Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Rangers F.C.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Huns

This article contains some dubious claims that 'hun' is in some way 'sectarian.' These claims are only referenced by a discredited advocacy group Nil by Mouth (charity) and, laughably, the Rangers Supporters Trust.

Ordinarily this would be a minor irritation, to be corrected over time. However, WP:TAGTEAMs of well meaning edidors at Hun (disambiguation) are using this as a pretext for maintaining misleading wording at that page too. Please can we restore some realism to the paragraph? For instance it should be mentioned that huns used the term 'hun' for Celtic supporters in the 60s and that sources considerably more reputable than the knuckle-scraping RST totally reject any 'sectarian' connotation.

Cheers. 90.207.76.207 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why the hun link points to the term as applied to Germans in the 20th century, as none of the references mention that specifically? In fact amongst all the propaganda leveled at rangers fans the most believable source of the slur was from an english newspaper article, who after some crowd trouble at a football match, compared some of the rangers fans to the armies of Attila. And I would also agree that the term is not sectarian, I have never heard it used in a context of religion. Incidentally if the Rangers Supporters Trust are 'laughable' then surely so too is Mr John Reid, and his statements should also be discounted from this page? Hachimanchu (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally the usual sectarian slur on rangers fans is 'dirty orange bastards', sometimes without the prefix, and sometimes shortened to D.O.B Hachimanchu (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if you do not consider it sectarian, the Scottish Courts have ruled that it is, with individuals convicted of committing a religiously aggravated breach of the peace for using the term. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish courts have ruled no such thing. Read the relevant act, and see my commment above. In any case, wikipedia policy does not preclude including derogatory terms, sectarian or not. --hippo43 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again you show your true colours, using the mask of WiKi rules to propogate sectarian name calling in public. Use of the term "Hun" constitutes religiously aggravated breach of the peace under Scots Law. Fact.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sectarianism section - policy of not signing Catholics

I have started a section covering the club's signing policy. It seems to me this is one of the most important aspects of the sectarianism section, and it was a real weakness not to cover it at all. I've tried to carefully word it and source everything (hence the number of footnotes) but am happy to discuss it here. --hippo43 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

i have reverted your latest sweeping change on the grounds of no consensus and clearly overkill, the section was very stable for some considerable time and vast pile ons with uncheckable sources is inappropriate for a controversial subject. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "uncheckable sources". I have clearly cited everything to widely published reliable sources, including page numbers, and even quotes in some cases. You can probably find some of these on google books if you can't be bothered checking a hard copy of the source.

As for overkill, I have devoted just a few lines to a subject of great historical importance. Less coverage than is given to some seasons, for example. As for "pile-ons", I've no idea what you mean. Does this refer to a wikipedia policy?

I don't mind you disagreeing with me, and am happy to discuss detailed changes, but simply reverting a great deal of work, and not dealing with individual changes, because you can't be bothered to check sources, is not acceptable. (For example, you've restored a reference to a page on the Rangers website which clearly does not support the statement it is used as support for. It's obvious you haven't checked the source.) You haven't proposed any alternative, so I'm restoring the changes. --hippo43 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Monkeymanman, what was uncheckable about Hippo's sources? --John (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

hippo43, I have reverted your revert. Whatever the merits of Monkeymanman's challenge to your edits, the point of discussing them is to avoid edit warring. Guidelines suggest that having been reverted, now you discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I opened a discussion above, and so far noone has made any coherent objections to the material. It is difficult to assume good faith on an editor's part when they revert a number of changes without checking them individually and without reading the sources, and when they offer no alternative opinion, no reference to policy. I think my view on this is clear. EO, if you have a different view, I'd like to hear it. --hippo43 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

EO, Hippo is correct. It takes two to edit war and your revert was unhelpful. Where are you discussing the edits Hippo has suggested? --John (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have to give people more than a few hours to respond. I haven't the time just now to review the edits, so can offer no opinion on them. But if Monkeymanman declines to justify his stance, having been given time to do so, then you would be within your rights to reinstate your work. Why don't we wait and hear what he has to say? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Monkeymanman did respond, but did not justify his stance at all. If you don't have time to review edits, and have no opinion on them, it is inappropriate to remove them. I took the time to make these changes and to research them carefully. If you are considering reverting my work, please at least be courteous enough to do the same. --hippo43 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I was growing up even the dogs in the streets knew that Rangers did not play Catholics. PatGallacher (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You can probably find some of these on google books if you can't be bothered checking a hard copy of the source, Unfortunately I did not have time to review each and every one of your changes (and at the minute still dont), and I doubt anyone else would in that timeframe.

As for overkill, I have devoted just a few lines to a subject of great historical importance. Less coverage than is given to some seasons, for example, Yes, there was already a few lines on the subject.

Uncheckable sources, Was probably the wrong wording, not easily checkable sources would have been more appropriate.

For example, you've restored a reference to a page on the Rangers website which clearly does not support the statement it is used as support for. It's obvious you haven't checked the source. was probably on the article for some time, my mistake.

pile-ons, where peoples opinion is used simply to bulk out a subject or inclusion. Was advised of this on another article.

even the dogs in the streets knew that Rangers did not play Catholics, And? The signing policy was already mentioned on the article

Particularly from the 1970s, Rangers came under increasing media pressure over their policy, a sentence like this from a journalists opinion? The situation has already been mentioned, what good is his opinion? Perhaps he had a one sided opinion to begin with. Is that neutral in a controversial subject (example of a pile on there). Plus who were the clubs directors who defended it? From an initial thought was it David Miller again? Perhaps he was the problem internally.

I am open to discussing this hippo. But feel that if i revert the article now, what will be the point when you have already put your foot down (so to speak) and even an attempt by Escape orbit to encourage you to give more time to reply, fell in vain, and i would be dragged into an edit war. You have shown in the past you are the supreme overlord of the old firm and Scottish football articles, so why should anyone else even bother. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't currently have time to check the sources, that's understandable, but please don't blindly revert in that case, as you cannot have an informed opinion on the material. In short, don't remove stuff you haven't checked. If you do take the time to read the sources, you would find out what they say. For example, media pressure (and pressure from the SFA and FIFA) in the 1970s is covered in several of the sources - I gave Ian Archer's article as an illustrative example, but there could easily be many more. The directors' responses (nothing to do with David Miller) are contained in the source which is clearly cited immediately in the text - Giulianotti and Armstrong's 'Fear and loathing in world football'. If you prefer, we could include quotes from the people concerned, but they would show Rangers in an even worse light, and there are editors around who probably wouldn't like that.

I too am open to discussing it, but so far no one here has engaged in any discussion based on these sources. --hippo43 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Firm and sectarianism

The neutrality tag has been on that section since June and nothing has yet to be done about it. There is a need to trim this section down, it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to an issue with some fans actions, especially when you compare it to the limited section on Celtic F.C. There should be a paragraph or two, not a list of events where a few fans have acted out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I intend to raise this matter on WP:NPOVN to try and get some uninvolved neutral feedback on it. Will provide the link here once i do later. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Raised the issue here so we can try and get some uninvolved feedback, without doing a RFC which is far more long winded. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please raise the issue again, there is clearly bias when the Rangers section of this is compared to Celtic. There is no mention of individual arrests in Celtic's section, yet there is in Rangers. Ridiculous for something that is supposed to be impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.222.19 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

i have said it so many times. It should be a general overview with few if any individual cases and certainly not the pile ons of peoples opinion to bulk out the section. At this minute in time i think it is a fair thing to ask if the pile ons should be removed? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are editors here who are pursuing a sectarian agenda in denigrating Rangers FC, they use WiKi rules to mask this. Their behaviour has and continues to render this section meaningless. The Celtic article no longer even has a section, yet the same editors here continually refuse to agree to moving the section to its own article where it can be discussed and presented in depth. I propose moving this section to a seperate article, all those in favour ?SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An individual article would make some matters worse and would be unneeded. You bring up the celtic article again. On there quotations about peoples opinion were removed due to them being apparently only used as pile-ons. The same should be done here then, with individuals opinions on matters removed. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So Monkeymanman, your preference is for reliably sourced material to be left out of the encyclopedia altogether? No detail is needed here, and a deeper, separate article would be even worse? What a surprise. Which parts of the material are unsourced? Are there contradictory opinions stated in other reliable sources? Why do you constantly refer to the Celtic article? If there is relevant material to be discussed there, please raise it there. Why do you not mention any other clubs' pages?

Seeker, if you accuse editors of "pursuing a sectarian agenda", you should be prepared for them to take great offence. Please read the relevant policies about personal attacks, assuming good faith etc. --hippo43 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I accuse you hippo43 of pursuing a sectarian agenda in your dogged persistence in refusing to accept anything other than that which reflects your own view of what should be included in an article that purports to be about a football club. The reason why the Celtic article is referenced is that it represents the other side of a sectarian division, but somehow manages to escape any mention of the sectarian incidents against it, thanks in no small part to your involvement in editing it. John, as an admin and the originator of the section in question here, clearly has a conflict of interests in his support for the section. I look forward to presenting this to neutral admins as the main reason for the sections removal to its own article.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are 'sectarian incidents' which merit inclusion in the Celtic FC article, inline with policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc, raise them there and let editors discuss them. I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is. If you have any evidence of a sectarian agenda, let's hear it, otherwise you risk coming across as an obnoxious single-issue zealot.

For the record, I am now being pursued by yet another regular editor of the Celtic article. I have had user hippo43 bring in Admin John(originator of the section who has defended hippo43 on a number of occasions against different users), user Jack Forbes and now user, Deacon of Pndapetzim. This Wiki folks, where if you stand up against abuses of the system, users pursuing their own agenda will join forces in defence of that agenda. I will not be bullied into silence

I ask any neutral footbal fan with a knowledge of scottish football to study both the Rangers and Celtic articles and their related talk pages and ask themselves if there is balance between them in the way they are presenting the "facts". SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of bias in the Rangers and Celtic articles. Could someone please put an end to this. Rangers section is filled with details of arrests, and the Celtic section does not have the same, despite similar numbers of arrests occurring. This is why Wikipedia cannot be used as a good source for anything, because there is a clear agenda being pursued here. The sectarian section on Rangers page is huge, and the similar Celtic section is minimal, only referencing Rangers actions in a negative light. It is utterly ridiculous and clear bias. If anyone involved in the process of making Wikipedia a useful resource is reading this, will they please objectively look at the Rangers and Celtic sections, because at the moment Wikipedia could easily be accused of extreme bias against Rangers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.222.19 (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliably sourced examples of sectarian behaviour by fans of other clubs (Celtic, Ayr United, Ipswich Town or whoever) you should add them to the relevant articles, or discuss them at the appropriate talk pages. As far as I can tell, all the examples relating to Rangers and sectarianism are both accurate and reliably sourced. If there are reliable sources which discuss Rangers and sectarianism, and which show the club in a more favourable light, we should probably include them. --hippo43 (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully request wikipedia review the neutrality tag with a view to reduce the section or otherwise. It appears to be an attempt to slur the club that is Rangers F.C. and is one long list of arrests, often of a single fan, to have reached the media. There is also unsourced material claming that Rangers were developing anti-catholic sentiments before the formation of Celtic F.C. It would be possible to attach sources and list every fan of Celtic F.C. or any other club, where the said fan has been arrested due to some form of a breach of the peace. This, however, is not relevant to the section of the page, and other than what appears to be a bias slur, benefiting only the editor trying to promote this slur against whichever club is in question, does not provide any useful information to a neutral reader. --Mrspy (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Club links

Not to detract from the mudslinging contest this page has become, it would be interesting to add a section for 'links'. For instance the 'Blues Brothers' (Rangers, Linfield, Chelsea), supposed links to Hamburger SV (although i'm not convinced its anything other than a few right wing nutters from either club) and the clubs links to Ajax FC. The latter and Rangers have shared many players, including Frank De Boer, Ronald De Boer, Shota Arveladze, Michael Mols, Peter Van Vossen and Michael Laudrup, as well as manager Jan Wouters. They have also played friendlies on numerous occasions, since their meeting in the 1973 European Super Cup. Conversely Celtic FC have had a number of players from rivals Feyenoord, most notably Henrik Larsson. Hachimanchu (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic players?

Does anyone know did any of the following play for Rangers: John Greig, John Clare, Johnny Kennedy, Chris Houston, Bob Cleary, Eddie Devenney Hugh O’Neill, Constantine McGhie, Bob "Dancer" Dunn, Peter Mone, "Starry" McLachlan, Charles McCafferty, Daniel Divers John Manners (later Father Manners, SJ), George Banciewicz, Terry Sloan, Brian Grubb, Edward Devlin, Andy Casey, and Tom (Butch) Cassidy (as per [1])?? THANKS. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority, and most likely all of those named (apart from John Greig obviously, who was the Rangers captain and not a Catholic), were teaching staff from the 1970s until 1990s at St Aloysius College, a private Catholic school, run by Jesuits, in Garnethill in Glasgow. I know because I was taught by Chris Houston, Bob Cleary, Charles McCafferty, Dan Divers, George Banciewizc, Andy Casey and Butch Cassidy. I knew Brian Grubb, Edward Devlin and Father Manners but was never taught by them. Terry Sloan was a pupil, and I think Eddie Devenney, Bob Dunn and Peter Mone were too. A visit to staloysius.org will confirm at least some of this.

The rumour was clearly planted by a former pupil (and Celtic fan, natch), who wanted to satirise further the already ludicrous level of "debate" over Rangers' signing (and employment) policy for most of the 20th Century. The debate is akin to the debate between evolution and creationism. Many former Rangers players have spoken about the "no Catholics" rule (which operated from the 1910s until the mid-1980s), including Ralph Brand, Ray Wilkins, Sandy Jardine and Alex Ferguson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tietjens2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange how in the link from the first person, there is an almost like for statement mirroring the equally mysterious second person. Please don't fill up this discussion page with OF tit tat --BadSynergy (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

league cup honours are wrong.

the wikilinks for the league cup wins are wrong. according to the Rangers page, Rangers won the league cup in 1991, yet when you click the link it takes you to the final between hibs and dunfermline... rangers won the league cup in the 1990-1991 season, but the actual final took place early in the season, in 1990. therefore they won it in 1990... i checked a couple of the others and they are the same. i did not correct them, as it will not just be the rangers page that is wrong, but all the other teams including in the finals, for every year there is a page... someone needs to sit and correct either all the links and info on the pages, or change the league cup pages (and therefore corresponding links on team pages) to the correct dates. this is one of the reasons that wikipedia is seen as not very reliable and a bit of a joke. contributors need to know what they are doing!!! good luck to whoever corrects it, if it gets done at all... 77.99.212.29 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed it. Wasn't so hard. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrspy, 17 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that the parts in 'Old Firm and sectarianism', regarding the signing of Catholic Players between WWI and 1980 is removed. This includes the part about Maurice Johnston. The article incorrectly states that Rangers F.C. did not sign any Catholic football players between WWI and 1980, and then goes on to disprove this false theory in the last few lines of the article, ilsting players of Catholic faith that in fact WERE signed between the said times.

This disproves what has been stated, and also deems the quote regarding Johnston irrelivent. He was arguably Rangers first 'major' Roman Catholic signing, but the others that were signed before him were not 'major' enough to warrant media attention, therefore their faith was not relevent. This does not mean Rangers didn't sign any players of Catholic faith. At the time of his signing, Johnston was being quoted incorrectly as the first ever catholic signing for Rangers. This was a rumour started by a student, that spread like wildfire. Johnston was the first player for a very long time to cross the divide from one old firm team to another, playing for Celtic first. It is true to say Rangers supporters didn't take this very well, mixed up with the usual bigotry from a minority of people, what came out of it all was that Rangers fans had refuse to accept a Catholic signing, which to a point was true, but the reason for this was not that Johnston was a Catholic alone. He had played for Celtic, against Rangers, that is what had annoyed the Rangers fans. A similar and more recent example of this is Kenny Miller playing for Rangers twice having played for Cetic in the middle. Now, years later the same thing regarding Johnston is being said, when it is not the case. There were Catholic players signed not long before Johnston, but because they had not played for Celtic, there was no reason to publish it in the media, therefore people didn't know as it wasn't deemed relevant, it allowed this false theory to rise that Johnston was the first Catholic to play for Rangers. Even though this has now been disproved, people try to peddle out that he is the first 'major' Catholic signing. This is not relevent, nor does it matter, there was no policy and this is nothing more than a slur.

I also request that the Union Flag picture is removed, as this is the flag of The Nation that I live in and has absolutely nothing to do with sectarianism.

My request is simply to remove some of the irrelevent text and a photograph, and here is what it would read verbatim if it is edited:

The Old Firm and sectarianism

Helicopter Sunday

I thought some of you might like to help expand this new article. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if this merits a whole new article. could it not have been added to the Old Firm article or, probably more suitably, the Scottish Premier League article? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)