Jump to content

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Colours and Kit Dispute

With regards to the thread above, the section in the article in question about the 'orange' strip does not sound very good at all and needs altering. By the way did rangers not produce a purple third top at one time?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

I just read the ref given again and there is no mention of institutions objecting to the top or any mention that the strip is associated with the orange institution so in effect that part has been manufactured by someone.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

I have been having a brief look around Monkey and came up with this. [1] Look six down and you'll see the report from the people newspaper. Now, it's a pay-as you-view if you want to see the whole article but I certainly won't be paying for it. What we can see is, and I quote:"Critics including senior politicians said the merchandise could be perceived to be related to the orange order". As you can see, politicians have realized there will be a perception that the two things are related Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think rangers had a day at the scottish cup final in 1999 or 2000 called orange day, could that not have been 'perceived to be related to the orange order', or was it a tribute to the dutch players at the club at that time. I am more concerned with the other dispute at the moment.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
I am making the point that the tops have been perceived to be related to the orange order, on this occasion by senior politicians. We now have an institution objecting to the top as it could be related to the orange order. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Jack, unamed politicians from an unread article ? surely not even you find this a credible source. Name the organisation, name the politicians, show the source. tut-tut.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even I! Ya cheeky young whipper snapper. If I thought it was a credible source it would be in the article. I was making a point. Now, if you'll send me the money to enable me to read the whole article it would be much appreciated. Alternatively you can leave your bank details on my talk page. Cheers. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The lines in the kit section appear to have undue weight. So many years of third kits and the orange one receiving so much prominence seems off. A couple lines in the sectarianism section seems appropriate. There is RS for it after all. To me, it looks like making the link between the kit and sectarianism is preposterous. That is why I like the line mentioning that such allegations were disputed since it clears it up. Better to address issues then sweep them under the rug.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be averse to removing the text from the Kit section and leaving the paragraph as it is in the sectarian section. As Cptnono says, we can't sweep it under the carpet. Jack forbes (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
A brief mention under the kit section is ok, but I agree the main discussion of this episode belongs under sectarianism. --John (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to include the same event twice in an article, that is nonsense.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Any others needed? --John (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some pretty ropey citations there John, quotes like "from my less-than-impartial position"

and "as I often do, tried the shirt on (prior to rewashing)" whilst others refute the sectarian argument, RANGERS fans planning another Dutch Day won't have to buy a new Holland top.

The Ibrox club is now producing its own orange-coloured replica strip.

It comes after thousands of the Ibrox faithful went out two years ago and bought orange Holland strips for a cup final, in tribute to then-manager Dick Advocaat Richard Advocaat (born September 27, 1947 in The Hague, Netherlands) is the Dutch coach of the Russian pro soccer team Zenit. He has served as coach of his native Dutch national football team and more recently as the chief of South Korea national football team, earning the team's and his contingent of players from the Netherlands.

The so called sectarian aspect, if any, is subjective to perception.

So as a compromise,I propose removing the following line: "Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians had criticised the club's decision to market an orange shirt, as the colour is associated with the Orange Institution"

I hope this will allow us to reach a consensus on this issue?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In what sense would this be a compromise? It seems to me like, having requested sources, now that I have found sources, you wish to delete the sentence anyway. That doesn't make sense to me. --John (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no credible citation of any organization that criticizes the introduction strip, only welcome the decision to remove it, and no link to the Orange Order, no sectarian link to the jersey. The section remains inaccurate for the reasons I have provided. You seem to feel the colour orange has only one connotation and are ignoring the Dutch connection at the club. By this you are doing the reader a disservice by presenting a minority take on the shirt.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read the references I provided again. Take your time, there is no hurry. --John (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could save and name the orginisation that criticises the jersey and links it to the Orange Order ? simple. If not the sentence is "own work", cannot be included. I sense you are in mood to compromise.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Another compromise that would more accurately reflect the citation could be;

"Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians welcomed the club's decision to withdraw the shirt."

That is what the article states, and removes any dubious claims. Can we find any consensus at all ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping you could read the references yourself. Oh well.
      • Donald Gorrie, MSP, said: "I think it is a very good gesture to drop the shirt. I think it was a mistake on the part of Rangers to introduce it in the first place - I don't think they thought through its implications. On the fringe of Old Firm supporters there are people imbued with sectarian prejudices, but I believe both clubs are trying to work with their fans to bring that to an end." and "Alison Logan, of Sense Over Sectarianism, said she considered the decision to drop the shirt "a welcome move"." (from this archived Sunday Herald story)
      • Then we have "The choice of colour could be seen as provocative because of links between Rangers fans and the Orange Order." from this archived Daily Record story.
      • Then there's "...the Orange kit clearly demonstrated a significant resonance for many Glasgow Rangers supporters. In recent decades, the Orange Institution has frequently conducted its annual religious service at Ibrox Stadium, the home of Glasgow Rangers. This occasion often attracts crowds of around fifteen thousand. Although former Grand Secretary David Bryce believes that "all Orangemen are not Rangers supporters and all Rangers supporters are not Orangemen," the evidence provided by so many Rangers outfits at Orange demonstrations in both Scotland and Northern Ireland clearly shows close cultural links and associations." (from this Journal of Irish Studies, Spring-Summer, 2004 by Joseph M. Bradley)
      • So we have the Sunday Herald, the Daily Record and the Irish American Cultural Institute all saying that the orange strip was controversial and that it was linked to the Orange Order. These all seem like reliable sources to me, as an experienced editor. While I have tried to extend good faith to your contributions thus far, I warn you that this is becoming strained. I would remind you that we are cautioned not to edit articles on subjects we are passionate about. I now consider this discussion closed, in the absence of any further policy-based arguments for changing this section of the article. --John (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats your response to compromise then ?

I would remind neutral readers this the user who stated the following: "My dad, a diehard Celtic fan, has no problem with calling them the first British team to win the European Cup, and neither should we. --John (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)"

I too have assumed good faith and that is also wearing thin and the rules apply to you, experienced editor or not.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@SeekerAfterTruth. That's the second time you have mentioned John talking of his dad supporting Celtic. It's about time you let that go as it has no bearing on this discussion. When you stop that I'll stop reminding people that since you joined wikipedia the only article you have edited or talked on is the this one, the Rangers article. Jack forbes (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe John's sources say that the strip "was linked to the Orange Order". We should be avoiding stating that there is a link, only that some notable people and organisations were of the opinion that it may be seen as having sectarian symbolism due to the strip's colour, and they accordingly welcomed it's discontinuation. It is unfair to both Rangers & the Orange Order to suggest 'a link', as no-one has produced evidence to prove this was what Rangers had in mind when producing the strip, and no-one has evidence that the Orange Order played any role whatsoever in designing it. Fact is it could simply have been just a nice colour, and neutral reporting of the affair shouldn't be seen as ruling that out.

I would also say that in the context of "Colours and kit" this short-term strip is a mere blip in the history and the focus on it in this section is undue. It is far more relevant in the context of "Old Firm and sectarianism", where it is made far clearer to the reader why something as innocuous as a simple colour could cause any controversy. Either way, mention of this in both sections is clearly excessive. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the text says exactly what the sources say. It doesn't say Rangers brought out the kit to take advantage of the orange top being in any way associated to the orange order. It does say that notable people and organisations thought it may be seen as sectarian. The text as it stands is accurate and should not be changed in any way. As I said in my above post, I'm not averse to removing the text on the controversy in the kit section. Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
@Escape Orbit, I would concur with most of your view, would you offer your thoughts on this proposal:
"Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians welcomed the club's decision to withdraw the shirt."
I feel it more accurately reflects the citation and tidies up the section somewhat, a link to further information on the subject could direct readers, (confused at the connotations, Orange Order,etc) to the article concerned more fully with sectarianism ?
@Jack, c'mon there has to be some compromise to achieve consensus.. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't think I've made a compromise when I said I would go along with text from the kit section being removed? Jack forbes (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear; I'm broadly in agreement with the text as it stands in the sectarian section. As for the kit section, I would remove any mention of this strip completely. As I said, it was short lived and, in kit terms, barely notable. Leaving it in without explanation of the sectarian fuss just leaves the reader wondering why it's mentioned at all. It may also give the impression that it's hinting at something unsaid, which can be worse even than saying it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Be careful, Escape_Orbit. You wouldn't want to be seen as part of the cabal. [2]. I guess he's just trying dismiss those who disagree with him Jack forbes (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Jack, now, now, wouldn't want to misconstrue that as canvassing. Do you always need others help to fight yer battles ? SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be silly now seeker. This is the article page we are talking about. Jack forbes (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well Jack, your post to Escape Orbit could be construed as uncivil behavior, not addressing the matter under discussion in any way and seeking only to be derogatory to another user, namely my good self, although I would hope you are too smart a man to stoop to such tactics. So let's play nice. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Stating the truth that you say there is a cabal at work is not being derogatory. Rather the reverse I would think. As I said on your talk page, if your not happy take it further. Jack forbes (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Jack, why did you feel it necessary to contribute with a discussion between seeker and John on seekers talk page (i have just noticed from the recent discussion here), other than to try to 'gang up' on an editor who disagrees with you, you could have easily left a message here about it. I have seen this happen in the past with discussions here about touchy subjects.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Escape orbit i would welcome a reply about the discussion in the section above as to why the section cannot be summarised (with detail moved to an appropriate article) like so much of the article already has been.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Here we go! Don't you know that I have every right to post on his page and give my opinion? Have a look around wikipedia, it happens all the time. He had the right to delete my post if that was his want, but no, he decided to make an accusation that there was a cabal working on this article. That is a quite serious allegation, don't you think? Jack forbes (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I know you have the right to Jack, i am asking why you felt it necessary when the discussion is here. I would advise all of you to focus on the discussion in hand, Seeker i would advise you try and get other neutral opinions on this here(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Don't you find it strange that I was the only one to actually request neutral views? I even suggested to seeker he could ask for a request for comment. Some cabal. I can work with you monkey, even if we don't agree, but working with seeker is quite impossible. Jack forbes (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I can understand where he is coming from, by saying that, when both of you turn up to his own discussion page (even though you may have the right to). Things can get heated, and misunderstood through a messageboard / wiki. Now could you leave a comment about the other discussion please as to why the section cannot be summarised like the proposal.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
You can understand where he's coming from!? You have'nt read a word I said above, have you? Sort it out yourselves. Jack forbes (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes i have, and yes i do remember that you were the first to try to get outside help, i have also tried , i commend you for doing so. I did not say that i agreed you were both in a 'cabal', to use the same words, but what i meant was that i could see why the user feels they are being pressured.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Agree with Monkeymanman. Could we please stick to the point and have your arguments of who slighted who on your talk pages (if you must have them at all).--Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Monkeymanman, if you think you can summarise things, and ensure that the content is reproduce on the Sectarianism in Glasgow article in a balanced manner, then I say go for it. Too much of this is made on both Old Firm articles and I believe a fair amount of that has nothing to do with creating a good encyclopaedia, but due to the never-ending point scoring and whining that comes from both camps about the crimes of the other. Getting it into a single article helps minimize this on the club pages, and may help ensure even-handed neutrality. Has the same summarising and policy been enacted on the Celtic article? Because you can be sure that there are people out there who will jump on any sign of inconsistency between the two. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree escape orbit that the debate on this section on both articles has always been about consistency. I tried to ask other users here if my summary / move proposal was acceptable and where it could be altered, but I was snubbed by who had objected. I will try a new proposal with a summary about the criticism about shirts if that would help consensus. Remembering that each point will be linked from existing refs.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
===Old Firm and sectarianism===
The club's most distinct rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888). Rangers came to be identified with the Scottish Protestant community.

Until Graeme Souness signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston, in 1989, Rangers were said by him to have had an "unwritten policy"[42] of not signing any player who was Catholic;[43] although Johnston was by no means the first Catholic to sign for the club,[44] he was the first openly Catholic, high-profile player to sign for them since World War I.[45]

Over the years there has been documented incidents involving sectarianism and the club ranging from fines and warnings by Uefa, fans singing controversial songs at matches and criticism regarding the choice of colour of the clubs football shirts.  The clubs fans are disparagingly nicknamed Huns, which is regarded as a sectarian insult.

In recent times, both Rangers and Celtic have worked alongside the Scottish Parliament, church groups, pressure groups such as Nil by Mouth, schools and community organisations to educate and combat sectarianism.  
In August 2003 Rangers launched its 'Pride Over Prejudice' campaign later renamed 'Follow With Pride' to promote social inclusion and education.  

In 2006 William Gallard, UEFA's Director Of Communications, commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination.[69] Further, in September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism

Completed restructure / transfer as stated, checking Sectarianism in Glasgow and discussing would be appreciated if necessary.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

This section is ostensibly about the colours / fuss about the orange strip. Discussion about major changes to the sectarianism section should be in the section above. --hippo43 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rivalries: Minor Tidy ups.

Would look to correct the following:

"Resentment continued and in 1998 an article in Rangers pre-match programme branded Aberdeen fans "scum" and then club captain Richard Gough accused Aberdeen of only playing when it was against Rangers. The club later issued an apology to Aberdeen."

to

"Resentment continued and, in 1998, an article in Rangers pre-match program branded Aberdeen fans "scum" Rangers made it clear in a statement that they had "issued a full and unreserved apology" to Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne, the club and its supporters - and this was accepted by Aberdeen. In a another incident, then club captain Richard Gough, accused Aberdeen of only playing when it was against Rangers."

Just to clear up any confusion about the clubs apology relating to the "scum" incident and not Gough's statement and to more fully represent the citation.

Any objections to this ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

suppose so, is there a ref that backs this up or is it just from memory. I dont mean what you are proposing but the initial inclusion.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
Sorry my mistake i just checked the section and there are refs that back it all up, i would have no objections to the change as it would clarify it better and cant see why anyone else would object, fire away(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
Beat me to it MM, I will leave it here for a wee while before editing, to see what other think. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the section, The following could be better."The Rangers-Aberdeen rivalry began in the late 1970s when the two clubs were among the strongest in Scotland. This competitive rivalry soon intensived, through a series of incidents over the years, into a hatred." In this the "into a hatred" maybe removed, it is not referenced.

The following line could be better: "Relations between fans were soured beyond repair " Surely "beyond repair" conflicts with the article which quotes the Aberdeen chairman as:

"If anything positive is to be taken from this unfortunate incident, it has been agreed that both clubs will look at ways in which we could move together for the good of the Scottish Premier League and Scottish football as a whole.

"Whilst there have been incidents in the past involving Rangers and ourselves, both clubs should now be looking towards a future devoid of the nastiness which has appeared from time to time and for which a minority element of fans from both sides have been responsible."

That sentiment was echoed Euan Chisholm, chairman of the Association of Aberdeen Supporters' Clubs, who believes the time has come to meet Rangers fans and ensure the rivalry between the two clubs is restored to a friendly basis.

"Meeting with the main Rangers supporters' groups is now an option for us to put everything into context and emphasise the extremes of opinion are in a minority," he said."

The above would suggest "beyond repair" to be an exaggeration not reflecting the actual relations between both parties. Any thoughts on this ? SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i can see that you have read the sources. This section was introduced not that long ago and can imagine that there are some errors within it. I had not fully read the section until you brought it up just now. I agree that 'beyond repair' gives an incorrect account of the two clubs rivalry within the context of things.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
yeah, I only read it recently and it is a little untidy\vague, the idea would be to tidy up the section, keeping it concise, with links to further reading. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sectarianism section

There are editors currently locked in a disagreement on this article discussion page. The argument involves the section regarding sectarianism and whether or not to summarise the section like the proposal given and move detail to the article Sectarianism in Glasgow which already exists. The section on the discussion has strayed a bit from what it was originally but it’s still open. Thanks in advance(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC))


I was the editor who proposed this section be added, to both Old Firm articles, in January 2006. You can see the discussion here. (My username was Guinnog back then, and I had just registered an account a few weeks earlier.) These sections have stood the test of time, and I believe have helped reduce the amount of sectarian bickering on the two articles, which was a part of my intention in the first place. Of course, nothing stays the same forever on Wikipedia, but I'd say the onus to remove or drastically reduce referenced info from the section would be on someone who is looking at the bigger picture across these related articles. I have no affiliation either way in the great Scottish ethnic divide, though of course I am intimately aware of its nuances, and am rather proud of what we did back in 2006 and what it's achieved in the article since then. I'd be in favor of retaining more or less the status quo ante these proposals, though as always I am open to good arguments for change. Let's hear them, if they exist. At the moment I am not seeing them. --John (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I will make a proposal,(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
===Old Firm and sectarianism===
The club's most distinct rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888). Rangers came to be identified with the Scottish Protestant community.

Until Graeme Souness signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston, in 1989, Rangers were said by him to have had an "unwritten policy"[42] of not signing any player who was Catholic;[43] although Johnston was by no means the first Catholic to sign for the club,[44] he was the first openly Catholic, high-profile player to sign for them since World War I.[45]

Over the years there has been documented incidents involving sectarianism and the club ranging from fines and warnings by Uefa to fans singing controversial songs at matches.  The clubs fans are also disparagingly nicknamed Huns, which is regarded as a sectarian insult.

In recent times, both Rangers and Celtic have worked alongside the Scottish Parliament, church groups, pressure groups such as Nil by Mouth, schools and community organisations to educate and combat sectarianism.  
In August 2003 Rangers launched its 'Pride Over Prejudice' campaign later renamed 'Follow With Pride' to promote social inclusion and education.  

In 2006 William Gallard, UEFA's Director Of Communications, commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination.[69] Further, in September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism

I would go along with that MonkeyMan, that is more concise and sits better within the article itself. Perhaps a link to the other articles discussing the problem of Sectarianism in more detail would assist the readers who require more thorough information on the subject ?. It would also lead to a better article overall.

John, no-one here is trying to remove the section, or criticism of the club's supporters, only the parts that are inaccurate. There is no denying a minority of the support engage in sectarian activities, but that should not be given undue weight in the article itself. I have given more than enough information as to why the orange strip section should be removed.

82.9.98.40 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate? Which bits are inaccurate? --John (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
e/c I'm presuming you're SeekerAfterTruth and have forgotten to log in. You have once again removed the text on the orange football top after being asked to refrain until a consensus is achieved. I'm not going to bother reverting you again (it's getting silly) but I do think you are skating on thin ice. Jack forbes (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
seeker i will second what Jack just said, your edit warring (although you may feel you have shown that the part in question does not require to be on the article) will piss off admins who may block both you and the article from any future edits. There is already a link to sectarianism in glasgow which more detail, if required, could be placed and any future arguments directed. John how do you feel about my attempt?(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
I have asked User:Eldumpo for an opinion also(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

I think the suggested new text above is along the right lines, and cuts down the amount of text on the subject whilst still covering a number of points. I assume you were intending for a link to the main Sectarian article to remain under the sub-heading. However, a couple of sentences in the middle of the text appear to be unreferenced, and whilst over-referencing is not necessarily good I wonder whether due to the sensitivities of the subject that all statements should be referenced e.g. 'warnings by UEFA', 'disparagingly nicknamed Huns'. Another apparently good point is that the length of the section is a little closer to the Celtic article's section, which has to be a consideration (please note I am not inferring whether or not the degree of sectarianism at each club is the same). Eldumpo (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some good points El Dumpo, thanks for your input.

The section in question is Sectarianism, the clubs decision to introduce an orange jersey was in no way sectarian, it was a commercial decision which reflected a growing affiliation with Holland, given the large number of Dutch playing and coaching staff at the club, which was borne out in sales(see above), that a certain minority could construe it as sectarianism does not make it so, therefore it does not warrant inclusion in a section concerned with sectarianism. No organisation has ever alluded to the jersey being sectarian, but that a minority could construe it as such.

The allegation is made again the club colours section, why are there 2 mentions of the same event ?

I would ask why certain editors are hell bent on it's inclusion. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, the text explains the consequence of Rangers issuing an orange strip. It is not saying Ranger issued it because it would be seen as sectarian. The consequence of that was a furore over the perceived sectarianism of the orange top which was taken advantage of by Celtic and Rangers groups as well as being criticised by anti-sectarian groups and others. It is also important to note than Rangers officials refused to call it orange. Only a few months later John McCelland confessed that it was indeed orange. The fact of the matter is, the text reflects what the source says. Jack forbes (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I see no mention of any criticism of the strip by any organization, only that they welcomed the change. So the following is incorrect and unverified:

"Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians had criticised the club's decision to market an orange shirt, as the colour is associated with the Orange Institution." Where does the reference to the Orange Order appear in the article ? no where, so that part is Own Work by someone ?

The article cited states;

The decision has been welcomed by politicians and anti- sectarianism campaigners. Donald Gorrie, MSP, said: "I think it is a very good gesture to drop the shirt. I think it was a mistake on the part of Rangers to introduce it in the first place - I don't think they thought through its implications.

"On the fringe of Old Firm supporters there are people imbued with sectarian prejudices, but I believe both clubs are trying to work with their fans to bring that to an end."

and;

The anti-sectarian charity Nil By Mouth, said yesterday: "This is a step in the right direction. The orange strip has been seen by many as contradictory of the good work done by Rangers in recent times against sectarianism."

Alison Logan, of Sense Over Sectarianism, said she considered the decision to drop the shirt "a welcome move".

So no criticism of the strips introduction, only a welcoming of the decision to change it, and to remove a possible perception of sectarianism by some.

the article also states:

"The strip, officially described as "tangerine" and was introduced in April, had triggered furious debate over whether Rangers were profiting from their sectarian overtones."

It does not attribute where this "furious debate took place" or who is alleging the sectarian overtones. Pretty sloppy journalism should not be grounds for encyclopedic inclusion.

So again, I would assert the section be removed from the sectarian section, as if anything it shows a commitment to fight sectarianism. I would be interested in Jacks response to MonkeyMan's proposal and ElDumpo's response to the same and as to why he feels it necessary to include the allegations about jersey twice in the same article ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

seeker you have made your point, could you look at the bigger picture of the section within the article, thats what is under scrutiny here. Both of you have made your opinion known about the orange tops.
With response to Eldumpo, yes the link would remain to the main article in question, and i should of explained that refs would need to be added / taken / transferred from existing refs on the article, everything i have put in the proposal has refs. Seeker and Jack, as you are active on this discussion do we have concensus for the proposal above?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
Oh by the way please indent your replies (if needed) seeker it makes for easier reading(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
Monkeyman, indents included, my apologies if I have inadvertently hijacked your thread.
Whilst not wishing to detract from your proposal, how do you think you are going to achieve consensus for the changes you propose when we cannot get agreement on where and when sections contain inaccuracies ? I appreciate and applaud that you are working towards consensus but Jack has intimated that the text accurately reflects the article cited, and I disagree, hence my reply to his post.
If you feel the section accurately reflects the article or should I open another talk section specifically on the section in question, please let me know.
I have already stated my agreement to your proposed changes to the section and await others replies.
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not start the thread i have merely contributed to the discussion. If we can gain consensus over the sectarianism section then that would be a start. If Jack is willing to state if he agrees i could tidy / gather the stray refs up for the proposal(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
Do we have consensus for this edit or not, there is a separate article for sectarianism in glasgow where detail (including the orange tops) can go, if none of you reply then i am assuming its fine.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Definitely not ok with me, as I said up top, "I'd be in favor of retaining more or less the status quo ante these proposals" absent any compelling policy-based reason for watering the section down as you are proposing. --John (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The idea was to reduce the article size as had been completed in the past with the History section, there will still be a link to Sectarianism in Glasgow for more detail which already has an 'Old Firm' section within it, we could include a summary about the orange shirt debate here aswell if you would prefer that. There was criticism from a neutral that the section was made up of random incidents with no coherence.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
You have stated no solid reason why not to edit the section to the given proposal, you said already 'I am open to good arguments for change'(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Obviously sectenariasm still exists, it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martevo (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus here for Monkeymanman's edits, so I've restored the long-standing version. As other editors have said, I'm open to strong arguments for change, but there needs to be consensus before serious changes are made. --hippo43 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted back, you have stated no reason why the section should not be changed(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
The reason, as I stated above, is that you clearly failed to reach consensus for your proposed changes to the long-established version. For some reason, you went ahead anyway. If nothing else, see WP:BRD. John, Jack Forbes and Martevo all objected to your view on this, and, as you probably suspected I would, I agree entirely with their points. Not one of those editors has stated that they've changed their mind and don't mind you making the change.
I'll revert again to the previous stable version, pending further discussion here. Please do not turn this into an edit war - do not restore your preferred version unless you can achieve consensus for it. If you can make a good case fo why this article should have this section shortened, I may even support it. --hippo43 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A couple of neutral editors had a look at the section as it stood and mentioned that it was incoherent and had little structure, I attempted to bring the section together and in effect summarising the section but leaving the important points in place. In doing so detail had been moved to another article, Sectarianism in Glasgow which is an article solely about sectarianism. The information in fullness is still available on Wikipedia I have not simply Deleted anything but transferred it to the relevant article where it could still be read, the link to this article was still available at the top of the section. I cannot understand why you think this has not improved the article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
The only person who replied to the proposal was john, and never actually gave any reasons behind his objection(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
This section has been the subject of long discussion in the past, and I have stated my views on it already. In brief, it is so important because it gives an appropriate explanation of the club's role in Scottish society. This, IMO, is far more significant than lists of trivia about football matches and seasons.
It is patently obvious that SeekerAfterTruth's intention is to minimise the amount of coverage given to Rangers' sectarian problem, and to remove material that seems critical of the club. In the past, you've shown an inclination to do the same, though credit to you for being much more willing to engage in discussion recently. I hope you don't get drawn into his unpleasant attempts to discredit other editors on the grounds that they are "Celtic people". The irony of seeking to remove embarrasing but sourced information about sectarianism while arguing that certain people can't edit this article because of their background seems lost on him.
This was not just one editor objecting. John stated clearly why he objected - "Definitely not ok with me, as I said up top, "I'd be in favor of retaining more or less the status quo ante these proposals" absent any compelling policy-based reason for watering the section down as you are proposing." Martevo wrote "Obviously sectenariasm still exists, it should be included." In the related discussion above, on the famine song, Jack forbes wrote "The song caused trouble not just in football but also in politics. There is nothing disproportionate about it" and "If you edit it without a full discussion here and without consensus I will revert your edit immediately" etc. I don't really believe you thought nobody objected.
This section is about sectarianism relating to Rangers - the club and its fans. It is not just about the Old Firm rivalry, or a generic "Sectarianism in Glasgow" approach, and it would not be appropriate at all to summarise it and move it elsewhere, unless that main article was called something like "Sectarianism in Rangers FC".
It is entirely spurious to seek "consistency" with any other club's article. As I've stated before, this section is maybe too focussed on recent events, which are well-documented online, and in fact might need to be expanded to cover more of the club's history. It almost entirely omits the most obvious and well-known element of sectarianism relating to Rangers - their unwillingness to employ Catholic players for a long time. There is a wealth of good quality published sources around which deal with this subject, I just haven't had a chance to write up a well-referenced piece yet.
Every article on Wikipedia has to be judged independently - we need to stick to the facts here, as reported in reliable sources. If there is more coverage of sectarianism here, than, say, the Dundee Utd article, maybe that is because it is of greater relevance to Rangers, as shown by the coverage given by reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is about a football club, and it rightly gives information about the club, its affairs past and present.
it is so important because it gives an appropriate explanation of the club's role in Scottish society, is this really the place or is that purely propaganda? Or like jack said how sectarianism manifests itself, is this really the place?
Definitely not ok with me, as I said up top, "I'd be in favor of retaining more or less the status quo ante these proposals, yes, but he did not actually state any reasons against the proposal and certainly did not revert any changes (I am sure now he has read what you have said and will now jump in)
Obviously sectarianism still exists, it should be included Yes it is included, my edit did not completely remove the section.
I don't really believe you thought nobody objected, why did no one revert the edit that I made then? And why did no one try to reply to the proposal.
It almost entirely omits the most obvious and well-known element of sectarianism relating to Rangers - their unwillingness to employ Catholic players for a long time
I think that you will find that it is included within the section and is actually one of the first sentences. My proposal left that part as it was word for word.
remove material that seems critical of the club, as I have already stated earlier in these discussions it was never my intention to ‘remove all criticism’, I don’t know how you can say that when my inclusion was the same section with all the criticism left but simply shorter.
Within the article this section is over weight, the rest of the history was removed and briefly summarised, sectarianism is a problem within Glasgow / Scotland. Should it not be detailed in that respect.
Is it not related to Sectarianism within Glasgow? Does it not hold some form of fundamental basis for Sectarianism within Glasgow?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
I don't think this (inaccurate) hair-splitting approach is helpful. It was clear that there were objections to reducing this section, even if you didn't understand them or agree with them, and that there was no consensus for your changes, yet you went ahead anyway. I guess it is fair enough that you were bold, but, per BRD, it is not surprising that you were reverted.
"Is this really the place?" Yes, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others who have worked on the article and commented in the past. If you disagree, you will have to find consensus for your view.
Re Rangers' signing policy, I wrote that it is almost entirely' omitted, which is correct. As for "remove material that seems critical of the club", I wrote this about Seeker, not you.
It is your opinion, but not everyone's, that this section is given too much weight. In order to achieve consensus, you need to convince other editors of your view.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean in your last paragraph. --hippo43 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You really are on an edit mission today are you not. The Famine song paragraph was removed on the back of recentism and the fact that it has its own article now.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
As far as I can tell, the Fmain Song stuff was removed by SeekerAfterTruth on 19 & 20 May.[3] There was no consensus for the move - in fact, several editors objected very clearly. Please put it back - I don't want to get drawn into an edit war with you over this. --hippo43 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why you would like that whole bundle of paragraphs reinstated, it is over weight for the fact that the particular incident / song has its own wikipedia article. I have already asked if you would like to make a settlement by putting a very brief summary of the song into the article with an initial attempt on here for it to be looked over. I am open for a proposal.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
==Proposal==

In 2008 controversy surrounded a song called [[The Famine Song]] which refers to the Irish potato famine of the 1840’s.  

In November 2008, a Rangers fan was found guilty of a [[breach of the peace]] (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the ''Famine Song'' during a game against [[Kilmarnock F.C.|Kilmarnock]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.kilmarnockstandard.co.uk/ayrshire-news/news-east-ayrshire/kilmarnock-news/2008/11/26/rangers-fan-guilty-over-singing-famine-song-at-rugby-park-81430-22348515/ | title=Rangers fan guilty over singing Famine Song at Rugby Park | work=[[Kilmarnock Standard]] | publisher=Scottish & Universal Newspapers | date=2008-11-26 | accessdate=2008-12-07 }}</ref>

How about that for now?(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Ok, thanks for trying. I am going to put the previous version back while this is under discussion. Again, it is your opinion that this is given too much weight - it is not one shared by several other editors above.
I don't like the first paragraph you have suggested - it omits the whole racism controversy, Irish diplomats being involved, Rangers' failure to condemn it, the RST's opinion etc. these things need to be included, and I don't think we need much of an explanation of what the song is about.
I don't have much time now but will put together a proposal asap. --hippo43 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are completely neglecting the fact that the song has its own article on wikipedia now, a link to that would suffice. All your other proposals about including peoples opinions and the like is overkill. The second sentence reflects the fact that it was deemed a breach of the peace aggravated by religious and racial prejudice. This is not a soapbox for propaganda(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
OK, please drop all the guff about soapboxes and propaganda, at least if you want to reach any kind of agreement. Second, I'm not neglecting anything - I'm well aware that the song has its own article. So does virtually every person, place, event and date mentioned in this article. A good encyclopedia article is much more than a collection of links. Would you agree if I proposed removing all mention of Rangers winning the Cup Winners Cup, on the grounds that "a link would suffice"?
Obviously I don't agree that this is overkill, like the other editors above who objected. If you want us to reach a new consensus version on this you will need to accept that more detail is going to go in. --hippo43 (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to links, I am not proposing removing the section / reference to the song I have given you a proposal that clearly states the criticism / ref to breach of the peace. Yes the article mentions rangers won the cup winners cup, but it does not mention every detail, every event, every match, it is summarised. It is summarised into approximately TWO sentences throughout the whole article and linked to another article, arguably the greatest achievement in the clubs history will have less article space than the famine song if my proposal above goes ahead. Do you think that is correct or Undue Weight?(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC))


Famine Song was removed for reasons stated(Recentism and UndueWeight)Hippo, please stop your edit warring and agenda pushing, you have been warned on several occasions, on several articles, about disruptive behaviour, there are other articles specifically aimed at the issues you wish to discuss. You have no consensus here.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_13&oldid=1050155732"