Talk:Sectarianism in Glasgow

Comment

deleted the line about Johnson as it is not factually correct

Orange walks

Why are they tucked under "Northern Ireland"? 125.239.210.247 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, the heading makes no sense. The section is about what happens in Scotland, not Northern Ireland. I will change it. Spylab 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Loyalist Immigration

Something that has always bothered me....Loyalist immigration.*

Is it not true that the extreme protestantism/orangism was brought over by Loyalist immigrants? All the talk seems to be about Catholic migration, yes most immigrants were Catholic but there were a few Protestants who seem to have had such a great influence.

Essentially is it not true that the North's troubles had been shifted onto Scottish soil?

• = Please note. Loyalist immigrition does not bother me, the fact that it is not mentioned does.

Not sure when the above comment was added, so for the benefit of others reading this; the majority of immigrants into Scotland from Ireland identified themselves as Protestants, with only around a third identifying themselves as Catholic. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

it was actually 3 quarters catholic, 1 quarter protestant, but virtually all immigrants were from northern ireland.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've checked my sources and you're right, I misread it; Cheers. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

I would! The article is severely lacking in sources for its claims. A visit to a Glasgow central library should yield several books about Glaswegian sectarianism, which you can then use to source all the claims and remove the citation-needed notices. The alternative is to remove the claim, which I don't think is necessary because (from my understanding) the claims are true. 195.173.23.111 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep?!

Come on. This article hasn't got a single citation out of various different claims, it's laid out terribly and looks half-arsed. Delete it.86.139.116.194 07:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, unless the article is redone. It is extremely dissapointing. Sectarianism in Glasgow has a long history; this is hardly gone into at all. Citations are missing, and some of the choice of phrases "vibrant and modern city" seem somewhat opinionated. Probably the worst article I have seen on Wikipedia: GumbootMadness

Merge into Sectarianism

If this article is to continue to exist, then it should be moved into sectarianism as a sub-section, as it is clearly concerned with one specific context in which sectarianism exists. Maxim662

Deletion of Unsourced material?

To maintain Wikipedia's verifiability requirement, I suggest that all unsourced material in this article be deleted if sources are not provided soon. Maxim662

The intro

This article is terrible, and the intro is particularly bad. The reference used, like most research into Scottish sectarianism, shows that it's not a very serious problem. But here it's used to justify the vague claim that "Sectarianism still exists in certain sectors of Glasgow's population". What the reference actually says is that "These findings suggest that sectarianism still exists in Glasgow or at least that it is widely believed to still exist" (my bolding).--Nydas^(Talk) 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The article also makes a number of assertions such as claiming that Scotland was RC in the 5th century. The RC Church as such did not exist until 1054 and it was the celtic rather than roman form of worship that existed until the 7th century. 194.81.125.225 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

'Demonstrations' against Mo Johnston

I've deleted the reference to 'demonstrations' against Mo Johnston joining Rangers. The 'evidence' cited was a journalist profile of the player's career in Toronto. No firm evidence was provided in that article. Moreover, the text included in the earlier version gave no indication of the timing or scale of the supposed demonstrations, their origin, the nature of the demonstrators or their broader significance. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I remain unconvinced that anything remotely constituting a demonstration ever took place (although that is not to deny that Johnston's signing prompted opposition, manifested in other ways, from fans of both Celtic and Rangers).--Stockton 12:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

Under the heading religion someone has taken to including examples of sectarian violence that in no way mention religion. This material would be best put in a separate heading entitled 'incidents'. I also feel that the tone of that section is clearly biased, both examples are of violence against catholics or celtic supporters. This wikipedia article claims "The article stated that 64% of the 726 cases between 1 January , 2004 and 30 June 2005 were motivated by hatred against Catholics, and the remaining percentage were mainly motivated for hatred toward other minority religions.[5]", whereas the source, The Guardian says,

"The figures analysed 726 cases between January 1 2004 and June 30 2005 where people were charged with religiously aggravated offences, and found that in 64% of cases the abuse or assaults were motivated by hatred against Catholics, and by hatred against Protestants in most of the remaining cases."

The use of the term "other minority religions" is false when in fact the article refers to protestantism, the dominant religion in Scotland. I will change the article to reflect the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.236.19 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So what does it say about the subject on sectarian violence?

So enlighten me HIPPO?(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)) Why does it have an example of sectarian violence towards a celtic fan then? Is that not cherry picking a source?(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, in removing your repetitive, predictable agenda from the article, I didn't check and assess every other word in it. If you are serious about improving this (or any other article) I suggest you look at it from a more neutral point of view, and stop attempting to score points. If you have any sensible suggestions about how to improve this article, I'm open to discussing them. Your addition of another murder clearly had no intention of representing the view of the source material fairly. --hippo43 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So you say that having an addition in the article about a murder is point scoring? The way that the article looks at the minute it would seem that only people in Celtic tops have been murdered because of the team they support. Would you say that is accurate?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

My other addition was to show that figures that have been quoted in the media have been proven to be wrong to suit the people who calculate them.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes - your addition of this murder was an example of your 'Rangers v Celtic' point-scoring. It is a fairly tedious pattern that is obvious from your edits to a number of related articles. If the section is not accurate, can you try to address it - perhaps summarise the various murders/attacks that have taken place, or raise it for discussion here. Adding this murder was a misrepresentation of the views expressed in the source. You clearly didn't read the source, or you did read it and chose to cherry-pick (and plagiarise) a passage from it.

Your later edit, attempting to reflect Bruce's view, also largely copied material from the book - can you try to summarise it in your own words? --hippo43 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And the example given of a murder is not an example of celtic vs rangers point scoring? The article says 'these are just a few examples'. what ONE, from a celtic point of view, hardly neutral is it?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

would you not say that the example has been cherry picked?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

I reworked that section into own words as you asked at around about the same time as someone deleted the other, i hope this seems more to your taste(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

So back onto the case of a one sided showing of 'sectarian' murders. Why would it be point scoring in one sense but factual in another?(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't know who added the info on the other murders, and I'm not aware of the context, so can't comment on their motives. If you have suggestions for how to improve the article... --hippo43 (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Originaly this article was awash with this 'point scoring' debate over 'sectarian' incidents, if i remember correctly. To have one incident from one side is weighted incorrectly in my view, saying that murders have only taken place in one direction, which is untrue. I do not want to go down the road of naming every murder or incident that was 'sectarian' motivated, that just leads to a mess of an article. If you could take my opinion in a sense to improve the article then i would be willing to give my view.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

I actually agree with you on the issue of content. Having one lengthy example is not appropriate - there should be a summary of sectarian violence/attacks/murders based on reliable sources and statistics, and if there is an obvious disparity in numbers, that should be covered. There should be a lot less detail on specific examples. We should also report the disagreements on how much violence is sectarian, and how much is related to football. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What i was trying to show with my other edit was that a lot of reported 'sectarian' incidents are altered to show that they were sectarian just because the person who was killed was wearing a certain football top. (for one reason or another) So something like 'over the years which evidence exists, there has been sectarian violence / murders reported in public sources.' Figures could be added but the next section covers these in some detail.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Proposed Changes

Objections?(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Lets make a start shall we

Proposal

Over the years many deaths and serious assaults have been directly related to sectarian tensions within the city.

Many of these have resulted either before or after Celtic and Rangers football matches.

The savage murder of Celtic fan Mark Scott in 1996 by Jason Campbell a self confessed member of loyalist Ulster group the Ulster Volunteer Force.

sparked outrage on both sides of the divide within Glasgow and as a result the anti-sectarianism charity Nil By Mouth was formed.

A 2006 article stated that sectarian incidents reported to police (largely verbal abuse) increased by 50% to 440 over an 18-month period.

The article stated that 64% of the 726 cases between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2005 were motivated by hatred against Catholics, and by hatred against Protestants in most of the remaining cases (i.e. 31%).

Although these figures are not based upon the religion of the perpetrator, Professor Steve Bruce stated that the figures showed that religious intolerance was evenly shared among Catholics and Protestants, as the two-to-one ratio of incidents was roughly the same as the size of those populations in the west of Scotland.

Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien said the figures indicated that Catholics were much more likely to be the subject of sectarianism than any other group.

It has been reflected that figures provided by Nil by Mouth have been inaccurate regarding ‘sectarian’ incidents but are taken to be factual by serious newspapers.

Altering certain aspects of incidents to reflect sectarianism has been seen as an attempt by staff at Nil by Mouth to maintain a heightened awareness of sectarianism.

This heightened awareness allows staff to keep their career interest of finding sectarian violence. Sectarian violence / incidents can be exaggerated and misreported by the media.

‘There is no mystery about why journalists exaggerate, it sells copies. Newsprintworld is a dreadful place of fear and loathing.’

So which part of this do edtors not agree with?(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Could you reformat that so it's readable, and not just one long horizontal paragraph with a huge scroll bar? Maybe it's cos I'm using Firefox, but that's impossible for me to make sense of. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reformatted so it's readable, hope you don't mind. If you want to change it back, go ahead. --hippo43 (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit by Hippo43

Numerous deaths and serious assaults have been directly linked to sectarian tensions within the city. Many of these have occurred either before or after Old Firm football matches. The murder in 1996 of Mark Scott, a Celtic fan, by Jason Campbell, a member of loyalist group the Ulster Volunteer Force.[Removed source - deadlink, and probably not a reliable source] caused outrage, and as a result the anti-sectarianism charity Nil By Mouth was formed.

In 2004 and 2005, sectarian incidents reported to police in Scotland increased by 50% to 440 over 18 months. Scottish Government statistics showed that 64% of the 726 cases in the period were motivated by hatred against Catholics, and by hatred against Protestants in most of the remaining cases (31%).

Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University stated that the figures showed that religious intolerance was evenly shared among Catholics and Protestants, as the two-to-one ratio of incidents was roughly the same as the size of those populations in the west of Scotland.

Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Catholics, said the figures indicated that Catholics were much more likely to be the subject of sectarianism than any other group. He stated that most of the cases did not relate to either football or parades, and that "it is not poverty, alcohol or football which underpins most cases of religiously aggravated crime in Scotland, but blatant anti-Catholicism."

[Removed this as it is unreferenced - It has been reflected that figures provided by Nil by Mouth have been inaccurate regarding ‘sectarian’ incidents but are taken to be factual by serious newspapers. Altering certain aspects of incidents to reflect sectarianism has been seen as an attempt by staff at Nil by Mouth to maintain a heightened awareness of sectarianism. This heightened awareness allows staff to keep their career interest of finding sectarian violence. Sectarian violence / incidents can be exaggerated and misreported by the media. ‘There is no mystery about why journalists exaggerate, it sells copies. Newsprintworld is a dreadful place of fear and loathing.’]

This is what I'd do to just the text you quoted. However, there may well be more to add and more sources which could help. --hippo43 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded section leaving intro sentence. (i think it starts it off well) i left out the opinions at the end. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Slight change

Just a slight change, pedantic perhaps but not trivial. The sentence read 'a review into Orange parades' and while the article was clearly prejudiced in its comparison between loyalist and republican marches, the tagline of the article itself (and i believe the quote given) was against marches in general, from both sides of the divide. Hachimanchu (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sectarianism in Glasgow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scottishaffairs.org/backiss/pdfs/sa42/SA42_Kelly.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2012/03/celtic-firm-rangers-football
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/former-old-firm-italians-give-1038540
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830090017/http://www.sundayherald.com/49302 to http://www.sundayherald.com/49302
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928180537/http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news/news/annabel-goldie-shows-racism-the-red-card/887 to http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news/news/annabel-goldie-shows-racism-the-red-card/887

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

State religion

Remove State religion comment. - Scotland has no state religion and the covenanters and aftermath of the Restoration made sure that it never would.83.12.33.42 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

football is unlikely to be the main source of sectarianism in Glasgow

This paragraph is using data that is nearly 20 years old and predates both the implementation and revocation of the Offensive behaviour at football act. Is it still relevant today? is there more relevant/recent data available? 2A00:23C8:307:C301:E9CC:DC50:70C3:3920 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)