Talk:Green Brigade/Archive 1

Archive 1

TAL

Before the Green Brigade stood up to the bloodstained poppies in October, this page had almost no visitors. Now it's hot. I feel proud to be the one who made it. Quindie (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

After the first para, this article seems to be written more like a fanzine than anything else. It's also obviously not neutral in some places. I have no knowledge of this group, and very little of Scottish football, so don't want to edit the article myself. However, it certainly needs substantial cleanup. Loganberry (Talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was more or less a stub until today theres been a bit of controversy around the group due to the banner display hence folk vandalising the page. --Omar418 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I created it with the intention of keeping it a stub until it could be properly edited. It has turned out rather fanzine-like hasn't it? TAL Quindie (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the point that they are seen as sectarian by outsiders, whatever their own self-view may be. Until evidence can be provided that the make-up of the Green Brigade reflects the wider demographics of Scotland/Glasgow in terms of sectarian background, this should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that myself except for the vast majority part. No evidence of that so a wee edit. --Omar418 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence; "Their membership numbers people of the Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faith as well as those with no religious affiliations." Because 1/ it was put in with no explanation, deleting something that I had put in with a justification. 2/ There was no reference to substantiate it 3/ The use of the term protestant needs some explanation. Does the author mean a protesteant person from Northern Ireland, i.e. from the other side of the sectarian divide? Or are we talking about a Scottish protesteant etc. Are we talking about practising protesteants or protesteants by birth? 4/it was contradictory in that while it claimed the group had Muslim members, there was no mention of Jewish/Israeli members, rather undermining the anti-sectarianism claim. 5/ It was unquantified. i.e we don't know whether Catholic/Irish Nationalists make up 50%, 70% or 98% of the group. Has the group got many or just one Muslim member, etc. I have put back in a sentence pointing out that the group is widely seen as sectarian by other Scottish fotball supporters. I could site numerous references for this, but i don't think it's necessary as it's pretty much a statament of the obvious. This in no way impinges on how the group sees themselves, but adds balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I took out this bit in the first section: "The Scottish media and many others in Scottish Football - for an unknown reason - view them as sectarian, namely on the Irish Nationalist/Catholic side of the sectarian divide. This is due to their regular use of Irish Rebel songs, which are not sectarian." Reason: weasel words - "for an unknown reason". Irish rebel songs are widely seen as sectarian. The Green Brigade's rationale was in the previous sentence. This bit was adding some balance. No explanation for the change was given and the contributor was unnamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed ", although there is still much harassment from Stewards, Police and the Club" as there was no reference, weasel words, biased etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"They believe that they should be allowed to show their support for political causes which have "always gone hand in hand with being a Celtic supporter."[2]" - The cited source is an individual (who may or may not be a member of this group) on a general 'Celtic FC' forum; is it reliable? I wasn't sure whether to remove it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.154.94 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of edits by Omar418

Please discuss the rationale for removing relevant information from the article before removing. Sectarian rants and vandalism obviously need no explanation, usually, but I can't understand your removal of relevant information from the article. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted your deletion of edits again without discussion. Please explain. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This was not about Remembrance Day it is clear that its sdpecifically about the poppy on football shirts. Post the comments you feel are important to have in the article on here. Lets discuss them --Omar418 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't me who has a problem with the edits you have been reverting. I can't begin to talk about your problems if you don't highlight what they are.

The poppy is intrinsically linked with Remembrance Day. In fact, it is often called Poppy Day. This is what the group are protesting. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The group state clearly they are protesting poppies on football shirts and not Remembrance Sunday or Armistice Day. Read the statement fo the nth time. --Omar418 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Side of the divide

1. They have never called themselves Catholic and have had plenty of discussions pro and anti Pope. I would say they are on the Irish side of the divide and that is more obvious with the strong connection of Irish history with the group. --Omar418 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Even mentioning them as part of the "devide" is rediculous. Being a "left-wing ultras group", I think that even mentioning that is stupid and deliberatey trying to create a sectarian problem. Quindie (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Omar418 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, as an Irish person I don't see them as being on "the Irish side" of anything". They are on a Republican side, if anything. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a good consensus here the current version looks about right in terms of any reference to the divide. In fact I remember they have been known to shout over a particular which contains lines regaring William of Orang and John Knox and the eff word. So definitely not Catholic side of the divide. --Omar418 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the group itself

At least seven Celtic players have lost their lives in war and one, William Angus, was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in 1915.

I shall delete this as it does not belong on a wiki entry. --Omar418 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article and specifically to the protest by this group. It is quite a significant thing too. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Realise please that this is a wikipedia entry on the group not about veterans of the Great Wars who played for Celtic. The statement on the protest commends the people of those wars and condemns the recent wars, as does the banner, so the statistic itself is out of context. --Omar418 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rangers fans paranoia

Does not belong on the wikipage of a Celtic Ultras group:

Some Rangers fans have accused the media of a news blackout of the incident.

I shall be removing it. --Omar418 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you be removing it? Why do you feel it does not belong? The article directly relates to the incident and the group in question. Come up with a valid reason as to why it should not be included, and I will consider your opinion seriously and carefully. I will not attempt to re-introduce this particular sentence until I have heard what you have to say. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the group and serious organised responses to the Poppygate action, statements from official sources quoted in the media for example, would be recognised and entered but nothing as vague as the above quote. This is a serious rule breach referred to as WP:WEIGHT Take a look at the NAACP wiki entry for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP there are no opinions about the NAACP listed in the entry at all. It is a history of the NAACP and a summary of what it is. Similarly look at the Republican Party. --Omar418 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

The group has consistently opposed the chairmanship of John Reid,[citation needed] the ex-defence secretary of Tony Blair's government, but has done absolutely nothing to oppose him,[citation needed] highlighting their lack of influence within both the club and the majority of supporters.[citation needed]

Sounds like complete tripe to me. Removing the whole sentence. --Omar418 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It may sound like tripe to you (and, in fact, it sounds like tripe to me as well! it even appears to contradict itself), but I put a citation needed request in to give the author of the paragraph a chance to explain or rewrite it. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This protest against the placing of the poppy on football shirts has caused much uproar amongst the press[citation needed] with Celtic FC stating “The Club is currently carrying out an investigation into this matter. When it is concluded, it is the Club's intention to ban those identified as responsible from Celtic Park."

Shall replace with

A recent protest against the placing of the poppy on football shirts was widely reported with Celtic FC saying in a statement “The Club is currently carrying out an investigation into this matter. When it is concluded, it is the Club's intention to ban those identified as responsible from Celtic Park." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar418 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we can claim it has been "widely reported". Especially given the fact that the story was hard to find initially, which would lend some weight to the paranoia on the part of the Rangers fansite. I'm pretty sure I probably placed the CN tag at the point where the paragraph suggested it caused "much uproar". Being consistent, I think I should probably add a CN tag to the idea that it has been widely reported. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sky News live is pretty widely reported for the actions of fans of a Scottish team. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Celtic-Park-Anti-Poppy-Banner-Protest-Football-Club-Promises-Life-Bans-For-Fans-Involved/Article/200910215797452?lpos=UK_News_News_Your_Way_Region_8&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15797452_Celtic_Park_Anti-Poppy_Banner_Protest%3A_Football_Club_Promises_Life_Bans_For_Fans_Involved --Omar418 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Poppygate 2010 */

Have started a seperate section for Poppygate regarding the incident.

This seperates t from the history of the group etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar418 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody changed the name of the new section I'll have to change ot back --Omar418 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Poppygate is a great heading! As it's a headline, I shouldn't think it comes under the category of original research. But it would be good if you could find a source which refers to it as poppygate. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added in some info from Celtic's social mission statement to give some background and sense of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has replaced bloostained <sic> with bloodstained. I've changed it back. We can have bloostained or bloostained <sic>. What we clearly can't have is bloodstained as this is not what the banner said, and would therefore be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out this sentence after the Celtic Social Mission reference. "although of course it is important to note the subjectivity of referring to this protest as Sectarian, given that the banner did not target a particular religion." Reasons: 1/ no reference. 2/ subjective 3/ irrelevenat, as the fact that the banner didn't mention religion doesn't mean it isn't linked to sectarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out this part-sentence: "whereby notably religious issues are not an issue." as it is so poorly written it doesn't make sense.

I've put in a citation request for the sentence about tehe Green Brigade statement as the reference was to a page that required a password so wasn't actyually a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of neutral fan comment by Omar418

I added this back in as it gives a view from a neutral party outside the Old Firm. Otherwise it's sounding like the whole entry is written by the Green Brigade and it is unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The incorrect spelling portrayed in the banner caused much amusement to fans of other Scottish clubs. One Dundee United fan commented, "You've got to feel that if you are going to make your annual "continue to make your club out to be a pathetic bunch of terrorist-sympathising nutjobs" then at least let matron check out the work you've done on your torn bedsheets when you hand back the crayons. I am no longer surprised, no longer shocked by these knuckle-draggers. They still seem oblivious to the irony of hating the English yet wanting to whore themselves to them - burning the St George's flag at preseason friendlies in front of bemused locals and so on, yet desperately pleading to enter England's competitive setup. So not shocked at all, but just when you think they can't possibly look any more stupid by God they go and break their own records! ... I wonder what it must be like to hate yourself, hate your country, romanticise the land of your great-great grandad and yet want to play in the league of your imagined oppressors? Tell you what, all the shrinks in the world couldn't untangle the heads inside Celtic Park if they had a thousand years!"

This entry is about the group itself. The addition of this comment adds nothing to the wiki entry. Its pointless to have a wiki entry on an ultras group containing opinion from other fans. I feel the entry is too long as it is and this comment takes up far too much room and is biased. In fact your reinsertion illustrates your own bias on the matter and lengthens the article by ten lines. Another thing in terms NPOV the opinion given isn't reported anywhere its from a football forum. Its not a statement by a group or an organisation or a football club its just am opinion on a forum. Blogs and youtube are inadmissabl to wiki due to NPOV so an opinion on a forum would be further from that again.--Omar418 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC):

"The addition of this comment adds nothing to the wiki entry" : By definition it adds to the wiki entry. "Its pointless to have a wiki entry on an ultras group containing opinion from other fans" : On the contrary, it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise it reads like a fanzine and is one-sided. "I feel the entry is too long as it is and this comment takes up far too much room" : Then delete some of your own long-winded entries which are far longer. "In fact your reinsertion illustrates your own bias" : Not at all. I couldn't give a toss about the Old Firm. At the moment most of the entry is from the Green Brigade View, I added some balance. "Its not a statement by a group or an organisation or a football club its just am opinion on a forum. Blogs and youtube are inadmissabl to wiki" : Wiki doesn't have to be just quasi-Blairite official statements. The Motely Fool is actually a highly respected financial publication, not a football forum. It's not a blog or youtube. For these reasons, and to add some balance and prevent this sounding like the home page of the GB, I'm putting this back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated before in terms of NPOV the opinion given isn't reported anywhere its from a football forum and its a personal opinion. Its not a statement by a group or an organisation or a football club its just am opinion of one person on a forum who bears no real relationship to the group this entry is about. This is not admissable due to NPOV, my apologies but those are the rules of wikipedia. As an aside, please note that if you view the edit history that your postings were removed by neutral wikipedia editors and not me. Understand these are neutral editors fixing vandalism. If you ae considering doing some research and committing some time to wikipedia I suggest you take a good look at this Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial before you consider further edits or they are likely to disappear as acts of vandalism.

--Omar418 (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've just added a small piece about the misspeliing as for most Scottish fans this was a major part of the story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement claimed that the banner said bloodstained, when in fact it said bloostained. I have corrected this error, adding sic in brackets to indicate that the passage now indicates the original source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the misquote of the statement from the Gree Brigade back (you changed tha aswell as the initial description odf the banner but added the comments regarding the spelling mistake that wer in the statement. Soree aboot ma spellun --Omar418 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CB statement

The phrase "the statement makes it clear" is biased. I've replaced it with "claims" which is more neutral. Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

weasel words: "claims" is changed to notes --Omar418 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference (8) to the Green Brigade statement doesn't link to the statement. It seems to be linked to the homepage of the Green Brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.203.4 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Green Brigade site is a password protected internet forum. I've inserted a screenshot of the statement here http://i53.tinypic.com/6ofwhl.jpg and a reference to that. In order to zoom in on this press "Ctrl" and "+" simultaneously on your keyboard. It may make reading easier. --Omar418 (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious Omar. Are you a member of the Green Brigade, or did you join their forum solely to get information for Wikipedia? I think there are other sources for the statement by the way. I'm near sure I saw it on another website when I first made edits to this article. Is your screenshot a permanent address? --81.135.40.31 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not a member I have a keen interest in the Ultras scene abroad and the Green Brigade are the only group in Glasgow that have links with an anti-fascist network. So I keep in touch with them due to my interests. I haven't seen it on another site also tinypic hosts permanently I think? --Omar418 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it be called Poppygate?

Well the group referrred to the events as Poppygate and their statement is enitled "Statement on Poppygate" a this is a wiki entry about the group I suggest we call it Poppygate 2010. --Omar418 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the heading (I've yet to look at the article again, as I came straight to the talk page this time). --81.135.40.31 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And as for myself...

I also removed an edit you made, which was the whole statement that the organisation made (on their website?) about the incident. I don't feel the whole statement should be included, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Certainly a link to the statement is fair enough, and relevant. Adding the whole statement without criticism from an opposition, or a clear description of the opposing view, fills the article with bias and turns it into a rant for the Green Brigade.

As far as your continued reverts are concerned, I will stand down from this edit war until I have seen you making clear and rational statements in support of the texts you have removed. I will then reply and consider each on an individual merit. Of course, if you don't reply soon enough, I will simply put the edits I made back into the article. If you then revert them again with no clear explanation and rationale, I will go ahead with a report on you for edit warring.

I've made my position clear on this, so I hope you will respect that I am giving you an opportunity to explain and rationalise, rather than simply jumping in and reporting you.

One option open to us, as I see it, is possible rewording of some of the things you have a problem with. As I said though, because I don't know what your problems are with the text that I added (other than the one or two you did indeed describe here), it's very hard to make a fix to it on my own. --81.135.40.31 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I never posted the whole statement myself. It appeared yesterday at some point in full so I left it in. No problems with it being up there myself. I didn't remove your posts and I'm not reporting anyone. Wiki has ways of recognizing patterns of vandalism. --Omar418 (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

More weasel words

However, notwithstanding the above, Celtic FC will adorn the Poppy proudly on their chests like all other proud British Clubs have done so this weekend of Remembrance.

Shall be changed to:

However, Celtic FC shall wear the Poppy on their shirts like all other SPL clubs at Remembrance weekend 2011.

This is wiki and that entry is not appropriate first weasel words violate NPOV saying things. Also other British clubs (notably Manchester United, Liverpool, Stoke, Blackburn and Bolton. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1225069/Charles-Sale-Poppies-growing-Premier-League-clubs.html ) do not wear the poppy so it is inaccurate.

Also Celtic have previously suggested this may be the club's last display of the poppy on the shirt. "In light of Poppyscotland's decision to carry out alternative Remembrance activities from next year, Celtic Football Club has decided that it will be giving another charity the opportunity to feature on the Celtic shirt in 2011 to raise awareness of their work. Further details of this will be announced in due course." http://www.celticfc.net/news/stories/news_081010170000.aspx --Omar418 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Last line deleted

"This page is a unofficial and has nothing to do with the Green Brigade"

I took this out as a/ although the page is largely written by the Green Brigade, this is Wikipedia so it is a statement of the obvious, and b/ as seems often to be the case with the Green Brigade, it contains misspellings, bad grammar and missing letters and words, and is practically unintelligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mattun if you think this page is largely written by the Green Brigade you are retarded. There has never been a single contribution from a member. If do there would be pictures of tifos and videos. There are not. No-one from the Green Brigade has contributed to this apart from the commment above which you've ranted on. You have no reason to rant with your constant vandalisms that have to be reset by bots they are that petty. Grow up...unless you're 7 then enjoy your childhood, its only a game after all. However, a certain man says its more important than life and death. --Omar418 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. I've had one entry that was re-set, and I've even said that is fair enough. The above comment was tongue-in-cheek. I apologise if it caused offence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Liar Liar pants on fire! :P --92.23.115.89 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think we can safely say Green Brigade members have been editing this page. Personally, I think a picture or two would be a good thing to liven the page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Spellgate

I've added a section to include the frequent misspelling of banners by the Green Brigade. I've called it Spellgate, but would be open to suggestions as to what else to call it. Someone deleted it. I will keep reinstating it until they explain why they deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I will accept that Spellgate section is removed on the condition that the point made at the top ("either...")is adhered to and nobody tampers with the discussion page as happened yesterday. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Social Mission

I think it's important to have a reference to the Social Mission statement of the club, where it explicably says that the club is against sectarian bigotry, in order to explain that the club itself is against sectarian extremism and give some background to the threat to ban members of the Green Brigade. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Green Brigade havn't done anything sectarian so this is irrelevant. Adam4267 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

their actions are a form of bigotry by the definition, 'Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.'Monkeymanman (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the wikipedia entry for Sectarianism, what have the green brigade actually done that falls into any of those categories Adam4267 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-English, NI protestants, Isreali, Castillian etc. ad nauseum. Essentially in any ethnic conflict the Green Brigade sides with the group that is perceived to be oppressed. They attach importance, I would argue excessive importance, to perceived differences between subdivisions with a group. For example you, Adam, have questioned why Hun, a derogatory term for Rangers fans, needs a citation on wikipedia. A prime example of attaching excessive "importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group." Basically, the green brigade tries to deny this as it doesn't fit well with the narrative of the traditional internationalism of the left wing movement. I think what we have now balances both points of view. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What have they done that is anti-english or NI protestants, how are any of these things sectarian anyway, can you provide sources. I attached the 'citation needed' to the claim that Hun was sectarian not that it is derogatory. Adam4267 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is like shooting ducks in a bath. Are you trying to tell me that the term Hun doesn't have a sectarian nature when used in the context of Rangers? Mattun0211 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wether it does or doesn't, I think it doesn't, is irrelevent to this page. Adam4267 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to resemble one of those discussions between aetheists and christians where getting the discussion into the realm of rationality feels like going ten rounds with Mike Tyson. I would say what we've got now represents a concencus. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You brought up 'Hun' it is not relevant to this page. You still havn't said what the Green Brigade have done that is sectarian, so no, we don't have a consensus. Adam4267 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've used some reliable sources for the Green Brigade's sectarianism (Herald and Irish Independent), so I trust that puts the matter to bed. Sorry for the spelling - I was in a rush. Perhaps we can now move onto another matter - the urgent need to deal with the lack of citations. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources say that what they have done is sectarian so it is still unnecessary to have the social mission statement in Adam4267 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adam. The first reference from a reputable source refers to IRA-chanting. I would argue that to say this is seen as sectarian would "reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities" as demanded by Wiki rules. Here are some references - we can add them in if you want but I don't think it's necessary. 1/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2264181.stm 2/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4791281.ece 3/ http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3103835/Cop-Christopher-Halaka-on-trial-over-pro-IRA-chanting.html 4/ http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/politician-slams-spl-over-pro-ira-chanting-387354.html. 5/ http://news.scotsman.com/thescotsmandebate/Can-football-eradicate-sectarianism.2618431.jp

Similarly, the second reference from a reputable source talks about intolerance. Clearly this is a reference to sectarianism and not, say, food intolerance. It is made even more explicit elsewhere in the article but I included that quote because I though it summed up the article very nicely, including the writer's vierw that Celtic would be wrong to ban the Green Brigade.

So, I have shown, I think in good faith, that there is a view that the Green Brigade is sectarian and that Celtic say in their charter, which I have reliably referenced, that they are anti-sectarian. I appreciate that the Green Brigae and yourself think that it is not sectarian and I have amended the next sentence to reflect that. I'll leave it to you to add the reference.

If you disagree with the above, Please see if you can find a reliable source that points the error out, then we have something we can discuss and perhaps use.

Please do not revert cited material until then. If you wish to change the article the onus is on you to get consensus on it first. Please read this guideline. Thanks. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not shown any references that say what the Green Brigade have done is sectarian, in 1,2 and 4 the 'reliable sources' don't say these things are sectarian they qoute from people who are bias or unreputable sources. 5 is a forum and source 4 does not say what the content of the chanting was or if the man was found guilty. This shows that Celtic have never been charged because of their fans sectarian chanting.

This seems to be Original research on your part because you are joining up moderately related incidents to advance YOUR view, no reputable source has called the Green Brigade sectarian and while you are correct in saying their is a view that the Green Brigade is sectarian, you have not shown that anyone other than Rangers fans support that view. Adam4267 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Adam but that simply isn't good enough. The two items I cited in the poppy incident and the Celtic Social Charter are all directly relevenat. The five items I cite on this discussion page are to show why they're relevant. In no way shape or form am I advancing my view, I am citing references as proof - something that you have simply not done even though this is the essence of wikipedia. Lets go thorough the discussion references one by one.

1/ Is a BBC item that cites an anti-sectarian campaigner and a liberal democrat SNP being critical of IRA-chanting due to its sectarian nature. Bare in mind that whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant. I've cited reliable sources. 2/ Is an article from the Times in relation to the sectarian sensitivities of IRA-chanting. 3/ Is in relation to a story about a policeman who was charged with a racially-aggravated breach of the peace for IRA-chanting. 4/ is from breakingnews.ie and also deals with IRA-chanting. 5/ Is a story from the Scotsman where, among other things, a spokesperson for an anti-sectarian pressure group calls for those promoting terrorist groups to be punished. All this more than makes clear the view, by reputable published sources, that IRA chanting is seen as sectarian behaviour. Just to reitearte - whether or not you agree with these people is irrelevant.

I trust I don't need to go through the two references from the Herald and Irish Independent, as well as the Celtic Social Charter in the main article, yet again.

Your job now, as I have said before, but will reiterate, is to find reliable sources that give a contrary argument, for example, why IRA chanting is not sectarian. Then we can come up with a compromise. I have already pointed you in the right direction with the sentence, "The Green Brigade says it is anti-sectarian...". Your job is to reference and add to that, as you clearly feel that it a valid point. It's all too easy, lazy, and frankly boring to be just anti-something. Sometimes you've got to be proactive and argue for what you're for.

So to reiterate, your choices are to actually come up with reliable sources to back your argument, or we can take this to some form of arbitration. In the meantime, there is the far more urgent task of the lack of citations, something you seem not to be bothered about. And incidentally, in no, way, shape or form am I a Rangers, or for that matter Celtic fan - I haven't even mentioned Rangers which makes your last point somewhat bizarre. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

please indent your replies to make it easier to see who has said what. I reposted the citation needed tags due to a lack of them, things like mottos & members should have some form of a source (even if its not a third party). Monkeymanman (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Gregory Campbell DUP MP Adam4267 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

There have been a significant number of "citations needed" hanging around this article for a long time. These need to be dealt with or the pieces of text that have them will be deleted. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

This is an article about a group. Not about opinions about a group and their actions. As stated above, regarding Rangers fans paranoia, opinions about the KKK, NAACP and the Republican Party do not appear on the KKK, NAACP or Republican Party's wiki page. the same should apply here. --Omar418 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This was the result of a long-winded (to say the least) and at times confusing debate about giving some background to the events in question and having a more balanced piece. I've amended it to reflect your point. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references

the reference with a screenshot of the original statement has been removed and also the sntences referring to the statement. Is this an entry about this group or simply one person's propaganda outlet against the group it is about? --Omar418 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The screenshot is of an internet forum, which is not a reliable source. Please read Wiki guidelines indicated elsewhere on this discussion page. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Green Brigade boycotted match?

Not as far as I know and the article referenced was written before the match so was irrelevant. Removed. --Omar418 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

it still stated they were planning to so reflects the source. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

so i will be reinserting this with altered text. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro IRA chanting not cited and obvious vandalism

This point added to the text:

In the weeks leading up to the incident, the Green Brigade had stepped up its pro-Irish Republican Army chanting .

Was placed in after the Old Firm match Celtic won yesterday, an obvious bitter response to a football result. Its being removed as the reference cited contains no reference to such pro-IRA chanting. I cite WP:Weight Also removed were the statement released by the group explaining the protest itself. This kind of behavious is not what wikipedia is about. If you wish to continue acting in suich a manner I suggest you consider going to a chat and dating site or fan forum not a wikipedia entry. --Omar418 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

how about this ref then here? Monkeymanman (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Omar. Firstly, just to make clear, I don't give a monkeys about who won or lost yesterday (I don't even know the result). As far as I'm concerned the SPL is a glorified pub league. I'm going to be generous and give you a clue as regards the chanting reference - it's in the sixth paragraph. In future please read references before commenting on them.

Your comment about the football forum is somewhat ironic as you seem to be insisting on using a photobucket screenshot of a football forum as a reliable source. I've already helped you once so you're going to have to find out yourself why this is not permissable. A little clue - the answer can be referenced from this very discussion page. Hope that helps Mattun0211 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I like your idea about the dating site. If my wife finds out, is it ok to say it was Omar's idea? I'm not familar with these new fangled "chat" sites that you bang on about, but they sound like fun too. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The point about that photobucket from a football forum is that it contains the statemnt from the group and is easier to access without registration than the forum itself. I take your point about the Herald article but frankly that is rubbish.--Omar418 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

photobucket or any other screenshot is not a reliable source. I dont care what its about. The article from the herald still states it though, and as i have been repeatedly told by other editors, thats all that matters. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Omar, please see below for guidance on photobucket screenshots from chat sites. Whether you think the Herald article is rubbish is irrelevant. Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please read the wiki guidelines and make sure you understand them fully. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, which is a shame as its great to see such enthusiasm from a young lad. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

sectarian bigotry point not valid

In its Social Mission Statement, Celtic states it is against sectarian bigotry

The protest was not sectarian bigotry but an anti-war protest against the loss of civilian life so such a comment is irrelevant in this entry and is thus removed. On this I cite WP:Weight AGAIN! --Omar418 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Budha, We're not going to go through this one again are we? Please see previous discussions on this one. You cite the fact that Wikipedia says that minority points of view should not be given undue weight. If you can show me that pro-IRA chanting being seen as sectarian is a a minority point of view then I will let your point stand. In fact, I will also eat my hat, ride a pink elephant to Mars and make an album with the Rolling Stones.

Feel free to add a reliably sourced counterpoint. I'm willing to let it stand even though it would be a minority point of view. We could move all this to the main section if you wish, but I think it sits quite well here as it gives some background to the events in question. Mattun0211 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just too make clear, when I say reliably-sourced I'm not talking about something cobbled together with photobucket. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

its a screenshot from a webpage that can't be accessed without a password...what more is needed? Again this is an article about the group, not an article framing perspectoves of the group my reference to the NAACP etc above. --Omar418 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The "In its Social Mission Statement, Celtic states it is against sectarian bigotry" sentence is off-topic - this article is not about the Social Mission Statement of Celtic. Its placement in this article at its current location is weasel: it is clearly meant to imply that to protest against the wearing of the poppy was to display "sectarian bigotry". If Celtic has issued a statement claiming something like "to protest against the wearing of the poppy is to display sectarian bigotry" then that claim would have a place in the article (as long as it was properly presented as being simply the opinion of Celtic Footbal Club) - but I see no evidence that such a statement has been made. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Attn: John

Hi John. The reason for the emphasis on the spelling as it actually appeared is that the Green Brigade misspelt the word on its very-publicly displayed banner and this became a major talking point. Rather than refer to that, this has sort of emerged as a compromise position. Mattun0211 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Its NOT a major talking point. Except on here with you Matt. --Omar418 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are the sources thast the mis-spelling was a "major talking point"? --John (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just include a footnote which states it was mispelt? Monkeymanman (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep - happy with that compromise. I've referenced it here John with the Irish Independent, a leading Irish newspaper. Could add other sources but would obvioulsy be unnecessary. http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/mail-order-intolerance-ignores-celtics-right-to-wear-the-green-2419452.html Mattun0211 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Attn: Omar - please, please try to understand this ...

... before, in the immortal words of Basil Fawlty, one of us dies. It is well established that football forum sites are not a reliable source, hell alone if they are actually screen shots cobbled together from photobucket. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions now. Please make sure you understand this. Read this section on reliable sources carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources.

I've highlighted some of it below:

"Self-published sources (online and paper)Main page: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

As I hope you now understand, photobucket screenshots from football forums is not what wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you described my change from "They describe themselves" to "The group describes itself" as vandalism. Can you please also read up on the basics of English grammar. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't be editing Wiki pages. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely if a group releases a statement to the press and publishes it on its website its a viable source for an article on the group? --Omar418 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. I don't no what more to say. If you want we can get a Wiki expert in to explain this to you. Until then please stop reverting. Keep reading the above extract until you understand it. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the statement in the press? (Btw please indent your replies) Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm a Wiki expert, but the two of you have a combined 500 edits or so, so I'm probably a bit more experienced.

A. A published press release can be cited--but not from a screenshot from some web forum (or whatever that is). That's so far removed from a reliable source that the thought of using it should be preposterous.

B. There is no grammatical error in either "They describe themselves" to "The group describes itself". Basta.

C. Both of you stop messing with that "bloostained" stuff. It's clear the group misspelled it on the banner, and two highly reliable sources quote it as such (that the BBC altered it is odd, and not righteous). If we quote, we should quote correctly, including the misspelling, which we can point out with square brackets and the word "sic." Mattun, I don't think you realize I did you and the article a favor by adding the quote from the Irish Independent, but maybe you should think about it before you start reverting again: I made the newspaper article say something substantial about the group and what it wants, rather than use it for commentary on a matter of spelling--which is completely trivial.

Now, both of you, settle down. Stop yelling and start brushing up on Wikipedia guidelines, and then improve some articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This online source, which Omar just added, though hardly a newspaper is more reliable than a screenshot. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does an opinion piece count as a reliable source? WP:WEIGHT? --Omar418 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

<--It depends. An opinion piece in a reliable source verifies that someone had a certain opinion, yes. But if one goes around citing the facts loosely strewn around by Thomas Sowell in his newspaper column, no. An editorial, that can be a different matter. Summarizing, it's best to find other sources. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in improving the article Drmies, although i disagree that a blatent football fan forum, (which in all due respect etims is) is not a reliable source. I may be wrong but the article has been improved with your help. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nitpickign I know but e-tims isn't a fan forum its an online zine with regular articles. There is a fan forum attached t e-tims but its not cited as a reference here. --Omar418 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Monkeyman, that it looks a little bit better than most forums, and it seems to have a bit more editorial control. In that sense, we don't really need to doubt that they accurately reproduced the press release, though I readily grant you that it's a judgment call. Listen, when all else fails, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to go--present the source, give it a bit of context, wait a few days, and see what the experts have to say--and then abide by their decision. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It may have some more editorial control than a forum, but it is not a reliable source. In this respect i think they would have made sure that the statements are correct, so therefore it can be used in this article. But anything other than that it cannot be sourced to etims. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think you're correct in principle, but it does depend on what information is presented and how. I would stay away from them whenever I can. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, you've cleared a bit of a roadblock there. I think what we have now is a perfectly acceptable compromise. I was relying on someone else's interpretation of wiki rules for the Irish Independent quote, so sorry about that. I would say that allowing fanzines as sources is a bit of a grey area. Perhaps a dangerous road to go down, but the best solution this time round. As regards bloodstained/bloostained <sic> etc., to be fair we were getting conflicting advice from different wiki editors.

I would suggest this page is monitored or restricted to registered users to prevent vandalism now that we have an acceptable solution. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, would it be possible to get the uplifted hand announcing the final warning on Omar's talk page changed to a red hand on a white background rather than the other way round - only kidding. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One final, final, last thing. I've just read the release fully and I think it differs from the one that was banded around at the time. That one made a reference to the misspelling, blaming it on time pressure, and, from memory, had a different tone. I don't think this is a huge deal as I suspect there were two releases or that a subsequent one appeared, but it does show the importance of relying on reliable sources. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is pro-IRA chanting sectarian bigotry?

Hmm the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow cites it as"motivated by hatred against Catholics, and by hatred against Protestants" so surely support for the IRA, a national liberation movement that included atheists, catholics and protestants, can surely not be marked as sectarian bigotry? Sectarian bigotry would be singing songs such as "Roaming in the Gloaming" which has derisive chants through it regarding King Billy and John Knox. Simply supporting a republican movement cannot be classed as sectarian bigotry thus the point is not relevant, to be sure. Discuss. --Omar418 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn, yawn - this page and subject matter has been done to death. If you really have to bore yourself read through the discussion page again for matters relating to this subject. I really think you should take Drmies advice and go and work on other pages in Wiki - it may help you assimilate the basics of wiki rules which you still seem to be struggling with. For starters, you cannot use other wiki pages as a reliable source. The thought of doing this should be as preposterous as using photobucket as a reliable source. But then you're not even quoting the unreliable source correctly - the piece you quote is in relation to sectarian attacks. I appreciate travelling may stretch your dole money a bit, but you really should get out of Glasgow more and you will see that there really is more to the world than fanatical hatred of other groups. ... No really, there is. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please learn to indent responses, thats protocol on wiki pages and remember I'm the one who pointed out the wiki rules to you on many occasions. I'm just putting this in as a suggestion. Fanatical hatred of groups? I don't get the references but the personal attacks here certainly warrant a reporting. I'll have you know my passport has plenty of stamps on it and plenty booked for this year. Not that that your response is anything to do with the question posed. A critical discussion would be acceptable. My own would be not to take that part of the mission statement but actually the part that condemns the IRA. What do you think, tangentman? --Omar418 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that the accusation of sectarian bigotry in pro-IRA chanting reveals the sectarian bigotry of the accusers. Regardless, the phrase "Sectarian bigotry" is POV low-grade tabloid jargon, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my outburst Omar, but I do feel this has all been done to death, so was somewhat frustrated to see it rear up again. I really don't think there is anything more to add and as far as I'm concerned we had a good compromise situation which should have pleased everyone. Scribble - what you think it may be, what some might say or whether you agree with it is irrelevant. It's reliably sourced. Have a very good read through previous discussions before you take any further action. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in the article that said "In its Social Mission Statement, Celtic states it is against sectarian bigotry". This sentence was off-topic, the article is not about the "Social Mission Statement" of Celtic. Its placement in this article at that location was weasel: it was clearly meant to imply that to protest against the wearing of the poppy was to display "sectarian bigotry". If Celtic has issued a statement claiming something like "to protest against the wearing of the poppy was to display sectarian bigotry" then that claim would have a place in the article as long as it was properly presented as being simply the opinion of Celtic Footbal Club - but I see no evidence that such a statement has been made. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scribble. You may not be aware of this, but this has all been done to death on here. Please see above discussions. Also please be aware that the aim is not to delete reliably sourced material. If you have something to add, find a reliable to source to cite it, and add it. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I had looked at the previous commnents, and felt maybe a fresh pair of eyes were needed here, one whose interest in football consists mostly of switching channels to find something better whenever a match starts. The sentence I removed I removed because it was off topic and weasel for the reasons I stated. Whether it was sourced or not is not the issue. If you disagree, and believe it to be on-topic and not weasel, rebut my reasoning. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Omar, Mattun, I have the feeling y'all are much closer to each other than your rhetoric sometimes implies. You are both reasonable people and you both know that Wikipedia attempts to be neutral and objective, and that it should be a nice place to hang out. Drop the animosity, on both sides, and the little barbs (from advice on indentation to yawn yawn!), and work it out--that's the learning experience of Wikipedia. I have over 60,000 edits, and I wish I had gotten my way in all of them, but that's not how the place works (even though, of course, I was right on every one of them!). You can work this out. I'm not exactly sure what Scribble is trying out here besides stoking a fire. I propose we all look for what reliable sources there are, then represent them fairly as best we can, and then have a beer. Maredsous is real tasty this time of year. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mines is a Harp thanks Drmies or if you can get me German I'll have an Astra Rotlicht ;) How about saying: "Celtic FC's social mission statement says "the promotion and romantic glamorisation of what is now a terrorist organisation will never be acceptable" Is that a fair compromise?--Omar418 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Have inserted a new revision but find the Social Mission Statement refernced is out of date. This is the current Social Mission statement at Celtic http://www.celticfc.net/corporate_socialmission.php Different wording. It actually states "disassociate the Club from sectarianism and bigotry of any kind." --Omar418 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted and all changes fine by me. The old version is still available on the web under cfconline, the new one is under celticfc.net. I've actually dropped the club an email to double check that they have actually updated their charter and to make them aware there are two versions being banded about. The new one is much more corporate and I guess may reflect changes within the club. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The cfconline site is a fan-site the celticfc.net site is the official club site, so that should answer your questions matt.--Omar418 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article text reads "the placing of the poppy on football shirts around Armistice Day", which would imply the temporary fixing of paper poppies to the shirts, and something that the wearers of the shirts would have control over. However, a comment earlier in this talk page, in the "More weasel words" section, would seem to suggest it was actually something more substantial and long lasting, quote: "Celtic Football Club has decided that it will be giving another charity the opportunity to feature on the Celtic shirt in 2011 to raise awareness of their work". This word "featured" implies that the form of the poppy was similar to a sponsorship logo, i.e. it was either embroidered onto or printed onto the team shirts in a permanent way. So what was it, a standard removable paper poppy or an actual alteration made to design of the team shirt? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

They just sewed a poppy into each players shirt. Adam4267 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd say that amounted to a change in the shirt design, the poppy was not "worn" as such, but was actually incorporated into the team strip. It puts a different light on the protest and since most readers would assume that they were just removable poppies this needs to be mentioned in the article. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone assume they were removable poppies? Adam4267 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Because most people would assume that they were the type of poppies most often seen (i.e., removable ones), and because (BBC aside) most people would assume that it is not obligatory for the employees of a company to wear them, but an individual decision of the wearer (in this case the Celtic players). I thought the supporters of war criminals who sell them sold them as individual tokens given in return for voluntary individual donations towards the care of said war criminals who were wounded or traumatised while committing their crimes. But it seems that, in this instance, it IS an example of a corporate-level decision to place an advertising logo onto a football team shirt. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

what are you on about, i think you should read this Remembrance Day. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What are YOU on about? Do you disagree that most poppies sold and worn are removable ones? Do you disagree that the wearing of poppies is voluntary (except on the BBC where it is compulsory for presenters). Do you disagree that those sewing the poppies onto the shirts were not the Celtic players and thus it was not an individual decision by players to affix poppies to their shirts? Do you disagreee that it was a board-level decision by Celtic to place the poppy logo onto their team shirts? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Placing of poppies on the shirts makes sense to me.--Omar418 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The correct wording on the banner

I have changed the article's quotation of the wording that was on the banner to closer represent what was actually on the banner. The previous version did not correspond to reality - it was reproduced in small-case letters, and introduced punctuation that was not on the banner message. Some editors have stressed the importance of reproducing the spelling mistake on the banner, so it is not correct to then alter the actual words used in the banner - it has to be an exact direct quote, using the exact form of the wording, free of punctuation and small-case lettering. If it isn't going to be an exact quote, then surely the spelling mistake should be removed. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think the "[sic]" beside "bloostained" is needed as long as the Irish Independent quote is there to mention that there was a spelling mistake in the banner's message. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that reads too good scribble. Remember this is meant to be an encyclopedia entry and not a facsimile reproduction of the banner? It should read as the body of the text. Or at a push something like this:

"YOUR DEEDS WOULD SHAME ALL THE DEVILS IN HELL IRELAND IRAQ AFGHANISTAN NO BLOOSTAINED POPPY ON OUR HOOPS"

but centred but again this is an encyclopaedia entry and I think it should be part of the beody text.--Omar418 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scribble. Wiki style policy is not to have capital letters in circumstances such as this. For more information look here MOS:CAPS. In fact, nearly all publications refrain from using capitals in the way that you did as it comes across as aggressive (it is known as "shouting"). As regards, spelling, you cannot make reference to a misspelling that isn't shown. Please see previous discussions on this as a compromise has already been reached. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Aye encyclopaedic entry is the style we're aiming for. Think you should leave out the sic like scribble says seeing as the Indy article quote covers the mistake? Not bothered either way.--Omar418 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We need the [sic] in there, otherwise readers wouldn't know what misspelling the newspaper article is referring to. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

agree. If there was no [sic] it would be unclear. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty satisifed with the outcome. Looks pretty balanced.--Omar418 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Is it just me or is this article a bit odd? It has virtually no (referenced) information on the Green Brigade as a group, and around 90% of it is sbout one incident. Does the Green Brigade meet the notability guidelines to have an article about it? Does this poppy protest likewise merit an article? I'm not convinced of either. --hippo43 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1