Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Nicknames

I think Huns should be added. It is quite a popular and well known nickname for the club. Opinions?

I see youre point but I think that many fans will find it ofensive.... Blackburner

But I think that it has become a post-slur in that most Rangers supporters call themselves by that name....Kind of like Jock (for a Scotsman).

Nah i dont think so mate

Very few, if any, Rangers fans use the term and it is seen as derogatory by the vast majority. Archibald99  15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this site is not here to cater to a certain group of people. You admit that it is a common nickname for the club, a name that refers to Rangers, and I think that that makes the information suitable for inclusion.

I disagree. The nickname is in no way offensive.

I didn't admit anywhere that it is a common nickname, and by your own logic the fact that you see it as being "in no way offensive" does not matter. See Chelsea F.C. and the note on the inclusion of the nickname Chelski, seen as derogatory. Archibald99  22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included - the fact that many Rangers fans find it derogatory surely shows that it is commonly used, largely by fans of other Scottish teams.

Although it is no doubt a pejorative nickname, it is widely used and has been for some time. This is not a site for fans' opinions of their own clubs - it is an encyclopedia, after all. I don't believe that the discussion of 'Chelski' sets some kind of precedent for this article - in particular, 'Huns' has been in use far longer than 'Chelski'.

There is a discussion at [1] on this, though there seem to me to be very few examples of nicknames like 'Huns' which are so widely used, and for so long, by non-fans. The many Rangers fans offended by the name are no doubt outnumbered by the large numbers of non-Rangers fans who use it. Hippo43 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This part of the discussion on Chelski [[2]] seems to me to be the most compelling and relevant to this discussion -

"First of all, Hildanknight is wrong in asserting that because X is a negative POV, therefore it should not be in the infobox. The NPOV standards for the infobox should not be any different from those of the rest of the article. To wit, refusing to include negative POVs is not NPOV (neutral POV), it is positive POV which is, by definition, a POV. It is not Wikipedia's job to be a hagiography of Chelsea FC. I'm sure they have a website for that purpose. Wikipedia's goal is to describe the world (as sourced to reliable sources).

Second, SteveO is right in asserting that, since the standard seems to be to leave pejorative nicknames out of infoboxes, therefore Chelsea F.C. should follow suit. That argument makes sense. However, I suspect that this sort of battle against insertion of commonly used pejorative nicknames is never-ending battle that has little real value. Why not include Chelski with the qualifier "pejorative" in parentheses? Doing this adds to the knowledge of the reader and that is the goal of Wikipedia. If the user knows the nickname is pejorative, he/she can make up their own mind whether they want to use the nickname and in what environment. It might make sense for the Chelsea F.C. article to break ranks with the other articles on football clubs and include the pejorative nickname. If there is a WikiProject for football clubs, then this question should be taken up there. --Richard 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) "

IMO "Huns [pejorative]" should be included. Hippo43 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Huns has been added on countless occasions as vandalism (i.e., not in the nickname section of the infobox). Allowing it will open the door to further vandalism because we've "accepted" the nickname. So, nah, I'll be removing any further Huns additions. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.113.199.109 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Dudesleeper here. Allowing one pejorative term because it is deemed widely-used will in effect set a precedent - anyone wanting to add a derogatory term (to any team's page) will be able to justify it by claiming widespread use, something that is not really quantifiable one way or the other. We all know that there are a number of derogatory nicknames and you'll find terms such as "orcs, forces of darkness, sons of william, mhanks, tattiemunchers, pikeys, hobos, yams, docksiders, pub team," etc are "widely-used" on certain messageboards and partisan websites.

Also, I think the analogy with Chelski is misleading. Chelski has appeared in reliable source outlets like the BBC. Harry Harris even published a book called Chelski Revolution. In comparison, you won't find reference to the Huns on such sources, it is generally considered more offensive and a taboo term by the mainstream media. I would suggest that the reason for this is that the term retains sectarian undertones, for example the "Kill all Huns" graffiti in North & West Belfast. Indeed Nil by Mouth, the anti-sectarianism charity, state on their website:

"Sectarian language is commonly used in Scotland, with abusive terms such as "Hun" and "Orange bastard" being used against Protestants..."

Including Huns as a nickname would thus, for these two reasons, not be a good idea, in my opinion. Caledonian Place 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has changed after reading this. I actually do not think it should be added. Really I just wanted to show Dudesleeper that he was wrong to delete my conversation. I think Wikipedians should use the talk feature to discuss potential additions or changes before making such edits. The fact that we had this conversation pleases me - the good guy always wins. :-)

I would however suggest changing the info box to include official club nicknames only. It is clear that under the current heading Nicknames huns could rightfuly be added. It is very common and it is a nickname. Both characteristics for inclusion. (63.113.199.109 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Maybe the article itself could include other unofficial (not used by the organization) nicknames - offensive and unoffensive. Remember that what is considered offensive is subjective. Remember to keep a NPOV. 63.113.199.109 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The good guy who's been blocked four times in three months? - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And here's another reason why we shouldn't waste time on anything 63.113.199.109 has to offer. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox.....AND I've served my time. Thank you. 63.113.199.109 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

HUNS should definetly be added it is a well known nickname. Wiki isn't a homepage for football fans and their team; Wiki is about information, and I'm afraid HUNS should be added cos it is relevent info.

That it has not been added already and that the Rangers fans are blocking (sadly successfully) it's inculsion on this page just goes to show that you Rangers fans are straying from NPOV. Sad.

I agree. I am not much of a football supporter but I am Scottish and I can say that a very many Scots refer to rangers as 'the Huns'. this term has also been used on national radio to describe them. The non inclusion of this name is pandering to a section of their support who have self-ascribed some dubious sectarian component to the name, when in fact it simply represents the esteem that many scots, protestant and catholic, hold them in.

Huns should not be used, its on par with "Tims" and "Fenians"--Allanmac9 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that anything which could be considered offensive should NOT be included in Wiki? Can I ask you to review the NPOV, please? 63.113.199.109 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Official Nicknames

Anyone else think that the info box should change to include official nickname only?

And rob the GP of information ! ! ! WHY ? ? ? GLASGOWBOY

GP means "general pubelic," right? 63.113.199.109 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Successful team?

This must be up for debate as Rangers have never won the European Cup/Champions League and as far as im aware have only won one European trophy,the now defunct European Cup Winners Cup

With the most domestic titles I think it's pretty accurate to say that they are the most successful in Scotland. Wr50l 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think team with the most trophies would be more appropriate.

Rangers are, they were the first to win 100 tropheys...--Allanmac9 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, they are the first team to win 100 trophies, well except linfield and they've also got the most trophies except linfield. Hermangelmet 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in: But Arent linfield by far the most succesfull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BD03 (talk • contribs)

See the "Most trophies ever" section further down. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First Team Squad

Just a quick query as to why the first team was reverted back to the wrong first team. The team (as it now seems to be) is as follows: GK - 22 Alan McGregor, LB - 26 "Super" Stevie Smith, CB - 7 Brahim Hemdani, CB - 19 Karl Svennson, LM - 25 Charlie Adam, CM - 8 Jeremy Clement, CM - 6 Barry Ferguson (c), RM - 17 Chris Burke, CF - 9 Dado Prso, CF - 10 Nacho Novo Chriswood87 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to thank wikipedia for completely ignoring me. 84.13.131.190 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

-- rangers are a huge club, so why is Sectarianism the first artical on their page, there is a lot more about this club than this, i realise its part of the club, and sadly the west of scotland, but should it not be further down the artical?

I agree with you, there!

The most succesful team? Should that not be calculated by dividing trophies by years in existence? What about major trophies, should they be ranked? Such as the European Cup being a greater achievement than the Cup Winners Cup, or the Coronation Cup being greater than the FA Cup?

An interesting debate. Rangers have won over 270 cups and trophys. Its for this reason Rangers are Scotlands most succesful football club. Today we see The Glasgow Cup and the Glasgow Charity Cup as minor competitions but in there day they were highly regarded. The Scottish Cup was always regarded as the major of the competitions until European Football made the League Championship the number one priority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robrangershistory (talk • contribs).

Israeli 'keeper

Is my memory going wonky again, or did Rangers have an Israeli 'keeper at one point (maybe in the mid 90s?)? Was it Bonny Ginsburg (or similar spelling)? I couldn't find him in the Category of Rangers players, so wondered if I'd imagined it. --Dweller 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Bonni Ginzburg. Doesn't have a Wikipedia article, although the other Israeli Gers player at the time Avi Cohen does. [3]. Archibald99 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

HTML faux pas

Something's going on with the UEFA Cup template at the bottom of the article, and it's beyond my ken as to how to fix it. - Dudesleeper 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

City names as prefix/suffix

Dudesleeper, you have possibly never lived abroad? Except maybe England. It is COMMON PRACTICE in foreign countries, at least in German-speaking ones where I lived, to use the city name as part of the team name, such as Arsenal London. It's the same faux-pas as calling Red Star "Red Star Belgrade", Inter "Inter Milan", etc... Maybe there should be a page explaining this, with examples, that all these falsely named clubs can be linked to. - ByteofKnowledge 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal London is at least popular enough a name to warrant a redirect on Wikipedia. Try googling the phrase too, you'll find a lot of hits, mainly foreign sites. ByteofKnowledge 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I removed your edit in haste. I was born in England but have lived in the States for the last five years and still haven't heard London Arsenal, but that's because I tend to tune out of American renamings. The clarifying article you think should be started sounds like a reasonably large project, but it sounds interesting. - Dudesleeper 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to use Inter Milan as my replacement example, but their official name is Football Club Internazionale Milano SpA, so it wouldn't really be out of order to use the English term. - Dudesleeper 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard too much of this usage here in the States either. But the usage does exist, primarily when a speaker or writer is from another country to the team being spoken about. Which in the case of English journalists talking about Scotland is entirely true. ByteofKnowledge 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Famous Players section?

I noticed a fairly large amount of the famous players currently hold some role at Rangers as coaches, directors etc.: Greig, Durrant, Jardine, possibly McCoist soon. Would it be a worthwhile addition to denote these with a ³? Archibald99 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

five star

The section claims "The club's home is one of 29 UEFA five-star stadia"

the link to 5 star stadiums shows only 24 stadiums

Recent Seasons

why not 'recent seasons' section like the Celtic pages? With the recent cup defeats to 1st division St Johnstone and lowly Dunfermeline well worth a mention!

Notable players - criteria

As stated in the current peer review and on the Celtic F.C. article's talk page, there should be a set criteria for inclusion to this section. Suggestions? Archibald99 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any reason it shouldn't be the same criteria as the Celtic ones. Rockpocket 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just trimmed back the addition of several new names. The list is on the long side already. This article doesn't have to use the same criteria as the Celtic page of course, but I would argue there need to be some criteria to prevent the list becoming almost infinitely long.

For interest, here are the ones we agreed for Celtic.

• Around 100+ first team appearances gets you in.
• Ex-players only, but no limit on when they last played (If When the mighty Paul Telfer scores a hat-trick in the Champions League Final this season, he should be included after leaving this coming summer ;)
• Irrespective of number of games, if they were a significant "first" for Celtic they could be included (e.g., Gil Heron)
• However, trivial firsts should be discounted (e.g. Shaun Maloney - as the first Malaysian born Scot under 4 feet tall to don the Hoops)
• Irrespective of number of games, if they were unique, unusual, or newsworthy (beyond the norm) in relation to Celtic they could be included (e.g., Mo Johnston and Alfie Conn, Jr. for obvious reasons)

--Guinnog 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Awwww Nawwww YOU 3 are into this aswell.You try an set a criteria for everythin,this page worked fine without one an youll spoil this page like you did with the hoops with your rubbish criteria(LiamD1 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Without criteria the list will just fill and fill with players (like the ones you have added) whose claims to notability as Rangers players are slim indeed. --Guinnog 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Take Oleg Kuznetsov for example. With 35 appearances and one goal for Rangers in four years, in what way is he a notable rangers player? --Guinnog 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

management / playing staff

firstly walter smith is a mbe and super ally is an obe. Club doctor is Paul Jackson Masseurs are John Wright and Davie Lavery Video Analsis is Steve Harvey From the club programme. also there is no mention of Murray Park anywhere in the article. Rangers Till i DIE WE ARE THE PEOPLE

Per the Peer review (link above) some of that info isn't needed. I'll try and fit in a reference to Murray Park (Auchenhowie) ;). Archibald99 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Team Managers

Are these stats only to include league matches? Forbsey 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They include all matches. Archibald99  15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The other managers stats might be able to be worked out from this online spreadsheet containing Rangers results history. http://www.savefile.com/files/18898 Ssssstu 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

In the two days since the semi-protect was removed, there has been a significant amount of vandalism. I noticed that this was not so when semi-protected. Perhaps the page should get protected again? 206.130.173.38 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

37 changes between vandals and reverts since yesterday. I vote for a semi-protect. 69.158.69.188 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I had unprotected as it had been under semi-protection for over 2 months. Blocking contributors from editing permanently is against the spirit of the project, so I thought I would give it abother chance. However, it does appear that this arictle is one that is going to be perpetually vandalised, therefore I will re-semi-protect. Rockpocket 03:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Name

The real name according to my pal, who works for Rangers, is 'The Rangers Football Club' as this is what it says inside Ibrox Park

Jodie kennedy 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC) You are indeed correct and i suggest that for accuracy this is changed. To non Rangers supporters we for some reason become known as Glasgow Rangers, however, ask any Rangers supporter and we refer to ourselves, accurately i might add, as The Rangers.

Uefa Investigation

Rather than this be an 'ode to Rangers' how about the inclusion of the recent investigation by UEFA into the YouTube video? There's an interesting article in the Guardian http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2038025,00.html it's possibly of better journalistic repute than the scottish tabloids Hermanzegerman

Signing policy

I am fed up hearing nonsense about Rangers non signing RCs policy - they never had one. Most RC would not want to play for Rangers which explains why there are so few but Don Kitchenbrand and John Spencer were both RCS and seeing as they signed for Rangers it proves the myth is just a myth. How can a club like Rangers only sign a few RCs when 15% of the Scottish population was RC - surely 15% would be reasonable number? - look at the hatred aimed at super mo by his former buds - the same happened to neil mccann - why would RCs risk playing for Rangers even if you wanted to? on the other hand Rangers greatest rivals put out a team in the 1980s which was 100% RC - what are the odds of that from 15% of the population? Maybe RCs wanted to play for THEIR team and did not want to play for a team whose support had strong links with unionism? And as to Souness picking up the wrong end of the stick - How much money do you think he had to pay supermo to get this player to pull on the royal blue? lots more money than he could get anyhere else - there were many mant bigots in and around Glasgow for most of the last century and there may even have been a few on the boards of the big football clubs BUT that does not mean that the clubs had sectarian policies.

"Until Graeme Souness signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston, in 1989, Rangers had a policy of not signing any player who was Catholic." I believe this to be true, at least according to Graeme Souness (who, let's face it, ought to know). It was recently removed; can we have a proper discussion here about it please? --Guinnog 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Someone should find some reliable referenced to back up the sentence. Spylab 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall someone saying that Souness referred to it very clearly in his autobiography. If someone who has access to the book can post details, we can nail this down once and for all. --Guinnog 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I was remembering the conversation at Talk:Graeme_Souness. I have included the Daily Record link to Terry Butcher's take on the matter as a reference; the relevant extracts from Souness' two autobiographies are:

[pp 52-55] -

"Rangers simply never signed Catholics. ... It never made sense to me but that was the way it had always been before I broke the mould and brought Johnston to Ibrox. I knew there would be fierce opposition in some quarters and that proved to be the case - and not just among the Rangers fans. There were divisions in the boardroom and in the dressing room at the idea..." [p52]

"...if we had not had the courage to sign Maurice who knows how long that ridiculous ban would have remained in place" [p55]

He also covers the signing in Graeme Souness: A Manager's Diary (Mainstream, 1989; pp 7-23). He says that whoever follows him as Rangers' manager won't have to "face up to the particular problem of religious discrimination which bedevilled my first three years at Ibrox. That is now a thing of the past."

On p.17, he writes

"For years Rangers have been pilloried for what the majority of people saw as discrimination against one section of the population. Now we have shown that this unwritten policy at Ibrox is over. It's finished. Done with."

--Guinnog 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence has some sort of basis in fact, but certainly isn't accurate. A bit of research and I could probably find a fair few Catholic players who played for Rangers before then. The "No Catholics policy" is effectively an urban myth, and could perhaps be more accurately describes as a pro-Protestant policy, much the same as the pro-Basque policies teams based in the Basque country implement. Archibald99  16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of Souness hyperbole. I think a more accurate statement would be to state they didn't sign any Catholic player who was publicly acknowledged to be RC. This article on Hugh O'Neill might help anyone trying to unravel this prickly issue.

My mind may be deceiving me, but I also recall having read that Rangers had several RC players in their early days and the "policy" only really developed in the first years of the 20th C. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Caledonian Place 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

More of an unwritten rule than an urban myth; unless you are going to argue that the myth took in a long-serving and well-respected manager of the club! --Guinnog 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever way you look at it, "Rangers had a policy of not signing any player who was Catholic." is definitely not the right way to word it. Archibald99  16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the wording and added the autobio ref. See what you think. --Guinnog 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to some of the Catholics who signed for Rangers before Mo Johnston, based on one of Bill Murray's books on the Old Firm. A lot of people believe Johnston was the first Catholic to sign for Rangers but it is not the case. Let's not perpetuate the myth. BBO 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected an inaccuracy. The statement that Mo Johnston was the first openly Catholic player to sign for Rangers since WWI was untrue. For example, John Spencer was already at Rangers when Johnston signed and Hugh O'Neill was at the club in the 1970s. I have therefore inserted "high-profile". BBO 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rangers FC

I have just read your spread on Rangers and I am very impressed. One error of ommission that I have detected in Cups won is the Victory Cup, 1945. I was at that Cup Final and witnessed Rangers beat Hibernian 3-1. To make things worse I see that you have creditted the said Cup to Celtic. Please check this out and correct both pages.---- H.Paterson

Where does it say this? Archibald99  17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Most trophies ever

Hello there, I'm a linfield fan and our club has won 200 trophies yet there's a claim that rangers have won the most trophies of any football club and were the first to reach such a milestone. This is false by a long shot. When the protection comes off can you amend this please... Have a squizz at http://www.linfieldfc.com/history.asp if you don't believe me Hermangelmet 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some of the trophies mentioned, so I don't know if the could be classed in the same bracket as some of Rangers'. Of course domestic league trophies etc. count though. Archibald99  15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree some of the trophies probably aren't the same class as SPL trophies - however the SPL is not as prestigious as the EPL or la liga so one can't poo poo one clubs just claim to winning the most trophies of any football club if the competition isn't as strong. Someone could be inclined to say the 48 trophies liverpool have won are far better than rangers achievement, therefor rangers 100 trophies should be ignored. European cup 5 times and UEFA cup 3 times sure beats the tennents sixes. But to ignore rangers 100 trophies and linfields's 200 trophies would completely miss the point. Linfield are the most successful club in the world.Hermangelmet 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted until consensus can be reached - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. WATP  20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the article name to "an ode to Rangers"? At least then the title would be objective if the article is not Hermangelmet 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why keep making untrue statements that Rangers have won more trophies than anyone else? http://www.linfieldfc.com/history.asp Why not perhaps say "1st club on the moon" might as well if you're not interested in the truth being written in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herman Gelmet (talk • contribs)

It was changed per a discussion here to "major" trophies. If you disagree with this, feel free to add to the debate there. WATP  15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangers have won more trophys than any club in the world www.rangershistory.co.uk Robrangershistory 12:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arnar Grétarsson

Just checking to confirm that the above (in Rangers' notable-players section) was a Rangers player at one point, because the club isn't mentioned in his article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it just now. He is in Category:Rangers F.C. players. Strange one. WATP  22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't found a definitive answer yet, but Rangers were mentioned in the article from its creation in 2005 until a week ago. WATP  22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've enquired with Punkmorten, who started his article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this, he was on Rangers' books twice but didn't make a first-team appearance. I took the liberty of making his first stint a loan one in his article. He definitely shouldn't have been in Rangers' notable players section, though. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

About time a few more less-than-notable players were removed and some criteria were drawn up. But I'm very busy right now. WATP  22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)