Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sectarian comments of general sectretary of Celtic Supporters Association

Why is a high profile example of sectarianism by the general secretary of the Celtic Supporters Association, Joe O' Rourke, not deemed suitable for this article entitled "Celtic Supporters", within a sub-section entitled "sectarianism"? It is multiply attested by independant sources, national media organisations, and involves the behaviour of probably the most active and regular spokesperson for Celtic supporters in the media. Unless this page is essentially a cheer-leading advertisement for a football club in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION, rather than a genuine attempt at a neutral source of relevant information based on verifiable sources, can someone explain why this cited content should be censored from this page?Gefetane (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane. If you look at this talk page you will see the editor in question was banned from wikipedia at one stage, essentially for trying to turn this page into a pro-Celtic homage. 220.255.1.50 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Getafane, please read WP:NPF. If you still feel the information should be in article I suggest you take it to WP:FOOTY as it's unlikely we'll agree. Just in case you're not aware, WP:BRD is the process generally followed in content disputes. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The process generally followed in content disputes is that the editor who reverts added content does so with sufficient justification WP:EXPREV as opposed to merely providing a link to a policy with no explanation of its' relevance to the reverts WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Twice now you have reverted content without sufficient justification. I would suggest you reconsider your approach, or consider justifying your position within this discussion page, to avoid running risk of Wikipedia editing policy (Wikipedia:3RR).Gefetane (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Given you have reverted equally to your prefered version I suggest you read those policies as well. Also given this is a neutral encyclopaedia I.e. we don't give undue weight to criticism Adam is partly correct in that this gives it undue weight which is non encyclopaedic. Whilst we can mention it we should not push a particular pov and in reality that's what we are doing by giving it undue weight. Edit warring of late particularly since Rangers Liqudation is getting out of hand and frankly it won't be put up with anyone breaching 3rr which neither of you have yet will be reported for edit warring. Blethering Scot 09:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Adam has not justified any of the reverts he has carried out, 3 of which were enacted with only very vague explanation of one. This is clearly in violation of WP:EXPREV. Quoting a policy and saying "please read" is not justification WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Can you explain what is being given "undue weight"? The most prominent spokesperson and general secretary of the association of Celtic supporters made controversial sectarian comments and this was referenced in 3 independent reliable sources. If high profile, well cited, examples of "sectarianism" by Celtic Supporters of prominence is to be censored, could it not be equally argued that "undue weight" is placed on the positive behaviour of Celtic Supporters, which is not in dispute.Gefetane (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards the fact that I have "reverted equally to [my] prefered version", as no reasoning for the removal of content revision has been provided, I have no basis by which to work towards a potential consensus version of the content. This is why Wikipedia demands reverting of added content is explained, to enable a discussion to be occur if relevant.Gefetane (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter edit warring is edit warring unless it's vandalism and Adams edits and yours do not fall into that category. In his first edit he stated non encyclopaedic which is a valid concern. Fair enough he never explained in subsequent edits and should of done but looking at it your both as bad each other. I also note that your having simmilar edits at the rangers page. It's not censorship if you can make it neutral and encyclopaedic whilst not breaching WP:BLP then fine, but you fail at the first step because it's not Neutral in anyway and gives undue weight to criticism I.e. not telling both sides of story. I suggest you and Adam discuss further but I disagree with ther version that you currently want. Blethering Scot 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the Rangers page you need to be very careful with a topic such as this but the principal think you need to make sure is that it's not leaning a reader towards one thing and not the other I.e. neutral, doesn't give undue weight to criticism by being non neutral and most of all when an individual is involved that it doesn't break any of the points laid out at WP:BLP. The other toss of the coin is that it shouldn't be perceived as too sanitised as that causes equal problems but as long as we don't break any of our policies then that's a side issue. As I believe John said any edits which could be considered controversial or someone has told you to discuss per bold revert should always be discussed before making major changes. Whilst that discussion is taking place it's best to let it lie rather than revert anyone and wait for a consensus to emerge. Hopefully you can work this out but you do need to change the wording somewhat. Blethering Scot 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is all very well outlining righteous principles that we can all agree with, but if an editor is not willing to explain how specific content is in violation of the principles - case in point, the reverting editor simply saying "not encyclopedic" - how can the matter be addressed? I refer you to WP:Unencyclopedic, which echos my position exactly...

""Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?"

Similarly, I am slightly dissatisfied with you implying that my content was not neutral and only provided one side of the story, but without explaining how. The figurehead of the Celtic Supporters Association tweeted that it was a "problem" Protestants weren't victims of the Titantic disaster, caused controversy, was spoken to my Police, and subsequently apologised - what is the "other side of the story" that I'm missing? If it is there, perhaps you can explain it and - even better - reference it with independent sources.Gefetane (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part you don't get. Unencyclopedic doesn't nessesarily mean that it shouldn't be included it also means cover not written in an encyclopaedic way or irrelevant to the entry. Comments on the titanic disaster are no way relevant to celtic. He was not speaking in his a capacity as leader of the Celtic supporters club it was his statement. It is wholely irrelevant to Celtic. If you want to create an article on him then go ahead as it was his comment personal comment not celtics although fairly certain wont pass BLP. Blethering Scot 09:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if we don't understand a neutral point of view or that any article that mentions a living person is also subject to BLP then that's a rather big issue. Context of what a person says and whether it is relevant is also an issue. Personal comments and those associated with a body are different for instance Ross county's mascot was arested for something he did but that's not related to his job as a mascot, therfore its not relevant to the Ross county article. At the moment im with Adam that this in curent state should not be there. I've got an issue here in that your toning down the Rangers page but toning up the Celtic page which is why I'm going to ask you of there is a conflict of interest there. It should be noted in not a celtic fan and my personal opinion is that Celtic fans are the worse for it but that doesn't mean it shoudnt be covered appropriately meeting all guidelines. Blethering Scot 09:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate criticisms being fleshed out - for the first time. I can now respond...

• I agree innocent comments on the titantic disaster are not relevant, but clearly it was the sectarian nature of the comments, that you neglect to mention, that caused sufficient controversy for (at least) the three referenced national news articles to cover the matter. It could have been a rail disaster, plane disaster whatever, it is the explicitly sectarian content that makes the matter of relevance to a section entitled "sectarianism".
• You're point that this is not of direct relevance to Celtic FC is a red herring, because this has not been added to the Celtic FC article. This is the "Celtic Supporters" article. The pertinent question is whether the public actions (Twitter is a public space for communication, not a private one) of the most prominent individual representing, the most high profile public spokesman of, the Association of Celtic Supporters is of sufficient relevance for mention in an article about "Celtic Supporters". I would suggest yes.
• I totally refute any allegation I am "toning down" the Rangers article. I got involved when it was at the absurd stage of saying the club didn't exist. I have since contributed as fairly as anyone to improving the content, usually through condensing and rewording verbose passages, occasionally removing irrelevant content. I think personal analyses of an editor are irrelevant in comparison to the nature of what they contribute to the encyclopedia, and the extent to which they justify their contributions. Please stick to content matters, and if there is a rule that an editor cannot both edit a Rangers and a Celtic article, it is news to me.Gefetane (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This page isn't a list of naughty things that Celtic fans have done. And as BS says what someone says in their own personal life isn't really relevant. You do realise that almost all the links you have given are tothe page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which isn't really relevant. Adam4267 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No but there is policies on conflict of interest and it does appear almost like that so im not doing anything wrong by asking you. He was not acting as a Celtic fan, he was not acting as chairman of the Celtic supporters he was acting in his own twitter account of which his views are of him not as a Celtic supporter. I don't think it's relevant and I don't think it's appropriate as providing heavy criticism on a non notable BLP. I'm sorry but this section needs removed and their isn't consensus to keep eithier. This article is not criticism of individuals and unless there is proof he was acting in his role it's not relevant and is unnecessary criticism and as he is a living person and isn't justified on this article should be removed. If he has own article then maybe but would need neutrally written following BLP to the letter. Blethering Scot 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree unless it can be proven it was done as celtic thing it can be on this article best place is on article about the person if it exists--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a page about Celtic supporters - sub section sectarianism. The chairman of the Celtic Supporter's Association has done something sectarian, say reliable sources. The fact that he was using his personal twitter account is another red herring. Whether it should be included shouldn't really be up for debate - it should be about the wording220.255.1.137 (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC).

BletheringScot, A look at the page on WP:BLP that the material must adhere strictly to core policies of Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR), which the content emphatically does, unless you can point to examples to the contrary.

Secondly, I might have some sympathy with the argument that he was not commenting in his position as GS of the CSA if his comments were made within a private context. But they were not. They were made on Twitter, a public space, open to however many 100s or 1000s of public happen to be following the individual, who in this case is a high profile, public spokesman figure within the context of "Celtic Supporters" in which we are operating.

Thirdly - notability. Joe O'Rourke - as General Secretary of the CSA - is the most high profile public spokesman and leadership figure for "Celtic Supporters" (this is not strictly about "Celtic FC" remember), a group that sources estimate at numbering "9 million people" worldwide, a population equivalent to a nation state, e.g. Austria. I cannot see how you can diminish the notability of Mr O'Rourke without diminishing the notability of those for whom he is the most high profile public representative, the upwards of 9 million "Celtic Supporters".Gefetane (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice that - for the second time - a particular editor has removed content, namely that describing previously omitted consequences of the "F**K UEFA" banner, without any justification either within the revision history or this discussion page. I trust this repeated violation of Wikipedia policy will not occur again and urge other editors to be vigilant in this regard.Gefetane (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You will also notice there is three editors telling you the same thing that is shouldn't be included in the article. So you don't have WP:consensus for the addition. He isnt notable in his own right and thats pretty clear if you want to create and article on him proving independent notability however i would argue this isn't the case. The discussion is clearly against the addition.Blethering Scot 13:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually point to the area of WP:notability in question. Clearly guidelines do not limit content within an article and no one is arguing he should have an article in his own right. Clearly we have verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Could we have a bit of debate on these issues with accurate reference to wiki policies? 220.255.1.171 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't independently notable and as he was in no way acting as a celtic supporter or in his role as the chief of the celtic supporters club as me and two other users have pointed out. If he had its own article then it could be justified but he would have to be independently notable i.e. meets WP:GNG and not fall foul of any part of BLP. This article isn't about someones personal comments therefore it is overly stated criticism of a relatively unknown subject which fails WP:BLP and is out of context. Also if he is being accused of posting sectarianism comments which is a crime and was not charged or convicted when he needs to be convicted and again is a relatively unknown i.e. not notable enough then he fails another part of BLP, the latter is my interpretation the former is correct. Even without BLP it should not be included unless he acted as a celtic supporter me and two other editors have said it shouldn't be included not just on policy but on relevance therefore there isn't a consensus for inclusion. Consensus is a policy as is BLP, Aritcles such as Sectarianism in Glasgow would be more relevant but could still fail WP:BLP.Blethering Scot 15:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been warned that you are edit warring against consensus and if you revert me or and other editor again then you will be reported for edit warring given policies have been clearly stated by several editors, you will also have breached WP:3RR with one more revert. Consensus is a policy which you don't have and fails BLP as relatively unknown subject with undue weight to criticism out of context. Also could be seen as a crime which sectarianism comments are.Blethering Scot 15:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

rather than issuing threats can we stick to he arguments. WP:notability covers the subject of an article. As the policy says"The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." there are literally thousands of non notable people referenced in wiki articles. if you really have referenced wiki guidelines that you can show, directly related to the text itself, please can you show them. Thank you 220.255.1.149 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No threat I'm about to file a report on you as you have broken WP:3RR. Im sorry but WP:BLP apples to all living persons whether on an article about them or on another article. Do you not understand that WP:Consensus and WP:BLP are policies and BLP states clearly Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. As he isn't notable it does not contain material relevant to their notability. Also sectarianism is a crime and it states A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

It fails two parts of WP:BLP as he is unknown and we are accusing him of committing a crime by making sectarianism comments. Even going aside those key policies it is not relevant to the article and there is no consensus for including controversial information.Blethering Scot 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources." - that's what we have here - the material is only relevant to their notability and the Glasgow herald is clearly a reliable source. Both the event and person are notable in the context of a page on Celtic supporters sub section sectarianism. As for concencus, this was reached after a blatant piece of canvassing - [[1]] but even so I make it three on each side including big Dom. 220.255.1.60 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact even Andrew crawford describes it below the canvassing request as "fine and sourced" before bleating on about the rangers page, which should of course be treated separately. So that makes it 4-2 in favour of the edit :) 220.255.1.42 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Having joined this discussion late (and having briefly looked over the fractured arguments above) could someone detail here what inclusion is under debate? Monkeymanman (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The two, entirely seperate, bits of content are shown here. The first bit was amended slightly to this.

• The Joe O'Rourke sectarian comments matter. A discussion, regarding whether sectarian behaviour on twitter by the public representative/general secretary of the CSA (Celtic Supporters Association) is sufficiently notable for inclusion, has taken place as above.
• The "F*** UEFA" banner and club/UEFA response content, which has been reverted Six times without yet any explanation/justification within talk or edit history. I started a discussion, regarding the reverting of this content, below. Gefetane (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ill make the point once more that WP:BLP should not allow the Joe O'Rourke statement to be included, and again that as long as a bit more context is added there is not a reason why the Fuck Uefa banner should not be included. Ive already covered the BLP point many a time but given he isn't notable enough even for an article he already fails under People who are relatively unknown which relates to people who actually are notable enough for articles and given sectarianism is a crime my opinion is we are accusing him of said crime which would be another fail but that my interpretation of the latter.Blethering Scot 17:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We have to consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT when adding things like this to the article. It's not really that relevant. Adam4267 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Weight would only be relevant in my view if its out of context, which i agree in its current form it is but i feel that could be sorted so as not giving undue weight to criticism. There is a thin line between including everything and applying recentism and not including anything therefore its more and editorial consensus situation rather than a policy issue. Im not overly bothered either way so talk about it an come to a conclusion re the second point but I'm strongly against the Joe O'Rourke statement being included.Blethering Scot 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Edit warring is occurring and i have filed a WP:3RR report and asked for full page protection to allow for further discussion without edit warring taking place.Blethering Scot 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued unjustified deletion of content

I am seeking an explanation of the continued unjustified deletion of content on this article from users Blethering Scot and Adam4267. Why has content, specifically regarding the "**** UEFA" banner and subsequent UEFA fine, continuously been removed from the page without any justification, within the edit history, or the talk discussion? Before engaging so enthusiastically within the discussion above, I'd have hoped editors would have taken the time to actually view the content they were allowing to be reverted, which was NOT restricted to the matter regarding Joe O'Rourke's grotesque sectarian comment. I specifically stated above "a particular editor has removed content, namely that describing previously omitted consequences of the "F**K UEFA" banner, without any justification either within the revision history or this discussion page"... to which, for instance, Blethering Scot replied, clearly in some degree of confusion... "You don't have WP:consensus for the addition. He isnt notable in his own right and thats pretty clear".

If an editor wishes to remove content X (the o'rourke matter), he removes content X, not X and Y(the banner matter).

If you anyone had taken the time to look at the material in question, they would have realised that ZERO reason has been presented for undoing the "**** UEFA" banner information, they would have warned the editors in question about unjustified reverting, and most of all they would not have continuously reverted to its deletion themselves. I hope editors understand my frustration regarding this matter. If you go to the trouble of adding content, researching citations, in good faith, you expect the material to treated at least through due process from established wikipedia editors.Gefetane (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the user involved was edit warring and my comment referred to the talk page in which he kept referring to my comment was correct. You haven't been treated like anything by me because as far as I'm aware you weren't involved so unless you know something i don't then that point is rather mute. It should be noted that ignoring the specific policies involved led to this, every single time any user explained anything here it got ignored therefore established users who bothered to actually point things out here got rather frustrated dealing with this and given some users choose to ignore both consensus and specific wording in the BLP policy. The ip and yourself prior to that were pointed to the specific policies involved edit warring 3RR, consensus and that BLP applied to all articles not just the own subject and that subjects had to be notable and even at that had to be well known. There are other points in BLP that were relevant detailed above. It was adam that reverted re the Fuck Uefa Banner no need for the **** however when someone knows the edit is against consensus and edit wars to include it that is effectively vandalism and there is no reason why it should be picked through to pick the good out from there all i see is the ip reverting to include info against consensus i didn't specifically look to see whether you added it and given what the ip was doing i would of been reverted anyway. If you had actually asked me more politely on my talk page rather than what you did then i would of told you that i don't have any objection to the latter's inclusion as it doesn't specifically mention those involved in it, however there is far more context to that story than what has been included therefore it is out of context and isnt as neutral as it most certainly should be which is why I'm sure it was objected to. I suggest that more context is created and added then it should be fine with me but i cant speak for anyone else. John pointed out that any content that could be controversial should be discussed prior to insertion and thats exactly what should be done. I don't object to you posting on my talk page but this isn't the way to go about it.Blethering Scot 21:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction is not about the O'Rourke stuff and I was not responsible for the edit warring (that came subsequent to an explanation being given for its initial reverting), so the first chunk of your response isn't really relevant.

The UEFA banner stuff, the issue I did raise, is totally unrelated to O'Rourke and its reverting required seperate justification altogether, which was not provided at any stage. It's not a case of "picking out the good from there" as it was an entirely different subsection of the article. Editors must take responsibility for what content they are adding/removing from an article, deleting a chunk of content just because it happened to be, in this case, reverted at the same time as some unrelated chunk of content is not justifiable.Gefetane (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether your dissatisfaction is about that or not that is what caused all this so it is wholly relevant you kept reverting initially and an ip followed you. Im not going to pick out anyones good edits if they wish to vandalise or edit war that is their problem and they knew exactly what they were doing. Whilst a manual undo would allow some to be kept in this case reverting using twinkle rather than undoing was the correct course of action against the user given there instance on edit warring. And i am sorry you feel that way but i totally disagree with you on this and I'm not going to argue with you on it as its not worth it and is a waste of my time as i don't object to you re adding when you amend it accordingly which you chose to ignore in my comments. You also ignored my comment that you should discuss controversial additions to articles before adding which you were advised by another user as well which reading through the discussions you did not do either so i am not surprised you were reverted initially in the first place.Blethering Scot 23:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Also they way you went about this was totally wrong and very hostile. And as far as im concerned there was no unjustified deletion by me as I've clearly set out edit warring is edit warring regardless of the content, i didn't object to it being there others clearly did however hence their reverts. After that edit warring occurred and i reverted those who were clearly doing it and doing so against consensus and ultimately reported it. I suggest you ask the people who have a problem with it being there but maybe a bit more politely.Blethering Scot 23:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's shame you've taken that stance but I think we're going to agree to disagree. I agree controversial content should be checked out in the talk page, very reasonable, whether my added content was controversial is another matter altogether. If you consider this a cheer-leading page, bigging-up how wonderful Celtic Supporters are, than yes, any facts regarding misbehaviour of their fans/representatives of fans is likely to be highly controversial. However I did not come to this page with that presupposition, thus I didn't regard the multiply-attested material sourced from the mainstream media as "controversial", merely notable facts about the subject that where missing from the article.

As for your accusation of "very hostile", I'll take it we have vastly differing meanings of that phrase as my contributions on here, even in disagreement, have remained civil and content-oriented throughout, as the talk page above/edit history attests. Time toBlethering Scot 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) move on from this disagreement I think.Gefetane (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It was hostile in my view of it but we will agree to disagree. As I said feel free to put back in but with a bit more context. I don't think it's any problem adding things here If it's in context of the whole situation. If you take one thing from this then please in future be very careful what you add to things as BLP should be taken very seriously on all points. I know thats not relevant to this latter discussion but it is to the former. Blethering Scot 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Starting with a clean slate

Hopefully we can make a fresh start after all that. One thing I think important is that everything is referenced directly to quoted wikipedia policies, rather than our interpretations of what those policies mean.

As regards the sectarian comments of the Chairman of the Celtic Supporter's association, i think the main objections to this lie under WP:BLP?

Essentially WP:BLP emphasies strict adherence to 1/Neutral point of view (NPOV) 2/ Verifiability (3/ No original research (NOR) Looking in more detail Wikipedia says "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;" WP:BLPSOURCES This was sourced from the Glasgow Herald, one of Scotland's leading papers, so no issue there.

"Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures" WP:NPF

Could this affect his reputation? It's difficult to see how. He tweeted this in a public arena and we are accurately describing what the consequence of that was. There is nothing defamatory in the edit. Obviously care needs to be taken in the wording, but that should be enough. WP:BLP1E targets peopl e notable for one event having a dedicated article, and suggests the information should be merged into a broader article, just as we have done.

WP:BLPCRIME I bring this up as someone brought this up at one point, but I don't think it applies. I suspect that was in relation to this [[2]].

To summarise: "The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications will mean that offenders can receive a maximum five-year prison sentence for two new crimes. The first offence is aimed at targeted any offensive and threatening behaviour expressed at and around football matches which is likely to cause public disorder. While a second offence created on Wednesday relates to the communication of threats of serious harm or which are intended to stir up religious hatred on the internet or other communications." I don't think the first one counts as he wasn't in or near a football ground, and the second one is also mute as there were no " threats of serious harm".

He was spoken to by police, but if that's a criteria for not being included then there will be hundreds of similar cases that would have to be included - Rio Ferdinand and Joey Barton articles would be decimated :). He was not, and has never been accussed of a crime over this.

I think BLP was the main objection. We can go through notability and concencus as well if people want, but most of the attention was on BLP so I've tackled that first.

This is worth a read: [[3]] "WP:BLP policy advises fix over delete, explains how the long-term policy "WP:Biography of living persons" (WP:BLP) states that material should be improved/mended and rectified first, rather than delete an article quickly, to correct BLP-issues. The text of policy WP:BLP has stated since (March 2008), "Page deletion is normally a last resort.""

Also - WP:CRYBLP - I've quoted it in its entirety. Not meant as a criticism, but I think it's worth it as I think some of it at least applies. "While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute. This essay attempts to outline good and bad uses of invoking BLP as a justification for an edit.

"Contentious" should be narrowly construed

Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject. There are plenty of facts or phrasings in editorial dispute that will not rise to the level of "Mr. X is a child molester" or "Ms. Y is addicted to controlled substances". The more tenuous and disputed the actual harm should be, the less weight a BLP argument holds, and the less community support there will tend to be for using extraordinary measures (ignoring 3RR or summarily blocking an editor) to "enforce" such BLP considerations.

Facts are facts

If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree they reflect poorly on the subject.

Assuming Good Faith applies.

... especially to edits introduced by other editors who have extensive and collaborative edit histories. For example, drive-by editors who assert sexual orientation without support should not be extended the same benefit of the doubt that might otherwise be extended to an editor in good standing who made a similar assertion that wasn't based on an independent, reliable source. In any case, the problematic material should be removed from the article immediately.

Use the least disruptive means to solve the problem.

Notify users of the perceived issue and revert as appropriate. Explicitly state that a BLP issue applies when making a second or subsequent reversion. If an administrator, prefer page protection before blocking in most cases. If an editor inserts clearly inappropriate material in multiple places, blocking is entirely appropriate, but content disputes between editors familiar with (though perhaps having differing perspectives on) Wikipedia policies should rarely escalate to such a level.

Egregiousness must exceed involvement for involved administrator action.

It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing the Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree. If you think it's a valid BLP issue, raise the issue without threatening an edit war If the community, via local or global consensus, disagrees with the claim that your reversions were justified by the BLP policy's exception to the edit warring policy for the removal of deficiently sourced "contentious" material, you may be blocked for edit warring. In borderline cases, this is unlikely, as long as the community can assume good faith that you sincerely thought you were following BLP's guidance. Take special care that all prongs of the BLP policy, as currently written, are met before invoking its powers to ignore 3RR: if an objectionable statement has a reliable source, it cannot be removed repeatedly without regard to the edit warring policy.

Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion

Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's Law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors. Editors who cry "BLP!" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply.

220.255.1.116 (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You have made some fair points IP however please try and keep your talk page posts a bit more concise otherwise they can be difficult to follow. Inclusions about controversial instances from people directly involved with football clubs have been allowed before on wikipedia articles however in general i´m not in favour. It relates more to the person themselves rather than the club as a whole. If they have a personal article it should be contained there. It could potentially be included here but remember there is no deadline. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the wall of text would make me change my view as you pick the points that allow but always ignore the ones that don't. The subject isnt notable not even enough to meet to BLP1E. Also if he was found guilty of something that would be a different story BLP would specifically allow it but even then only if he could be proven to be a notable subject. At the moment this is a deadlock so still no consensus, im unsure whether Monkeymanman thinks it should be included but if he does thats 3-3 so as i say deadlock. The only way im changing my mind is if you remove mention of his name i.e. Celtic Supporters Chairman said this but even then still not sure its relevant anyway as he wasnt acting in that role but that will at the very least avert my main concern.Blethering Scot 17:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

yep fine With no mention of name - was going to suggest that myself. Also the whole thing could be shortened 220.255.2.70 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been bold and put in a condensed version of the Celtic supporter's chairman bit, with no name, and also Getefane's secion that was accidently taken out with it. 220.255.2.74 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Look this page is not a list. If you wish to start a list detailing all the times Celtic fans have done something you don't like, go ahead. But that's not what this page is for. Also Gefetanes edits weren't accidentally removed. Devoting an entire paragraph to evry minute detail of an incident which, isn't even the most notable Celtic banner of the last few years, is ridiculous. In fact the "FUCK UEFA" banner isn't even relevant to that section because it has nothing to do with Irish Republicanism. The only place I can think of where it would be relevant is List of naughty things Celtic F.C. fans have done. As I've said feel free to create that page but don't hold your breath on it not getting deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam i usually agree with you but honestly lets discuss this a bit calmer. Wikipedia cannot attempt to censor every thing celtic fans have done over the years and some things are notable some not and others wont be relevant. My suggestion was merely an attempt at compromise and i certainly would of wanted a wee bit more input before anything was actually done. I may be wrong but is this is the first time you have specifically stated why you oppose the FUCK UEFA banner being included.Blethering Scot 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Gefetane didn't actually add it, there was a sentence there already. If others think that's fine fair enough but I don't think it should be in the page. However, having an entire paragraph on it is ridiculous. I am quite serious with what I said about the list before. These Rangers fans are coming in and want to add every bad thing they can think Celtic fans have done. There are so many reasons why many of these things shouldn't be there such as WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT and in some cases WP:BLP. Moreover these things don't actually offer much encyclopedic information. The sectarianism and irish republicanism sections should tell readers how these things relate to celtic and why fans do these things, history, expert perspective, changes over time and maybe one or two examples. That's how you write an encyclopedia. I know because I've contributed more than all these users combined to actually writing articles on wikipedia. However, its impossible to do in this situation when there are so many POV editors and I'm not just talking about these new ones that have just come in. Adam4267 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Adam, evidently you do not disprove of mention of the banner, merely mention of the relevant repercussions - that is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and it is a violation WP:NPOV. No one would be fooled into thinking you're shy about deleting stuff you don't like, yet reference to the banner always remains. So what is it about mention of the UEFA fine (you see fit to include the Chairman's "condemnation") that so offends you? Is it that it tarnishes the reputation you intend this article to portray? WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV are reasons to restore the content, not remove it. Gefetane (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wit?? Are you seriosuly trying to suggest that you know what I think better than I do? Firstly, I didn't add this information. Secondly, I literally just said in my post above I think all of it should be removed as its not relevant. Adam4267 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok im really not wanting to be a part of this but it appears im the only neutral here. Im strongly suggesting we ask for outside help re this, ask for neutral editors for their view eithier at WP:Footy or a request for comment, im happy to do that. This cannot continue like this.Blethering Scot 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I really can't discuss things with people who are unable to read my posts. Adam4267 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So you thought it should all be removed, yet you only ever remove the content regarding repercussions that I added. Still no explanation for this inconsistency. Might I suggest you thought if you leave the stuff saying it happened, but, without mention of the UEFA fine/supporter life-ban, it appears like a bit of 'high jinx' from those rebel Celtic fans, which fits in with the loveable rogues agenda nicely. Is that at all accurate, or am I wildly of course here? Excuse me for speculating, but I'm trying to get inside your mindset so we can eventually find some area for consensus here. Gefetane (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One other thing that troubles me. Why do you keep moaning about what team you speculate that an editor supports, as if that should be some kind of disqualification for editing articles of a certain type? Do you not understand that editors are judged on their contributions, not their personal affiliations? Having revealed yourself as the biggest bestest Celtic fan on wikipedia previously, I'm sure you of all people should be aware of the finer points of this principle. Gefetane (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep - request for arbitration. Not the WP:footy board but the wiki boards designed for this purpose 220.255.1.27 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes an RFC i was happy with either. WP:Footy can be good some times although not my favourite place i have to admit. For a situation like this an RFC is probably better. Apologies for no earlier reply never noticed until now.Blethering Scot 01:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC (Request for Comments) about "Titanic" comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request for comment on Celtic F.C. supporters page. 1/ Subsection sectarianism - should "In April 2012, the general secretary of the Celtic Supporters Association apologised after tweeting that it was a "problem" that the Protestant workers who built the Titantic "didn't sail on it" be included or not. Here's the diff [[4]]. 2/ This issue in the Irish Republicanism subsection pertains to whether we should include the repurcussions of an incident involving a controvserial banner. Here's the diff [[5]] 220.255.1.50. There is plenty of talk on this, from the section "Sectarian comments of general sectretary of Celtic Supporters Association" and below. [[6]]-(Talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC Response

Re: 1) Yes, there is grounds for inclusion. The reader is given context of sectarian acts that at times have proliferated. The reader is told about the background of the involvement of Irish descendants, supporters, etc.; therefore, the tweet mention is not something completely unrelated to the article's subject (i.e., context is provided). The name of the individual who tweeted is not mentioned, as the individual is not considered notable but the position (e.g., secretary) in which they serve in is and this was a public comment, and inclusion of it is directly related to the article's subject (i.e., it's not a crime or event unrelated to the article's subject, such as a suspended driver's licence or academic record). The individual is only mentioned in this one sentence of the article. I do not see grounds for arguments pointing to undue weight. The individual is likely one of many who have made offensive, defamatory, contentious remarks in a public forum, but the individual is not likely to have been visited by police if not in the position he serves in, and thus, it is unlikely the sources (Herald, The Sun} would've covered such a story. However, the difference provided in the RfC shows references to two news organisations but 3 has been alluded to in previous comments. Additionally, the Herald story is referenced twice and one of The Sun references (this one) states the secretary had apologiesed for the comments, but this is not mentioned in the article. While I do not see evidence of mentioning only "one side" of the story within the particle (as the secretary has admitted to making the comments; his account wasn't hacked or something), this would be worthy of inclusion in the article as well to maintain consistent balance.

Re: 2) Inclusion of the second item is worthy, but in more general terms. The specific incident in question involved more than just a banner being displayed which resulted in banishment of a fan and a fine to the club, but in its current wording in this diff, the reader is given the impression the fan was banished solely because of the message and the club fined solely for the banner (when in fact, the perpetrator also flogged a steward and set off fireworks onto the pitch, which may have had as much to do with the banishment as anything, as well as a previous offence in another match in Italy). Mentioning all of the specifics would add too much weight to one incident, and that is why I would support efforts to mentioning unruly acts more so in the sense of generalities than specifics (for example, "the club has banished attendees and also been fined as a result of some acts of behaviour that have occurred during games). Also, current wording states "Celtic fans were seen" but later "the supporter." Two issues: one, "Celtic fans" paints the point with a broad stroke and reduces Celtic fans to one denominator by using an all-inclusive term, and two, the article discredits itselft when it states a plural grouping of people responsible for an act and then later, the reader is given contradictory information in that only one "supporter" was responsible for the banner.

Item #2 raises up other issues which you may be interested in getting a third opinion about:

1) Currently, the article mentions Irish republicanism in three sections: the lead, "Fanbase" section and "Irish republicanism" subsection. More efforts should be made to limit the mention of pro-Irish supporters to two sections rather than three.

2) In the "Fanbase" section, there are subsections which seem contradictory; are "North America" and "South Hemisphere" regions of the world not a part of "Worldwide"? I might change the section to refer to home-based/local fans, then worldwide diaspora. Furthermore, the mention of CSCN reads a bit like a promotion. "Cheap" supporter items? A newsletter? No. of members? "Growing"? Tours to the park? Is any of this notable, or is it rather routine? If any one fan chapter is to be mentioned, it should be for far more notable reasons (such as the biggest chapter, the oldest chapter, etc.).

3) "...among the most passionate on the planet." The same statement could likely be found for just about any club of any sport. Also, how is "passion" being measured? Number of home sellouts? Season ticket holders? Number of jerseys sold? Online fan groups found in remote parts of the world? The statement is a bit hard to measure (and it also comes from a former Celtic, O'Dea, so the statement is not particularly revelatory). Quotes mentioning specific components of a loosely-defined term, "passion," might serve the article better (attendance averages, quotes from opposing players who've played against the club numerous times, quotes from any one who would not benefit from patting the fan base on the back). Additionally, the source is directly quoted but the exact wording does not match the source.

4) Avoid conflating "fan" or "supporter" with "attendee." An attendee may go to the game for any number of reasons (political motivations, desire for attention, boredom, etc.) but going to a game, whether a home or away match, does not necessarily mean the attendee is a fan or supporter of the club.

5) Attempt to channel efforts into the article itself (finding reliable sources, polishing up current content, finding more content to make the article stronger) rather than the talk page. This article's talk page is one of the longest I've seen in relation to the length of the article. Zepppep (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

6) The lead states "have traditionally" in back-to-back sentences. Also, "striving to be inclusive" sounds a bit peacocky and even more to the point, the body doesn't speak to any examples.

7) Honduras is in North America. Zepppep (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To pick a nit, Honduras is in Central America, a region which is denoted as "the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent" and a subcontinent by itself. However, "North America" indeed denotes the same region as "North American continent". So, yes, Honduras can be said to be part of North America and, no, I do get out quite often. Saludos amicales. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's in North America -- (as I've stated) gracias. Romania is in Eastern Europe, however, still part of Europe. Hopefully the reference will be a non-issue as that section needs to be re-worked/organized, IMHO, as "Southern hemisphere" isn't a subcontinent, "North America" may be defined as a subcontinent of the Americas (according to Subcontinent, or continent in the classical sense, and no matter how it's sliced both are a part of "worldwide." Zepppep (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think relevance is an issue in that he wasn't acting in his role and it was a personal account, however im happy for its inclusion as long as his name is left out. The latter is only an issue of context as long as its in context then its a fair inclusion, the article does need to be balanced and not be too biased in either direction good or bad.Blethering Scot 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's safe to say that the world has seven (7) continents, even though not every one of them stands separate by a body of water from all others! And according to an obscure online publication, South America is a continent, as is also North America. I like the "worldwide" part, since it introduces the Gaia notion in this important discussion! Ah, but a nit carefully picked never remains a nit for long. -The Gnome (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this isnt abusive talk but to do with content "FUCK UEFA"

in the article ther eis apart that says "FUCK UEFA" one user changed it to "F*** UEFA" now i dnt know to much about this but to me it seems like censorship if the sign is displayed liek this please provie eviddence before changing it againAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2