are thing is complex, but usually hangs on whether you are talking about the club (singular "is") or the team (plural "are"). In this case it's singular because it goes on to say "football club". In the article you link to it uses 'are' because Lawwell is including himself in "We". If he had talked about "Celtic football club" he would have said "is in decent shape". He wouldn't say "Celtic football club are in decent shape". A commentator, however, may say "Celtic are in decent shape" when talking about the team during a game. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about the sectarian/republican association

Other than the name is there a reason why republicans are fans of a Scottish football club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.142.99 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Change of Club crest image to 125th Anniversary from current crest.

Just a suggestion to change the club crest used on the page to the specially designed 125th anniversary crest for this season.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4756/celtic125th.png

That is the .png image available there.


ChrisBhoy67 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Edit request on 2 August 2012

Morten Rasmussen needs to be removed from the squad list.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/113319-morten-rasmussen-leaves-celtic-to-sign-for-fc-midtjylland-in-denmark/

Thanks, i have removed him from the list. In future if you create a new section, please put it at the bottom of the talk page as it makes it easier for people to notice. Also you may want to use the Edit Request template explained on this page which will ensure more people notice your request. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Old Firm and liquidation of Rangers

Think the article should now be updated to say Celtic 'had' a fierce rivalry with Rangers and not has as Rangers FC where liquidated and as of yet no rivalry with Charles Green's 'The Rangers' has been established and its still debatable whether the fans of Celtic will view the new club as rivals, they certainly dont regard them as the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.64.100 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2012

There are two issues with the section entitled "Irish republicanism".

  1. 1:

"Some groups of Celtic fans express their support for Irish republicanism and the Irish Republican Army by singing or chanting about them at matches.[54][55] Although offensive..." Edit request: remove "Although offensive"

Reason: "Although offensive" with neither the implied consensus, nor reference to any group that it is claimed are offended, remains a unfounded opinion. The term as phrased is applied equally to Irish Republicanism and the Irish Republican Army. I am sure the vast majority of the world do not find the existence of Ireland as an independant state "offensive", which was down to Irish Republicanism, which in turn would not have happened without the Irish Republican Army. From the historic perspective of those songs, they are no more offensive than a song sung or tale told by a British Jewish or Indian citizen about their recent ancestors struggle for freedom from colonialism. Non factual and frankly, worrying.

  1. 2:

Celtic fans have also been known to chant in support of the Provosional IRA [62][63] and prominent republican figures and prisoners.[64] Edit request: change "Provosional" to "Provisional"

Reason: Conflates the nickname "Provos" with "Provisional"... non factual.

Hammerhead Hal (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first bit and have amended it to IRA chanting has been described as being offensive but not sectarian by various people and journalists. Obviously various people and journalists isn't a very good descriptor but that's a technical issue.
As for the second part it really shouldn't be in the article at all. Adam4267 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This page to me already reeks of fan bias and the above changes push that even further with the removal of their being anything offensive about such chanting. I'll have to dig up many sources from news sources with headlines such as "IRA shame of celtic fans" etc... this view that the chanting and singing in support fo the republican army is akin to singing 'flower of scotland' is an arguement only ever put forward by celtic fans, when the mainstream media regularly codemn such chanting as being in support of terrorist groups. As Wikipedia editors it's not yoru place to try to justify such chants, but instead give an accurate reflection is what is being reported by sources. I also have an issue with this part of the 'poppy' section "....which is a divisive symbol in Ireland". This is offered as an explanation or justification for the controversial banner which is widely codemned. But Celtic are not IN ireland, and it seems to me to be 'guess work' as to the motives behind such a banner. A better explanation would be to go into more detail about a section within the Celtic supports hatred for the soveirgn state of the united kingdom & britain, and the british army. This would give a more detailed explanation and engulf more instances, such as the booing of the troops on several occasions at football grounds, etc... Ricky072 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you try actually reading the section. Make sure you take in what it says - then come back an offer a reasonable opinion. Adam4267 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

William Collum

The source does not state Celtic fans were responsible for this. It could of been either of the clubs and not proven even then. Its relevant to William Collum or Sectarianism in Glasgow but not specifically Rangers or Celtic unless another source says otherwise.Blethering Scot 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "7 million Japanese fans" line

Should it not be made clear that the source of this research, Sports Revolution, had a business relationship with Celtic at the time, thus potential for a clear conflict of interest? Unless this is made clear, I think the line should be removed. After all, as a 'client' of Celtic, any financial benefit gained from inflated customer base figures (from sponsorship deals etc) could in turn benefit Sports Revolution with more 'business' from Celtic? Gefetane (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

no mention of child abuse scandal Theceltictruth (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your example and an edit request needs to state exactly what should be changed, you are welcome to draft a section yourself. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Celtic are based in the east end of Glasgow is of particular significance given the reason for its formation. The Irish immigrants that the money from Celtic's games was to go towards were largely (although not exclusively) based in that part of Glasgow and it was this group of people, and there plight, that led, in the first instance, to the formation of Celtic FC. For this reason, the mention of the area of Glasgow in which Celtic are based is of huge significance. Attakkdog (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Old Firm

Have to update this section. The rangers football club Celtic played their first match against ceased to be on 14 Jun 12, and the team to whom their SFA licence was transferred are in the third division, so are hardly their rivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.109.237 (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alec McNair

Hasn't Alec McNair got over 600 appearances for Celtic, and should be on the list? Any references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.251.34 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How many hoops?

Anyone got the official number of green and white hoops, with references? -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do Celtic...

...have a name in Scots Gaelic? If so...you get the rest. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

I would like to add Celtic's third kit.

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. If you want to add it yourself, you can also wait until you are autoconfirmed, or request to be manually confirmed. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 21:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Done There, sorta... VEOonefive 22:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Player records

UEFA claims that Alec McNair has the most appearances (604) and that McGrory's goal record was 397 not 468 as the current page claims. Seeing as this section needs sources has anyone got any other reliable sources? BadSynergy (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Second most succesful team

Celtic ARE the second most succesful team in scotland. Go and look at the facts etc. I believe this to be a good addition to the page as this is a decent acheivement considering their is about 60 teams in scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well even without mentioning Rangers F.C they are still the second most succesful team in Scotland and is worth a mention as it is factual information and thats what wikipedia is, FACTUAL INFO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are wrong in what Wikipedia is. What Wikipedia is is VERIFIABLE INFO. If you can produce a reliable source that says this it can be considered. Otherwise, mentioning that they are the "second", without any explanation of who is first, is not only undue emphasis, but unhelpful teasing of the reader. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are sources http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/scotland and http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s13_2 and here is one with the full list that you can clearly see that celtic are the second most successful club in scotland http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/scotchamp.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The aboutaball ranking is based on some scoring system they devised themselves. So not authoritative, and certainly not enough for it to be in the lead. The scotprem site says nothing about anyone being first or second, that's just your interpretation of the stats on it. The rsssf site merely lists championships, who decided they were the only guide to "success"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

on the scots prem side it clearly states "Rangers can claim to be the most successful club in Scotland, with over 100 domestic league and cup wins to their name". And i believe celtic are second to this unless another team has won more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See my previous comment about your interpretation of the website. Are you going to go through the rest of the clubs in Scotland and work out where they place too, or is it just Celtic that you are interested in doing this for? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By total trophy count alone i agree, Celtic is the "second most successful club in scotland" its fact as the history of rangers, celtic and hearts show, To not state this is not right, To be second best is an achievement considering how many teams are in the scottish leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by XME86 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting that Celtic are "second best" or "second most successful" is a sly dig by Rangers fans so they can have a wee chuckle to themselves and stroke an inflated ego. The methods used to measure the Gers' claim to being the "most successful club in the world" are all relative, and would no doubt be fairly disputed by the European heavy-hitters like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Milan etc. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Pacific shelf 595

Why is there no mention of pacific shelf 595 on the history section as it is apart of the history of The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd

Celtic fc -> pacific shelf 595 -> The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by XME86 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2013 (GMT)

The company that was once known as "Pacific Shelf 595" is now a subsidiary of the main corporate body that is Celtic PLC, therefore it is included. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So it may be! but the wording is not on the article. therefore it is misleading of the truth of The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by XME86 (talk • contribs)

Old firm and sectarianism

These belong together; one could not exist without the other and no-one who understands Scottish football could think otherwise. There was a long-standing consensus to include a section like this on both OF teams' articles (since 2006!) and I have restored the consensus version. --John (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus changes. Where has your consensus been for the last two years while Old firm and sectarianism has had separate sections on this article? Talk of an consensus in 2006 is merely of historical interest. Please change this back to the existing consensus that has existed for some while.
The "Old Firm" is just an expression for what is primarily a footballing rivalry. Yes, unfortunately, The Old Firm has an unpleasant dimension of sectarianism. But interweaving them in this way is to put forward the opinion that they are inevitably bound together and one is essential to the other. Are you saying the Old Firm can't exist without sectarianism? It's an interesting opinion, but not neutral and not sourced. Did the New Firm need sectarianism?. Does El Clásico? If not,then what makes it essential for Celtic vs Rangers rivalry? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
All good questions. I suggest doing some reading on the subject. All will become clear. --John (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to decline to discuss your edit, or defend it, or explain it, then I shall revert it. The onus is one you to demonstrate this "long standing" consensus that has been conspicuously absent for the last two years. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you know anything at all about Scottish football? If you're going to demand an education in the history of the subject, I think it falls to you to let me know just how low a point you are starting from. --John (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What I know of Scottish Football is totally irrelevant and not the issue. What you can demonstrate is. Where is this consensus you claim? What is its basis? Why is it absent from the Rangers article (despite your claim it applies to both). What makes you think a supposed consensus from 2006 over-rides the status quo that has existed for the last two years? If you wish to change the article the onus is on you to back up your claims. Frankly I'm amazed this needs explained to a sysop. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue of whether consensus exists/existed or when. It's an issue of which way is better. One section is appropriate in this article, because the serious printed sources that deal with the old firm rivalry in depth generally do so alongside sectarianism, for good reason. FWIW, there was never a strong consensus established for the two sections version - no discussion here, not even an edit summary when Adam 4267 made the split in August 2011. If I had been paying attention, I would have definitely reverted it at the time. --hippo43 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussing it "alongside" is a bit different from heading them together. Clearly they are both subjects significant to Celtic, but to treat them as if they are different sides of the same coin is unwarranted. The term "Old Firm" is merely a reference to a long standing footballing rivalry. It is not reliant on sectarianism, and when sources talk of "The Old Firm" they do not do it as a shorthand for "sectarian divisions". They're talking about a football rivalry between the two biggest football clubs in Scotland.
I'm happy to discuss and reach a consensus, but John's attitude has been lamentable. It isn't ok is to explain reverting a revert based on a consensus that doesn't exist and never existed, and then insist it's a question of he who knows most and he who knows best, end of discussion. If he made a mistake, and believed he was reverting to a standing consensus, then he should just say so. We all make mistakes, it happens, no-one will think any less of him. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, when I said 'alongside', I meant 'as part of the same broader subject'. I think the two topics are a lot more linked than you have made out, and the serious sources (IMO) do generally treat them as two sides of the same coin. Also, what people mean by 'the Old Firm' varies a great deal. To assert that it is only a footballing rivalry without the sectarian dimension is just not true.
I can't answer for John, but in my experience his instincts have always been good. There was stability for a long time, with just one section included. Since it was changed, I don't think consensus for the two-section version has been strong, as it hasn't even been tested in discussion. I just don't think arguing about consensus is the way to fix this. The best way to treat the subject seems clear to me. --hippo43 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted this change as WP:CONSENSUS is for the current version. It should remain that way until a new consensus is achieved. John, It seems you don't understand how consensus works so try reading that page to get a greater understanding. Specifically, WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Also remember it's not about your WP:OPINION. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted to one section. It's clear how serious sources treat this, and there was never any discussion about splitting the section. If there is a serious discussion to be had about the issue, let's have it, but please let's not get bogged down in arguments about the process. --hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a discussion to create a consensus. The fact that something remained unchallenged for 2 years means it is accepted as consensus according to WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you want to change it this is the place to talk about it. But it should remain with the accepted version until a new consensus is reached. Please revert your change. Adam4267 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No. The current version is better and should stay. There was a long period of consensus for 1 section, then a shorter consensus for 2 sections, without any debate, disagreement or discussion. In other words, neither version was ever considered contentious enough to discuss. Apathy is not a good reason to insist on one version over another. While WP:CON is a policy and is normally worth following, this is an example of when we should use common sense and ignore a rule.
As far as I can see, you made the change. You didn't discuss it, or even offer an explanation in an edit summary. As I said above, I would have reverted it at the time, so please consider this the R of BRD. If you want to discuss the issue itself, let us know your thoughts. --hippo43 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok I am going to take this up elsewhere unless you revert your change. You are clearly breaking the rules with no good reason and I'm not going to discuss this until you follow the rules. Adam4267 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've explained clearly why this version is better. You were bold, now you have been reverted, but you don't want to discuss it. Is the best argument you can make for your preferred version really a procedural one? --hippo43 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It really becomes disheartening when experienced editors try pulling this trick of who edited first and who reverted. This section remained undisturbed for two years. John was bold two weeks ago and edited it (claiming a prior consensus from 7 years ago). It is ridiculous to consider this any kind of revert after 2 years. I reverted John's edit because I did not agree (and furthermore the consensus claimed simply never existed). Further reverting without consensus is clearly edit warring and is exactly what hippo43, and John have been guilty of. Their defence of this, if there is ever any defence for edit warring, amounts to "We think it's better and we know best". I don't think this is any kind of reason. Playing games with whose edit was the R in BRD helps no-one and suggests to me you have no conviction in your own argument. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message here to notify other users. As I said before I don't wish to discuss the content of the article until you follow Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not making an argument simply asking you to follow rules. Adam4267 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Having come here via that link, my 2p's worth is that the sections should be combined - the sectarian element is inextricably linked with the Old Firm rivalry. Number 57 10:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
By that logic, the Old Firm could not and can not exist without sectarianism. Is your argument that the two biggest clubs in Scotland could not have established any kind of local derby rivalry, were it not for sectarianism? And if we were ever fortunate enough to be rid of sectarianism, then the Old Firm would wither with it? That's a desperately sad conclusion to reach about sport in Scotland.
No-one is saying sectarianism wasn't a facet of the society the Old Firm were part of, but it wasn't what made the Old Firm and doesn't deserve equal billing in the heading. Imagine there's no religion; Celtic and Rangers would still have been derby rivals, would still have played against each other, and would have still been called the "Old Firm". Sectarianism not required. It's like saying WWII is inextricably linked to England vs Germany games. Yes, in the heads of some idiots its relevant, but it has nothing to do with a football match. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. You really ought to do yourself a favour and do some basic reading on the history of sectarianism in Scotland and its links to the Old Firm. The comparison with WW2 is particularly and almost embarrassingly inane. --John (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
And once again John declines to discuss and retreats to a haughty position of "I know better". Why don't you try defending your edit instead of questioning my knowledge? (Just so it's clear, as you are having difficulty following, I didn't compare anything with WW2, I compared the relevance of WW2. Not a perfect comparison, I admit, but I hoped the similarities might help.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting discussion whether or not there should be one section or two separate section with both sides of the discussion having merits in their own right. I was wondering though why everyone here is discussing this "Old Firm" which has no relevance to either Celtic or Rangers as they are collectively regarded as the "Auld Firm". It's even more curious given that there is also a discussion of whether either of these terms are relevant considering that the old/auld Rangers no longer exist under Scots Law. Why not acknowledge its proper usage of auld as not only is it a proper Scots word, it is also a word listed in all major English dictionaries (possibly due to what could be argued as the most well known song in the world, Auld Lang Syne)? Oh also, could someone correct the Capacity title in the box that appears at the top right of the page as it is offset from the other titles by one or two spaces? TheClaymoreClan (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jock Stein was never offered a seat on celtic fc's board, as he wasn't roman catholic, a position celtic have held since their inception. He was only offered to run the celtic pools, which he refused to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.72.84 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Page for Holmbert Aron Fridjonsson should be linked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmbert_Fridjonsson Kevbhoy1888 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. He didn't have an article when his name was added. Plus, his own article needs some cleaning up too. --Connelly90 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 12:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism

Celtic's early committee helped forge the club's Irish Republican political identity through founding member Michael Davitt, this remains on the terraces today. [1][2]

Jameeyyy (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm finding about Davitt and Celtic (Wikis, ironically, aren't encouraged as reliable sources) is that he lay the sod at the centre circle at the opening of the old Celtic Park; something which belongs (and is included) on the article for Davitt. I think the way the article is currently set out explains Celtic's republican leanings adequately. --Connelly90 09:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Richard rhodes (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

Given the history of the Irish connection to Celtic I think the article on Celtic F.C. should be added to the category page "Category:Irish diaspora in Scotland" as Hibernian F.C. has already been added to "Category:Irish diaspora in Scotland". Peadar Ó Croidheáin (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Given how often Celtic FC are mentioned in Irish diaspora, and the fact that they are already in Category:Diaspora sports clubs, that seems reasonable. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

82.160.170.134 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Not fairplay team

Not done: That appears to be a PoV rather than a fact based on a reliable source
I note your IP is based in Poland, so suspect this relates to the Legia Warsaw dispute? - Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ownership

Owner of Celtic F.C is not Celtic PLC its is "The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd" here[3] and here[4] and here[5]

Erm, "no", "no" and "no"!

Uh, I think we delete this nonsense from this page, particulary as the account of the clown who posted it has long since being blocked for trolling elsewhere - and was probably the same idiot who tried to rename Celtic "Celtic AFC" a few weeks ago :) ShugSty (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The owner of Celtic FC is Celtic plc, not the Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd. Source here: http://www.celticfc.net/pages/corporate

Celtic football and atheltic club is an inactive subsidiary created in 1994 to hold our old name after Celtic became a Plc.

this is a misleading link by put by somebody who is a fan of a rival club who are three years old, trying to muddy the waters with their previous clubs liquidation. Can somebody please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.191.206.50 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Influence on other clubs

Donegal Celtic, currently playing in the NIFL Championship 1, was established in 1970, with the Celtic part being taken on due to the massive local following for Scotland's Celtic and formerly Belfast Celtic. The club plays in the same stadium Belfast Celtic did, Celtic Park in Belfast.

This information is incorrect. Belfast Celtic's stadium has been knocked down and been replaced by a shopping centre named "The Park Centre" (after the old Celtic Park) and houses The Belfast Celtic Museum. Donegal Celtic's pitch is in another area of West Belfast (The Suffolk Road)

NiallMcCann (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)NiallMcCann

 Done - although you haven't cited a reliable source for your request, the statement in the article was unsourced, so I have assumed good faith - Arjayay (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shuna Bar

http://www.rosecarr.co.uk/cassie7.html According to this account the idea of Celtic Football club was first mooted by people who went on to found the club in The Shuna Bar. Is this correct ? If so, is it worth adding to the article as a bit of colour. 86.135.11.20 (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Change Jozo Simunovic nationality to Bosnian.

Source: http://www.blic.rs/vesti/republika-srpska/zvanicna-potvrda-jozo-simunovic-moze-igrati-za-bih/qeewc39 https://www.slobodna-bosna.ba/vijest/56906/upoznajte_novog_zmaja_simunovic_ima_sve_odlike_elitnog_igracha_video.html https://www.vecernji.hr/sport/bivsi-reprezentativac-hrvatske-jozo-simunovic-dobio-pravo-nastupa-za-bih-1184772 2601:681:4500:87D6:29D8:457D:170F:7E04 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are reliable sources on Simunovic's page that contradict the sources you provided, and the fact that the person also plays for the Croatia national team is enough to prove his nativity to Croatia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Trivia about the name and crest.

The cross-shaped four leaf clover appears here and in other similar places because of a conscious effort by the clergy to move away from the triskel-shaped shamrock. There's various pieces of monk-edited folklore about the shamrock signiifying the holy trinity and whatnot, but it's really the Irish symbol because it's triskel-shaped. Old Irish Christianity had a heavy pagan influence, and there were conscious efforts to remove it over the centuries and up to modern times. I don't know if those who care a lot about the entry think it's worth entering this info, but I think it would add to the article.

"Celt" is mispronounced "Seilt" in Irish. This is because no Irish person ever called themselves this until someone else told us that's what we were. Someone who had read it written down in Latin but but not heard the word spoken out loud. Probably a clergyman. The word appears in its earliest form as "Keltoi" in Greek writing, about people very far away from Ireland. This is why Celtic FC's name is pronounced the way it is.

Note: This all applies to the Boston team too, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.18 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Celtic was founded in1888 hence the numbers on the club badge 91.125.53.141 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

CHANGE Neil Lennon (INTERIM) TO Neil Lennon 77.164.67.55 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

☒N Not done. He has been offered position, but no official acceptance or appointment as yet. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Pedophile investigation

I think if we are going to keep to facts on Wikipedia we should add a section regarding the investigation of paedophilia regarding the club Uptomykneespatt (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Its a fair point, as long as adequately sourced and given due neutrality and weight, ie a passing mention (there is already an article on the overall scandal across the UK and one on the Big Jock Knew song which references the Jim Torbett aspect, so those can be linked rather than a lot of detail in the main article), also not sure where it should go. Crowsus (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Original purpose

Introduction: The article says Celtic was founded to alleviate poverty in Glasgow's East End. This is fine if that was indeed the stated original purpose of the club, i.e. to distribute money to poor people, however it's more likely the intention was to alleviate the effects of poverty. I know this is nit-picking, but I think it would make it clearer. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donal O'Dowd (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

Celtic have made Eddie Howe as their first choice manager Eddie Howe2 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Dominic McKay is the new CEO for Celtic FC. The Celtic FC wiki page still lists Peter Lawwell as the CEO. 2A01:4C8:1426:CE87:C59F:87F3:238:9262 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Dom McKay is already listed as Cheif Executive at Celtic F.C.#Board of directors. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"One of the dice clubs with more than 100 trophies"

"Celtic are one of only five clubs in the world (which also includes their rivals Rangers) to have won over 100 trophies in their history."

This is wrong. Many brazilian clubs have more than 100 trophies won by their major team playing state tournaments in the first half of the year and national in the second one.

Some sources to help yo understand this

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/club/futebol-brasil/205/blog/post/2357493/historical-brazil-state-championships-a-drag-on-rest-of-league-season

https://www.torcedores.com/noticias/2018/01/saiba-quantos-titulos-o-flamengo-tem-no-total/amp

Angel Millo (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are comparing what different sources say to reach this conclusion. This is called Original Synthesis and is not permitted on Wikipedia. If the source currently in use is wrong, you need another, better, source that replaces it. Neither of the links you've given above say anything about Celtic, or rank teams by number of trophies won, so cannot be used to verify or refute anything on this article. At a guess, I'd suggest that "state tournaments" aren't counted. But I don't know why, and neither do you. This is why original synthesis is not permitted. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
For instance. I don't think the figure given includes Glasgow Cup wins. If you want to count "state tournaments", then why not include these for Celtic? That would give them an additional 29. It all depends on what counts as a "trophy", and Wikipedia editors can't start picking and choosing, and adding up numbers from multiple sources. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't know why Glasgow Cups are not being counted. But the first sentence talk about "trophies" and that means every kind of trophies and not only trophies won by the major team nor official although that is what the writter wanted to talk and what we are talking about so that is an error in the redaction. I don't know how Glasgow Cup was disputed but in Brazil the "estaduais" are played in the first 3 months of the regular seasson of the year and national tournaments in the other 6 or 7 and depending on "estaduais" and CBF Ranking the clubs play or not the "Copa do Brasil" (domestic cup tournament of the country) and start that competition earlier. The case is that we are talking about Celtic and comparing it with other clubs and we have a source that does but with missing information; the source says that Celtic is one of the few clubs in the world with more that 100 official trophies won by the major team and that's correct BUT skips many many clubs and put only Rangers, Al Ahly, Nacional and Peñarol ahead of Celtic. Linfield from the Ulster has more titles (counting only national and international titles) than all of this clubs and is not included and if I check their honours in it's official site they will not do a list comparing their honours with Celtic or Al-Ahly. I don't need a source that list clubs to know that Linfield has more trophies that Celtic because with only checking their honours I can see that. So Celtic is one of few clubs with more than 100 "trophies" but talking about if it's the fourth or fifth isn't accurate nor necessary because we don't know and it's better to avoid that controversy instead of giving false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Millo (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why one would disregard Brazilian State Championships from counting as trophies. In fact, they seem superior to the Scottish Premiership in many regards. First, Scotland is, like Brazilian states, not a country, but a sub-national entity (in this case, within UK, at least until a new ref). In both territory and population, Scotland pales in contrast to Brazilian States. In the case of competitiveness of the Championship as well. Only two teams amass an absurd amount of wins, similar to the situation in the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul, but not in more competitive States like São Paulo, where at least 4 clubs have a decent chance of winning, and even other clubs have won this century (Last time any other team won Scotland was the 1980's).S1944 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Celtic Symphony (Wolfe Tones song)

This song has become notable. Anyone any insights? Bogger (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

On the Celtic fc Wikipedia they mention Celtic have won the Scottish premiership 52 times which now is false as it’s 53 now 82.22.223.103 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article contain the termInals Firm

This term has no place in an article about Celtic and should be deleted. 2A02:C7C:D28B:A800:C1A1:7DC:D927:9555 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC) they are the second best in Scotland by a mile and there rivals rangers fc are the best in the country winning the most league titles and domestic cups

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Change Ange Postecoglou to Bobo Balde 146.191.13.207 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Apparently he joked that he would take the job, but this has not come to fruition. small jars tc 21:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Current champions 2022/23

Lemans0 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/Michael+Davitt+%28Patron%29
  2. ^ http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/Ireland,+Politics+and+Passion
  3. ^ http://www.192.com/atoz/business/glasgow-g40/sports-clubs/the-celtic-football-athletic-company-ltd/5a4d346b8fbba082157115b20cea084d8f7d5828/comp/
  4. ^ companycheck.co.uk/company/SC153534
  5. ^ http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-celtic-football-and-athletic-company
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_F.C./Archive_6&oldid=1227218323"