Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Huns nickname

I've reinserted this. Saying that it is not consistent with other articles to justify removing it is censorship. Wikipedia is not censored.

That some people do not like this nickname is not justification for removing it. It is in wide use (a google search for 'Rangers Huns' returns a similar number of hits as 'Rangers "Teddy Bears"', and a lot more than 'Rangers bluenoses'), and is notable given the fuss over the term being used in Rab C Nesbitt, and the Rangers Supporters Trust's view that it is sectarian.--hippo43 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Some other articles do mention 'insulting' nicknames - for example, the Milton Keynes Dons article refers to them being nicknamed 'Franchise FC'. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point, though whether we include it should not be dependent on comparing this with other articles. Keeping 'Huns' in the article is more encyclopaedic and makes for a more informative article. --hippo43 (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From a prior discussion on this very matter: "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."

The consensus there seemed to be in favour of not including the nickname, and I don't see that changing this time around. I do, however, see a lot of time being wasted on this, so let's get it underway. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this. There's a big difference between listing nicknames and listing terms of abuse. Particularly when it's not cited. Bottom line is that if we start down this route, every sports team in Wikipedia will have a list of insulting names attached and a good few people would have one too. It's simply not encyclopaedic, and an invitation to vandalism. Unless, of course, a really good cite can be produced that actually does something informative like examine the cultural roots of the abusive name.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between listing nicknames and listing terms of abuse.

What difference exactly? Removing words that you consider abusive is censorship. Wikipedia is not censored.

Particularly when it's not cited.

Are you seriously saying it is not in wide use? No doubt a citation can be found.

Bottom line is that if we start down this route, every sports team in Wikipedia will have a list of insulting names attached and a good few people would have one too.

Irrelevant to this article. If non-notable stuff is inserted into other articles, it can be taken out. If widely-used, but pejorative, nicknames appear in other articles, they can be debated/dealt with at the relevant articles' pages.

It's simply not encyclopaedic,

You haven't defined 'encyclopaedic'. It is in wide use, it is notable per the incidents mentioned above, and also the sometimes sectarian dimension to the Old Firm rivalry. Leaving it out would make this article less encyclopaedic. Leaving it in implies no judgment about its acceptability. Words like 'nigger' and 'faggot' are dealt with on wikipedia, despite their offensiveness.

and an invitation to vandalism.

Vandalism can be policed, as it currently is. Articles can be protected. Editing articles purely to make them less likely to be vandalised is censorship. Again, Wikipedia is not censored.

Unless, of course, a really good cite can be produced that actually does something informative like examine the cultural roots of the abusive name.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about its cultural importance and origins may well follow, but they cannot be a condition of including it. Your suggestion about such a cite only confirms that it is a significant term, so should be included.

I realised this wouldn't be popular, but the discussion about whether to include it or not should be based on wikipedia policy. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying whether it is in wide-use or not. I am not censoring. I'm saying please cite this and demonstrate how it is notable with a reputable source and not just abuse. I am questioning if it is significant that fans of other teams have derogatory names for the team. How is this notable? Google hit counts are not a measure of notability. Do you intend to list all the other words that fans call opposing teams? Plenty of hits for them to be found too, I'm sure. So far you haven't shown why this is a special case that shouldn't be removed and 'policed' in exactly the fashion you describe above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You said it should be removed because it is an abusive nickname,. That is censoring. Reputable sources have now been supplied.

Because of the relevance to sectarian issues, it merits being included. For this reason it is arguably more significant than 'Gers', 'Teddy Bears', 'Light Blues' and certainly 'Bluenoses', all of which appear in the lead or infobox.

No, I don't "intend to list all the other words that fans call opposing teams", and never said that I did.

I talked abpout policing vandalism. It shouldn't be policed because it's not vandalism. Saying "Rangers are shite" is vandalism. Saying "Some people call Rangers 'Huns'" is not. It is true, sourced and relevant for the reasons already given.

--hippo43 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What other fans pejoratively call a rival club is not encyclopaedic and citing a few examples of a term's use is not reliable support for its inclusion. One could find lots of examples of people calling other people or things nasty names, but that doesn't make that name a bona fide nickname. Nicknames are a minefield on Wikipedia at the best of time, the consensus is that are generally tolerated on football articles so long as they are non-pejorative and/or have some sort of official recognition or support. This fails on both counts. If you can provide have a scholarly or journalistic analysis of Rangers nicknames that includes "Huns" then perhaps there is a place for it (though not the lead). Until then, I propose it be removed as needlessly provocative and without sufficient encyclopaedic merit. Rockpocket 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you say, Words like 'nigger' and 'faggot' are dealt with on wikipedia, despite their offensiveness. True. But would you support, for example, adding to the lead of our article on Barack Obama, "Obama has been called a nigger by people who dislike him"? After all, that is easily verifiable and in very wide use among a certain demographic. [1] That is a much better analogy for your support of the use of the word "Hun" in this article. Rockpocket 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A better example would be if 'nigger' were included in an article about Africans. IMO, it would be appropriate to say something like 'Africans are also called "blacks", and sometimes "niggers", which is considered offensive.'

However, my examples of 'nigger' and 'faggot' only concerned their offensiveness, not their notability. If 'nigger' was very widely used, then it would be appropriate to include it in an article about black people. (Google hits can be used as a rough indicator of how much a term is used, and show that 'hun' is comparable to 'teddy bear', and definitely more widespread than 'bluenose'. In that case, do those terms belong in the lead?)

Moreover, implicit in your Obama analogy is that 'hun' is generally considered as offensive as 'nigger', and I really don't think that's the case.

hippo43 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The relative level of offensiveness isn't really the issue (though I would note that all the sources you provide are in the context discussing it as an offensive term). The issue is that we do not currently define any person, institution or group (in the lead) through the pejorative perspective of those with a strong negative agenda. Your example is a good one, and you will note that we don't mention pejorative terms in the article on any demographic (Africans, Jews, Hispanics, for example) as you would propose. I understand your reasoning, but your opinion is clearly not shared by the community at this time. Rockpocket 01:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't dispute that 'Hun' is offensive. However, it's not in the same league as 'nigger'. For example, if Rab C Nesbitt had included the line "X is a nigger"... hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"What other fans pejoratively call a rival club is not encyclopaedic" Says who? You haven't defined 'encyclopaedic'. "One could find lots of examples of people calling other people or things nasty names, but that doesn't make that name a bona fide nickname." I think it does. An abusive/offensive/pejorative nickname is still a nickname. If a name is used about a particular group, and isn't just a general term of abuse, then IMO it is a nickname. For example, Andrew Neil o=is nicknamed 'Brillo Pad' by some. That's a nickname, albeit a pejorative one. Saying 'Andrew Neil is a cunt'(a general term of abuse, directed at many people), no matter how often it is repeated, is a different kettle of fish.--hippo43 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Hippo, but this won't fly. Rock is spot-on here. --John (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I use the term "encyclopaedic" to mean appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I have explained why, as have others. Rockpocket 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nicknames are a minefield on Wikipedia at the best of time" You are probably right, but whether or not we include material (pejorative, inoffensive or 'official') should be based on Wikipedia policy, not what is conventional on other football articles. Including 'huns' seems consistent with WP:RS,WP:abundance_and_redundancy, WP:notability and WP:notcensored. Are there policies which support excluding it? --hippo43 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those support its inclusion. I find name checking policies without saying how they are relevant to be entirely unconvincing. Wikipedia:Consensus notes that "Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." You made a change, I now count four completely independent editors all express disagreement with your change and cite - with justification - a standing consensus on how to deal with nicknames in this context. That seems a rather important policy which would support excluding it. Perhaps you could tell us why your interpretation trumps the consensus of the rest of us? Rockpocket 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree consensus is important. However, at least one editor has recently agreed with my view on this (Fishiehelper2), so your opinion is hardly that of "the rest of us." The previous discussions of it indicate that yours is not a view unanimously held. Weight of numbers is not the same as consensus.

In terms of policy:

WP:NPOV states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

WP:RS states, in short, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed"

WP:Verifiability states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

WP:abundance_and_redundancy states "It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war"

WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." and "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

WP:notcensored states "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

WP:CCC states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding"

I will give it some thought and attempt a compromise, per WP:BRD. Perhaps you could also suggest a compromise or we could seek wider opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My compromise suggestion is that if a scholarly source discussing the significant use of the term in this context can be found, it could be added (but most likely not in the lead). You have provided a few incidental examples of it being used, which is not the same thing (consider as a comparison the difference between a report of someone using the word "nigger" to describe a black person, and a source specifically describing the wider and significant use of the word.)

If you would like to seek wider opinion than feel free, but as of now you have been reverted by five different people. I would suggest you refrain from replacing the material yourself henceforth. You seem fond of citing policies, so here is one I suggest you read carefully: WP:3RR. You have violated it today (rv#1, rv#2, rv#3, rv#4 in a 24 hr period) which means you should rightfully be blocked by now. And seeing as you were blocked for the very same thing just a few days back, the block should probably be lengthier than the usual 24hrs. I'm not going to make a report, but should you continue to edit-war over this then you can probably expect to find yourself blocked rather sharpish. Please let this go. Rockpocket 05:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

(arbitrary section break. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps you could also suggest a compromise - a compromise would be source a cite that approaches the subject from a serious academic or cultural viewpoint and reflect this in the article in a way that's something more than just "Opposing fans and tired BBC Scotland comedies have a name for Rangers".

we could seek wider opinions. - Perhaps. You could suggest on the Celtic article talk page that names other fans call Celtic are added and see what editors there think. The issues involved are broadly the same, and the response there would give you a wider idea of what is considered encyclopaedic. I would suggest now that you are unlikely to have any greater success in convincing people (myself included) without adopting the compromise approach I suggest above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, thanks for your reply. You had said "I don't see how any of those [policies] support its inclusion. I find name checking policies without saying how they are relevant to be entirely unconvincing," yet since I detailed their relevance to this issue you haven't addressed any of these policies in your reply. The gist of your argument seems to be 'we don't want this in. let it go,' and that's not consistent with policy across this encyclopedia. You, and other editors who share your opinion, don't own this article.

I appreciate your compromise suggestion, but also note that it tries to impose a barrier to inclusion ("a scholarly source discussing the significant use of the term in this context") that is not applied elsewhere, or, in this article, even-handedly to the other, more affectionate, nicknames listed. Again, WP:RS states "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed". Trying to insist on a greater burden of evidence and analysis for pejorative nicknames than for affectionate ones is clearly inconsistent with the policies I noted above.

Moreover, the Daily Record article I cited does not just report the use of the term in this case, but describes 'hun' as "primarily used in Scotland as a derogatory reference to Rangers fans." It is therefore, in your words, "a source specifically describing the wider and significant use of the word".

I am not looking for an edit war, so will consider it some more and see if I can come up with a suitable compromise. --hippo43 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, thanks also for your compromise suggestion. I will see what I can find. --hippo43 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The last time i checked it is sectarism and that is not meant to be added to wikipedia, i see both points yes it should be added for encolpedia reasons but at the same time it also opens up people who may not be aware of it ie the younger gerantion to start using it when the might not have learned it, just now rangers and celtic are trying to wipe out secertism in scotland but having something liek this on either rangers or celtic page will just help keep the secertism going for longer because people will say oh look a sit elike wikipedia endose it so its fine when it is not.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't verified those new sources myself, but on the face of it they appear to support the significant use of the term "Hun" from a scholarly standpoint. Now it is out of the lead, and suitably referenced, I no longer have any major objections (beyond a general dislike for the propensity to include nicknames in articles). Rockpocket 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "Hun" is now suitably referenced and included in the article. Now this is so, there can be no objection to the inclusion. My worry is, will there be other derogatary terms which are equally well referenced and where will it end. I, as a young man new many of these derogatary terms for Rangers (I've grown up since) and I'm sure Rangers supporters know a few for Celtic and their fans. If good sources can be found for them (I won't be looking) both Old Firm articles may have to have a whole section each on these "nicknames", there are so many of them. Surely this can't be a good thing? Should we really go down this road? Nicknames are generally given by the Clubs or the fans of those Clubs, we should stick to that if we want to avoid any possible edit warring over referenced names that may not be suitable for these articles. Jack forbes (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is my concern too. If a more nuanced consideration of real (rather than trivial) encyclopaedic value gained vs problematic precedence set was used, I think we would realize that Wikipedia would be better off without listing nicknames (beyond, perhaps, those officially sanctioned by the club). Unfortunately, that distinction is subtle and difficult to cite as an acronym. So instead we tick all the boxes (WP:RS? check!) and in it goes. Sad, but such is the way of Wikipedia these days. Rockpocket 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rockpocket and Jack Forbes about the dangers of including all nicknames used. However, this was about a specific nickname in wide use, well-known in Scotland and having received considerable media and academic attention. Terms such as 'tattie-munchers', 'orcs' etc might be widely used in forums or in conversation but do not meet the policy barriers for inclusion.

If someone hears the nickname 'Hun' and has no idea about its meaning or significance, then wikipedia should be able to tell them. Wikipedia is about description, not prescription, so including a nickname that is actually used is more encyclopaedic than including only those that the subject wants us to use. In this sense, the encyclopaedic value is surely more 'real' than 'trivial' information such as "Rangers defeated Hearts 3–1 in the first match at Ibrox".

I cited numerous policies because they are in place to regulate what is included and what is not. They prevent fans of a subject from only including information that they consider palatable or approved. You may disagree with policies and work to change them, but this isn't the place.

Rickpocket wrote "we would realize that Wikipedia would be better off without listing nicknames (beyond, perhaps, those officially sanctioned by the club). Unfortunately, that distinction is subtle and difficult to cite as an acronym." It's not a subtle distinction - it's censorship, and easy to cite using WP:NOTCENSORED. --hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with censoring, and all to do with using common sense. Rockpocket 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket has it spot on. Jack forbes (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:there_is_no_common_sense: "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." The reasons given for excluding 'Huns' (some other articles don't include pejorative nicknames, it will set a problematic precedent, it is an abusive term, it will encourage vandalism, it is sectarianism...) are all based on the premise that it is offensive. Leaving it out because it is offensive is not common sense, it is essentially the definition of wp:censorship.--hippo43 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You are misinterpreting our argument. The reason its better off left out is because it is trivial, and therefore barely encyclopaedic. When you balance what it adds to the article against the disruptive tit-for-tat additions that will inevitably follow, its my opinion that the article and the project is better served by leaving out nicknames altogether. That is what I mean by using common sense, and any amount of policy citing does (or at least, should) not trump that. The "censorship" argument is a non sequitur. Rockpocket 20:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both hippo and yourself are wrong, firstly it isnt trivial it is quite a major thing, second alothough majoor it is a very touchy subject and hippo doe sdnot seem to udnerstand this, i aint sure iofthe wikiupedia guidelines but there is a part where things that could be deemed illegal or breach of certain laws does notget included and sectarism is on a fine line for that.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. There sure are a lot of policies. Which one shall we abide by? Jack forbes (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, WP:BLUDGEON, which Hippo would do well to read before continuing, and WP:EDITWAR, which is going to stop right now. Once this dies down I'm going to restore the previous consensus version of the naming and work on an alternative addition to the sectarianism one detailing some of this. The censorship argument is facile and the argument that it can go in because it's referenced to some handful of slang dictionaries assigns such things undue weight. Until such point as there is an actual consensus that controversial material which affects living persons is adequately sourced and assigned due weight it has no place in the article, especially when there is no consensus for its inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is the best way forward and i think a consenus of wether it should be included shoudl be done firs tthen once done consenus on how it should be added and handled, and finally sourced to quite a few realiable sources for it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, apologies if I misrepresented some of your argument. I realise you consider it trivial, but the sources I cited consider it significant. Given the amount of actual trivia in the article (Archibald Leitch was a Rangers fan, Rangers scored 106 goals in 1919/20...) and the current relevance of the term, I believe it merits inclusion. However, many of the other comments above do focus on the term's offensiveness, hence my repeated references to censorship.

I also realise that you support removing all nicknames. However, if they are included, then properly sourced nicknames are surely the ones which should be included. A policy of 'approved nicknames only' is simply censorship.

Tit for tat vandalism already exists on this and related articles, and there are mechanisms to minimise it. I'm sure there are articles which are vandalised far more than this one. Leaving stuff out because it might lead to more vandalism is also censorship. I don't see how that is a non sequitur.

Andrewcrawford, of course I realise it's a touchy subject, but that is not sufficient reason to leave something out - again, that is censorship. Loads of touchy subjects (many far touchier than this) are dealt with on wikipedia, and policies are already in place to regulate how they are covered.

Jack forbes, I suggest we include material which meets as many policies as possible. Though I may be wrong, that's what I think I have done here.

Thumperward, the sources cited are not 'a handful of slang dictionaries'. In fact, I supplied 14 sources (a generous handful) and not one of them is a slang dictionary. This paragraph is now the best-referenced part of the article - the citations are from media outlets, dictionaries and academic material, all of which are reliable sources. It is already more than 'adequately sourced' - your attempt to discredit these sources only shows the weakness of your argument.

To leave this out but include other nicknames would actually be to give those nicknames undue weight. That is also the reason I didn't include this in the sectarianism section, and it would be wrong to move it there in future.

I'm aware of the policy on edit wars. However, I asked for suggestions for compromises and followed those from Rockpocket and Escape Orbit, two editors who already disagreed with my view. That is not edit-warring, nor bludgeoning. You haven't explained why you think the 'censorship argument is facile.'

While consensus is important, there was no agreement reached the last time this was discussed here - [2] The discussion was simply 'won' by weight of numbers. WP:Consensus states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." In other words, the view of a majority of editors here should not be allowed to over-ride the policies which apply to the encyclopedia as a whole. --hippo43 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The censorship argument is facile because it is hardly a stronger argument than demanding that every puerile nickname with some modicum of public use be included in articles; such things are avoided simply because they are extremely minor. What influence has the nickname "huns" had on popular conception of the subject? Barely any; certainly hardly more than any common pejorative. Your "references" are, by the looks of things, one-liners in sources which otherwise do not cover the subject; ten minor references do not make a strong one, and reference-stacking of this sort is usually seen as a transparent attempt to bludgeon the debate by misinterpreting the point of our verifiability requirement. Your other argument ("the article already contains trivia, therefore we should add more") doesn't carry any water. And I'll thank you not to insult our collective intelligence by suggesting that managing to elicit a response containing the word "compromise" from an editor in the same paragraph where he was telling you to stop edit warring is evidence that you are acting in an appropriate manner. Consensus is not merely "important", it is paramount. You do not currently have consensus for your interpretation of policy here, and that section will not be retained in the event that such consensus is not forthcoming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for hippo43, in his quest to against censorship, to show the same enthusiasm for getting name-calling into the Celtic F.C. article. I think that even attempting to raise the matter on Celtic's talk page would clarify in his mind the problems this introduces. I'm also sure there are plenty of other football teams that could benefit from being freed from "nickname censorship". Aberdeen F.C.? Tottenham Hotspur F.C.? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go into that one just now. I don't think ascribing motives to editors is productive here - the only content I'm concerned with right now is the Rangers article. Were someone to insist on describing Man Utd as the "Manchester Red Sox" at some later stage then that would be a different debate, albeit one with many of the same arguments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did I ascribe motives? hippo43 said himself that not having 'Huns' in the article is, in his opinion, censorship, but perhaps it needs wider input. My suggestion is genuine and was made some days ago. If he seeks further input into the issue of adding opposing fans names for teams he could start with the Celtic article where he already has a significant number of contributions and a perhaps a better understanding of the issues. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Hippo43 should consider adding opposing fans nicknames to the Celtic article just happens to be a reason I am against such things. As a self confessed Celtic supporter, I have no time for getting into a game of tit for tat name calling, which if this edit is allowed to stand will inevetably happen. The term 'Hun' is just not an important enough addition to this article. To Hippo43, I suggest you write an article on the term and its history and discover how long it will take for someone to put it up for speedy deletion. Jack forbes (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you have obviously misrepresented my argument ("the article already contains trivia, therefore we should add more") I said no such thing. You are willing to accuse me of 'insulting our collective intelligence', yet this, and your attempts at discrediting the sources, are fairly transparent. Archibald Leitch's allegiance is trivia. 'Huns' is not trivia, and the sources confirm that.

My censorship argument is straight-forward: to exclude this term because it offends (as many editors have suggested) is censorship. To claim that it is minor, or trivial, is not supported by the sources cited.

You asked "What influence has the nickname "huns" had on popular conception of the subject?" Since when was that a criterion for including info in wikipedia? Is that barrier applied to all the cruft found in articles about football clubs? My "references" include a study on sectarianism commissioned by Glasgow City Council, a research paper about online sectarianism, 2 scots dictionaries, several respectable books about football and culture, as well as news reports of the term's use. They are good quality sources. I supplied so many only because other editors asked for a range of substantial sources, not to bludgeon or reference-stack - I realise it looks a bit daft and would support taking some out.

Also, I asked for compromise suggestions, per WP:BRD, then followed the two that appeared, which elicited a measure of approval from Rockpocket and Jack forbes. What else would you have me do?

Escape Orbit, I don't think discussing edits to this article on another article's talk page would be especially productive, or good practice. I'm already clear on "the problems this introduces", and I'd have no issue with including nicknames like 'Tims' etc in the Celtic FC article, or others in other articles, if they can be sourced and are relevant in the same way. I haven't been able to find sources to support 'Tims', for example, but would be totally supportive of including it if they were found. My interest is in having accurate articles that provide relevant, sourced info, even if some fans of the subject don't like to read it. I note that Fenian includes reference to the term being used about Celtic fans (as well as catholics in general) and I would likewise have no issue with that being covered in some way in the Celtic FC article.

When I suggested seeking for wider opinion, I meant about this article specifically. I don't know if there's a mechanism to get other editors involved who can look at this with fresh eyes. --hippo43 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack forbes, the criteria for having an article about the term 'Hun' do not apply to including it in an article about Rangers. By that standard, a lot of the info in this article would have to go. Does 'Bluenoses', for example, have to have its own article? FWIW, the British use of the term 'Hun' to mean German, is already covered in wikipedia - Huns#20th_Century_use_in_reference_to_Germans, so your suggestion is maybe not as far-fetched as you think. --hippo43 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You can take it to WT:FOOTY, which is one of the most active WikiProjects in the encyclopedia and is excellent for drawing third opinions. Splitting this again because we're getting nowhere here on resolving this; again, there's no consensus for the new version, so it will be reverted, and what we have to discuss is how to better present anything that can be salvaged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To get an outside opinion you may want to go to Wikipedia:Request for comment and follow the instructions there. Jack forbes (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

(Arbitrary break 2. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I am not of the opinion that the references provided give enough coverage to the "huns" nickname to warrant what is essentially its own section in the article, nor that this is at all desirable.

The old layout (with the uncontroversial nicks in the lede) was preferable, with the "huns" part moved in the sectarianism section. At that point, we'd be looking to rework the "Old Firm and sectarianism" section into "Rivalry" and "Fanbase" sections, which avoids leading words in the titles, and to address the controversies and such in there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to this, but I have two concerns:

1 To separate 'Huns' from other nicknames would be to assign 'uncontroversial' nicknames undue weight. The current sources support this and other sources have not appeared to support the 'nice' nicknames to the same extent. Moreover, according to the sources cited, 'Huns' is not uniformly seen as sectarian.

2 To have a 'rivalry' section (or similar) which doesn't mention 'sectarianism' in the title would, IMO, be inappropriate, here and in other related articles, as it wouldn't properly represent that rivalry. --hippo43 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you would say the one FB abberivateion as i aint goign to write the word that is used in terms of celtic fans isnt secterism eoither? i assume you are saying the scottish goverment , uefa, fifa, sfa,spl and plenty other bopdies are wrong in saysing that it is sedctarism for both? Do not get me wrong i think you are right that it should be include for encolpedia reasons but the same time i think others are right it should not, as i said before its atouchy subject which until a resolution can be found i believe the section shoudl eithe rbe removed or hidden with html comments, the parts of the teddy bears and gers etc is not part of sectarism jsut nicknames for the club which the support of the same club use, but the supporetrs of the same club do not use the term hun, but for there rivals do use FB as well as tims. I will like your opinion on what i have said hippo, oh i am dsylexic so please excuss my porr english--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if 'Hun' is meant as sectarian, or if it is always perceived as sectarian, and I'm not looking to contradict sources who have an opinion one way or another. FWIW, I think Fenian is generally sectarian, given that it essentially means 'Catholic', 'Orange bastard' is sectarian and Tim probably not, but my opinion doesn't really matter. The sources I cited don't uniformly identify 'Hun' as sectarian. Nil by Mouth and the Rangers Supporters Trust do, though they are not entirely NPOV. The studies about sectarianism cover many terms, and as far as I can see, don't really address the issue of what is or isn't a sectarian term. Other sources given, including dictionaries, do not identify it as sectarian. --hippo43 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a true club nickname is a nickname that is widely used, and not just a term used by supporters of a single club. For example, Hibernian is nicknamed 'the Hibees' by supporters of most clubs, and not just by their own supporters or by supporters of a single, rival club. In the case of Celtic, the most commonly and widely used nicknames are 'the Celts' and 'the Bhoys'. In the case of Rangers, the most commonly and widely used nicknames are 'the Gers' and 'the Huns'. The other nicknames used to describe Celtic, such as 'feniens' etc, are not used by supporters of most other clubs (being mainly used by a section of Rangers supporters). Therefore, I don't believe it is valid to describe those terms as 'nicknames'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The huns is only used by celtic supporters and i agree with you it should be wideely accept one and not jsut a rangers or celtic fans names for rival supporator or clubs. hippo if i can find the information from say scottish goverment or uefa or something similar to say they say the term huns is sectarism would you consider remove it it or trying to change how it is refered to?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The word Fenian is not in itself a derogatory term, just as the words Orange and protestant are not. If someone called me a Catholic I wouldn't be offended. If they added the words 'Bastard' or 'scum' to these names it brings a whole new meaning to it. Hun just happens to be a term used by other supporters that do not need to have those added words to be insulting, but insulting it still is. Believe me, when I used it as a young man it wasn't meant as anything else but an insult, and it was sectarian. But then, some young men don't know any better. Jack forbes (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth distinguishing between a nickname and a term of abuse. Nicknames can be official or semi-official (as in the club uses it, itself). These are acceptable, in my opinion, because they are non-controversial and easily verified through official sources (see Celtic's own use of "Bhoy" for example [3]. Then we have hypocoristic terms such as "Tic" or "Gers". These are less encyclopaedic (there are commonly shortened versions of most proper nouns but we don't list them in most articles as "nicknames", why here?). Finally we have pejorative terms. "Huns" clearly falls in this category (along with lots of other terms of abuse). While its not in doubt that the term is used (and widely, among mainly Celtic fans), its still not clear that that itself makes it notable enough for inclusion in an article about Rangers. Why should Celtic fan's choice of insulting term be considered encyclopaedic even if every single one of them use it? Are insults really notable, even in the context of the Old Firm?

Articles should not be a random collection of trivial information supported with a source. It should tell a story of important and notable information about its subject. Ultimately, what does and doesn't get included should come down to good community judgment based on common sense and an understanding of our policies and guidelines. I think that is what is happening here. Rockpocket 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You only have to look at the Barak Obama article to see the number of proposed edits with sources that are thrown out, due to the fact it brings nothing to the article. Sources are only as good as the benefit it will give to the article. Jack forbes (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The terms "Gers", "Light Blues" and "Teddy Bears" are in fact the club's official nicknames according to club documentation which is now referenced in the article; they most certainly predate "huns", a fairly recent term. There's no way that the latter's worldwide use even approximates the former, and I can't imagine how Hippo came to that conclusion. Because they weren't previously sourced? An oversight, and not one to be corrected experimentally by stacking references on the latter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2/Andrew crawford, 'Hun' is not only used by Celtic fans. As the sources show, it is used by fans of other clubs. Obviously Celtic fans, being Rangers' rivals, and so numerous, use it a lot.

Also, Andrewcrawford, it's not in doubt that many consider 'Hun' sectarian, so finding more documents will not support removing it. On the contrary, more evidence will just demonstrate the range of its use, and support including it. Part of my argument is that removing it because it is sectarian is censorship.

Chris C, I didn't say 'Huns' was used more than 'Gers/Teddy Bears'. I said it was more widespread than 'Bluenoses'. A google search, which isn't ideal, shows it is a lot less common than 'Gers', comparable to 'Teddy Bears' and considerably wider used than 'Bluenoses'. The numerous sources alredy cited also show that it is in wide use. I don't consider 'Gers' or 'Teddy Bears' contentious and see no need for a source for them. I attached multiple referenses, as I already explained, not to 'vote-stack' but because other editors asked for supporting sources.

Jack forbes, 'Fenian' is in itself, almost always considered a derogatory term (consider, for example 'up to our knees...') Also, I'm not denying that 'Hun' is an insult, I am saying that that isn't a legitimate basis for excluding it.

Rockpocket, I share your view that insults and nicknames are not enormously notable in themselves. However, if nicknames go in, and their prevalence in sporting teams' articles suggests many consider them valuable, for us to choose which nicknames to keep based on their acceptability/offensiveness is censorship. Moreover, if it were decided that all nicknames are trivia, which seems unlikely, how much of the other trivial info has to be removed? So South Korea used Murray Park for training, who cares? How is this notable?

An explanation of the term 'hun' and its use provides information on Scottish culture, sectarianism, the Old Firm rivalry, Rangers' place in society, how the club is perceived by others etc, and has been newsworthy recently. To leave this out of an encyclopedia is contrary to numerous policies and does a disservice to readers, placing the interest of a few editors here above the interest of the user. --hippo43 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, other crap exists, but I'm all for getting rid of all the other trivialities you mention too. And, again, the argument is not about offensiveness, its about officially adopted nicknames vs attributed nicknames. Its my opinion that the former is (marginally) interesting and relevant, the latter is not. If Rangers adopted an offensive term as their own nickname, then I would have no problem with including it. And if opposing fans referred to Rangers in a perfectly polite term, it still wouldn't argue for its inclusion. So please, could we drop the accusations of censorship? Finally, its interesting that you consider yourself a spokesperson on behalf of the loyal "users", while those of us who disagree with you merely a "few editors", what makes you so sure it isn't the other way around? Rockpocket 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone. It just seems obvious to me that you and others here are trying to keep info out which is consistent with policy, largely on the basis that it seen as offensive. Doing so is contrary to the policies I listed and denies readers access to well-sourced information. You may see it as trivial. but the sources don't.

I'd be happy to drop my accusations of censorship if other editors stopped trying to censor the article. You may see this as about "officially adopted nicknames vs attributed nicknames", but that is still an example of censorship. To accept only official nicknames, as you said, "because they are non-controversial and easily verified through official sources" sounds like censorship to me. Several other editors' arguments are based on the premise that 'Hun' is offensive - your own may seem slightly different, but still amounts to putting in place an arbitrary barrier that isn't supported by policy. --06:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By that rationale any removal of material - for whatever reason that does not meet your approval - would likely "sound like censorship" to you. I prefer to see those things as good faith differences of opinion, rather than attribute motives such as "censorship" or - its opposite and equal - "POV pushing". Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but you are unlikely to convince anyone of the merits of your argument if you label their good faith interpretation of policy as an attempt at "censorship". Rockpocket 07:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The reason it sounds like censorship is because it is based on 'Hun' being controversial, and ignores the cited sources and policies. You wrote that official nicknames were acceptable "..because they are non-controversial and easily verified through official sources". In other words 'Hun', which has clearly been verified, would be excluded because it is not "non-controversial". As I quoted above, from wp:notcensored, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

While I realise they are good faith opinions, I don't really see some of the other editors' arguments as 'interpretations of policy' at all. I am unconvinced by appeals to the broadest and most vague policies like 'common sense' or 'ignore all the rules'; essentially arguments that this is a special case and more specific policies shouldn't apply. I've quoted from several policies, to the annoyance of some, and have yet to read any argument which really counters their particular points. --hippo43 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That other editors may have weak arguments is neither here nor there. Certainly some have opined that derogatory terms should be removed because they are offensive, but that's not what Rockpocket and I are arguing, so please don't conflate the two. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the paragraph above, that is what I think Rockpocket is arguing, albeit in a more eloquent way - again, he wrote that official nicknames were acceptable "..because they are non-controversial and easily verified through official sources". In other words 'Hun', which has clearly been verified, would be excluded because it is not "non-controversial". --hippo43 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And as I explained, you are misinterpreting my argument. I'm not arguing for official nicknames because the term itself is non-controversial (As I already made clear above, and you neglect to mention, if Rangers adopted an offensive official nickname, then I would have no argument with including that. That is inconsistent with censorship). By "non-controversial", I mean that no-one here is disputing its inclusion. In contrast, the inclusion of "Huns" is controversial because a number of editors dispute its encyclopaedic merit. Its nothing to do with the offensiveness of the term per se and therefore nothing to do with censorship. I've now told you that at least three times, yet you continue to state I am trying to censor the article. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of that implication. Rockpocket 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I realise you don't think it is censorship, I just disagree. You said you'd be happy to include an offensive nickname if it was adopted by the club. That is a meaningless statement - the club would obviously not adopt such a nickname. You say the distinction is between approved and unofficial nicknames, yet in this case that amounts to inoffensive vs offensive nicknames.

You have described 'Hun' as "needlessly provocative and without sufficient encyclopaedic merit" and setting a "problematic precedence", and cautioned against "the disruptive tit-for-tat additions that will inevitably follow". Those statements relate in part to its offensiveness, so I simply don't accept that your argument isn't influenced by the offensiveness of the term.

However, offensiveness aside, to allow only terms approved by the article's subject, ignoring reliable sources, is to censor the article, and has no basis in policy. --hippo43 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't say that Huns was only used by Celtic fans - I actually believe it is used widely by supporters of most clubs. It is certainly used more frequently and more widely than 'Teddy Bears'!!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood. Obviously I agree with you. --hippo43 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, how does the song 'up to our knees.... continue? I said on its own it's not derogatory. You could replace the word Fenion with Catholic and it would also be insulting. Jack forbes (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point, so probably not the best example. However, Fenian#Contemporary_usage has it about right. 'Fenian' is derogatory, there's not much debate over it. Consider, for example, if a politician said he didn't support the existence of 'Catholic schools', as opposed to the reaction if he said 'Fenian schools'. If someone in the media said 'X is a fenian', it would not be considered a neutral statement. --hippo43 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. As well as adding words to make the insult, the insult can be there in the context it's used in. Jack forbes (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just came across [4] - it appears some Rangers fans are happy to use the term 'hun' to describe Rangers supporters. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

~~:I can't seem to be able to access that page, Fishiehelper. Jack forbes (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)~~

He calls himself a Hun more than once which I find strange. I've never personally heard a Rangers fan describe himself as such, (until now) so I'd be interested to know if this is now becoming more common, or is this just a strange one off? Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not a one off. This is sixteen online examples [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

[17][18] [19][20] And one from Bobby Williamson, a former Rangers player.[21]Nedao.glasgow (talk 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with referring to myself and my fellow orcs (yes, that one's seen exponential growth in usage over the last five years) as "huns". There's a long tradition of groups reclaiming slurs for themselves; no reason not to give it a bash here. Frankly I'm rather more offended by "Billys", which was self-adopted by that part of the fanbase which everyone else would rather not existed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)