Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

League position correction.

We are now top of the league (1st place) on the article, it still displays 2nd. We have been first place for about 3days now. (By 'we' I mean Rangers F.C.) EDIT: Sorry, It has been removed.

Any chance of changing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1872x (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is for last season. If "we" don't bottle it this year, then "we" will be listed first in a few months time. Rockpocket 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

travelling support

I couldnt help but notice that on the celtic page at the top section they mention the largest traveling support....at the time. I feel it should be mentioned that Rangers now hold this record for 175,000 for the 2008 UEFA cup final. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/05/15/175-000-strong-rangers-support-the-biggest-in-world-football-86908-20418122/ this source along with numerous others confirms this. It also came to my attention when i put largerst travelling football support into google it brings up celtics wikipedia page. Surely as Rangers now hold this record it would be worth noting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.92 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 February 2009

This is definitely worth adding, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

'Huns' nickname - request for comment

Should the nickname 'Huns' be included in the article?

To summarise the lengthy discussion above, my view is that it should, as it is in wide use, per the numerous sources I cited. It has also been in the news recently and including it gives readers some insight into Scotish society and Rangers' place in it, as well as the Old Firm rivalry and sectarianism. In particular, including it seems to be consistent with WP:undue, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:abundance_and_redundancy, and WP:notcensored.

As I understand it, though I'm perhaps not the best person to summarise, those who oppose its inclusion believe it is pejorative/abusive/sectarian, will encourage vandalism and is of trivial encyclopaedic value.--hippo43 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but I don't think it warrants more than a trivial mention in what is currently the "Old Firm and sectarianism" section. It certainly doesn't warrant the creation of a "Nicknames" section which basically revolves around it. For now, I'll be making good on my promise of reverting the recent changes to such until the RfC has concluded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it should be afforded less weight in the article. I would be wary of separating it from other nicknames, to avoid giving undue weight to any. I'd also be reluctant to include it in an 'Old Firm and sectarianism' section, as it's not always used in an 'Old Firm' or sectarian context. --hippo43 (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'd support reworking that section into something which gave a broader appraisal of the fanbase. In particular, the omission of Aberdeen as a major rival is a bit glaring right now. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. For now, I've taken the best of your new sources and incorporated the term into that section in a new paragraph, which restoring the general layout of the revision pre-"compromise" (with a few tweaks I've been meaning to make for a while). As far as I'm concerned the term is now given due weight in appropriate context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to its conclusion, with the following provisos.

• It should be properly contextualised. Not just bunged in with other nicknames as if it was not significantly different.
• It should contain neutral and encyclopaedic analysis of the term . The reader needs to understand the associated cultural and sectarian dimensions. This is not just something you shout at the game.
• It should supply high quality, reliable cites. Passing mentions in newspapers or discussion in forums are not adequately encyclopaedic or provide adequate analysis.
• It should not provide undue weight. The article is about a football club, not what opposing fans think of the football club.

I understand that striking this balance is not going to be easy, if not impossible. That's why I've maintained the article is better without it. But everything should be done to discourage the coverage of the word being an invitation for adding abuse to the article in the guise of 'no censorship'. A clear line needs to be drawn. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the current revision? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree it needs to be in context, backed by quality sources (as it currently is), and NPOV. However, I am concerned about giving undue weight to non-offensive nicknames if 'hun' is not included with them. I suggest a passing reference alongside other nicknames mentioned, whether in the lead or elsewhere, then greater explanation in the sectarianism (or whatever) section.

As a rough measure of use, a Google search returns the following results:

rangers gers - 452,000 hits

rangers huns - 163,000

rangers "teddy bears" - 154,000

rangers bluenoses - 31,100

rangers "light blues" - 15,900

While the article is about the football club, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be reporting what other people call them, particularly when it is so widely used. WP:NPOV requires that all significant points of view be represented, not just those of the subject or its fans. I don't think sticking 'huns' down at the bottom of a sectarianism section, leaving other nicknames in the opening, is appropriate. --hippo43 (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using google as a rough hit is totaly absorded. Just because it gets a lot of hits does nto mean anything, it that word was used on majorioty of celtic forums that means it fine to be included as a nickname? even thouh wht is getting critised is where it goes? As long as it stays in the sectarism par ti am fien with it, having the names teddy bears or such in the nick names would be fien but the huns--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Light Blues" is actually the most commonly-used nickname for the club in the sports media, and is one of the club's three official nicknames; "bluenoses" is likewise the most commonly-used term for Rangers fans in established media. Assigning due weight means more than simply counting results; it means weighting those results. A quick look at the first couple of pages of results for those searches makes it very clear that established, reliable sources (which are less numerous than Internet forums, but far more important when establishing due weight) use the terms "Light Blues" and "bluenoses" far more often than they do "huns". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point slightly. Noone is claiming that 'Huns' is regularly used by reliable sources. However, reliable sources confirm that it is very widely used by people - that is why it merits inclusion. The Google results serve us as a rough comparison of each.

Yes, reliable sources are most important, but not in the sense that you implied - it's not our job to count instances which are used by reliable sources. The real question is "what do reliable sources say are the terms actually used?" 'Huns' is in very wide use, as confirmed by reliable sources. Are there sources which say the same about 'light blues' or 'bluenoses'? Applied to another example, the word 'cunt' is not widely used by reliable sources. However, reliable sources on the subject of usage will show that it is in wide use, and that's why it merits encyclopaedic coverage.

15,900 results for 'light blues' tells its own story. 'Huns' is used around ten times as much!

As a comparison:

"dundee utd" arabs - returns 31,600 hits

"dundee utd" terrors - 6,630

So 'Terrors' might be the 'traditional' nickname, but does that make it the more significant term?

I'm not convinced that '"Light Blues" is actually the most commonly-used nickname for the club in the sports media.' Unless I'm missing something, 'Gers' seems to me to be far more widely-used in the media, and search results seem to confirm that. --hippo43 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

YOu say we miss the poiutn clearly you miss the point, and you are very biased, how many of these sites you says that they use huns is forums? and how many are of celtic fans, if it only celtic fans that are using it because of secterism, what do you need to be told for you realise that? if you can find a refernece on rangers own offical site callign themself hun then i will accept other wise it not--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are well wide of the mark if you believe that 'it only celtic fans that are using it because of sectarianism' - I will post sites from other clubs fan sites that shows it is widely used across Scottish football. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of unofficial Aberdeen fans site usage [1] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of unofficial Dundee United fans site usage (first story) [2] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of unofficial Kilmarnock fans site usage (last paragraph at bottom of page) [3] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of unofficial Motherwell fans site usage (story of Saturday,March 18) [4] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Last one for now...Dunfermline Athletic [5] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawoford, Fishiehelper2 is correct, and simply reading the references I already supplied will show you it is a term used throughout Scotland. You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I realise it is (at least sometimes) a form of sectarian abuse. However, that really doesn't matter - there is no basis in wikipedia policy for excluding it for that reason. --hippo43 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, have you ever heard the Aberdeen supporters singing anti catholic songs while they are playing Celtic? I have. It's all just a wind up. Just the same as it's a wind up when they call Rangers Huns. Do we need to include that in the article? Jack forbes (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --hippo43 (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not once said it shouldnt be incldued i said it shouldnt be as part of the nicknames but more in the secartism section and that wher ei am arguing about because to say its anickname that is used by rangers support themself when it refering to the protestian background is just daft, i know a lot of fans from both sides and nither will call themself tims or huns. I am onyl argung where the information should go if it remains in the sectarism section i have no problem because i agree with you it should be included for encolydeiatic reasons.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I may have misunderstood slightly. However, I still disagree. It belongs in any discussion of nicknames because it is so widely used.

For the record, I don't think Rangers fans refer to themselves as 'huns' at all, except perhaps for a few. On the other hand, loads of Celtic fans call themselves Tims. Google returns 4,770,000 hits for 'Celtic tims'. Of particular note are the website eTims, and the former fanzine Once A Tim. --hippo43 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall we take a look at other articles? What about the article on Scottish people? Should we include all the derogatory names for Scots? And the Irish, there are plenty of names that can be sourced that will insult them. The Welsh and English could be insulted with sources. What Scotsman would be happy to have an article on them saying they are well known for being mean? Sources or not, there is a line that has to be drawn if we want it to be encyclopedic. Jack forbes (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, yes, even if some of the subjects are offended. If such statements were consistent with policy - ie sourced, relevant, NPOV etc, then I'd have no problem with them. To report a widely-used stereotype ("Scottish people are mean", for example) is not the same as endorsing it. wikipedia is not censored. --hippo43 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See Stereotype#Scottish_stereotypes --hippo43 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Now, where is it in the article Scottish people? Would you like to try and include it? As far as I'm aware this article is about Rangers Football club, not Rangers FC stereotypes/insulting nicknames. If you want an article on that you can always write it. Jack forbes (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I simply included the link to show that wikipedia covers such subjects. 'Hun' is not a stereotype - it is a nickname. This article is about Rangers Football Club, and included in it are some nicknames. My argument is simple - if nice nicknames are ok, then so are offensive ones, as long as they are consistent with policy. --hippo43 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nither do i, i think it should be included but not ina section tha tis basically saying that is the nickname of the club, it should be under serterism as a nickname, saying ti is a secterism nicname used by rival fans, as long as it says that i am fine, other wis ei think this page will be blocked by the IWF because the scottish goverment uefa will not endorse a site saying its ok for rivals fans to say secterism nicknames, for christ sake there trying to stop it not encoruage it, if it under secterism and said it is a nicname at least then peopel know its not ok to use it--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC break 1

(arbitrary section break. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

In my experience, which appears backed up by the sources, the most common nicknames used by fans of most Scottish clubs for Rangers and their fans are 'Gers' and 'Huns' while the most common nicknames for Celtic and their fans are 'the Bhoys' and the 'Celts'. I do not accept that 'Tims' is widely used by fans of most Scottish clubs. This is not about recording insulting names that may be used - this is about giving the most commonly and widely used nicknames. If 'Teddy Bears' is included as a nickname, when it is hardly used across Scottish football in comparison with 'Huns', then this is simply censorship. (No more from me for several hours today - off to watch the Dons play Killie!) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are *SIXTEEN* examples of Rangers fans calling themselves "huns".

[6] [7][8][9][10]  
[11] 
[12] 
[13] 
[14] 
[15] 
[16] 
[17]  
[18] 
[19] 
[20] 
[21]

Maybe we could suggest that some Rangers fans think the word is pejorative. Some others are ok with the term and call themselves it. This would seem much more balanced and less bias. Nedao.glasgow (talk 23:48, 28 February 2009

From what i can tell there not realiable sourcres under wikipedia guidelines. I think we have to draw a consensus on how to include it, where, and with what sources and mostly importnatly whether it under secterism or nickname.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, they're not reliable sources so can't be included in the article. However, they are very useful as evidence for this discussion - they show that 'Hun' is widespread and not uniformly abusive or sectarian. --hippo43 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd unconvinced that these are not reliable sources of usage. Since this is not a question of fact being expressed on MySpace, Bebo et al. it's a question of usage. Nevertheless, I strongly agree that we know for a fact the word is not uniformly abusive or sectarian. We have multiple sources of evidence of this now. You might like to say "The word is often used by Rangers fans to describe themselves, for example on social network sites like MySpace and Bebo." I'd have it both under nicknames and the "Old Firm and Sectarianism" sections, since this adds to both debates. P.S. why is there not a section called "Rangers and Sectarianism"? since not all the sectarianism is within the context of the Old Firm. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason there is an 'Old Firm and sectarianism' section is because the same section was included on the Celtic FC article, with very similar wording, in order to prevent constant vandalism. I agree there needs to be more on Rangers' other rivalries, particularly with Aberdeen, and more nuanced coverage of sectarianism, as it's not all in the context of the Old Firm rivalry. --hippo43 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue with James McCarthy who plays for Hamilton also chimes with your point. But sectarianism/racism and Rangers certainly goes beyond the Old Firm. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds likea comprise, If it included in the nickname section then say some fans refer to themself as this with some reference but it is isnt uniformly used as a nickname. And have a section used in teh secterism part explaining it secterism usage. If this cna be the comproise and solution i wont object to it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a compromise suggesting "huns" is a nickname used by some Rangers fans for themselves. Sounds like a reasonable solution at the moment. I think you might need all sixteen citations to emphasize how common the usage by Rangers fans actually is though. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They cant be used as they are unrealible sources, ie anyone coudl easiyl makea page say ther e arangers fan and call themself a hun so it would not prove it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to compromise on the issue of "unreliability" and we don't include all sixteen citations, assuming it is accepted that the word is used by Rangers fans to describe themselves. Whilst I accept people can in principal make there own sites. I think it's a little unrealistic to believe sixteen have been constructed with multiple entries and substantial content and photographs over a large number of years. This would be a particularly unrealistic view. I think it's reasonable to believe that these sixteen people are representative. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats not really the point. Blogs or social networking sites are simply not reliable sources. If you wish to state Rangers fans call themselves "Huns", then find a reliable source that says so. Cherry picking pages from the internet to support your argument is classic original research. Rockpocket 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket is right, they're not reliable sources so can't be used at all in the article. However, they do, in the context of this discussion, provide more evidence that it is widely used, and move us away from the idea that 'Hun' is only used by Celtic/opposition fans, or is exclusively a sectarian/abusive term.

For me, the article should inlcude a reference to 'Hun' alongside any other nicknames, then a more detailed explanation in the rivalries/sectarianism section/s. --hippo43 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I accept these citations aren't going to be used in the article. I agree with Hippo43 that they are representative of pervasive usage and it's not uniformly offensive or sectarian.

Anyway, I'd also recommend that you include something about "huns" being a nickname for Rangers or Rangers fans. You could use this citation from Davie Provan, if you like, which indicates that it can be a harmless nickname. Davie Provan who was brought up as a Rangers fan says he didn't mind being called a "current bun" ("an obvious reference to "hun""[22]) and that he thought it was good natured. Provan adds that he never had "the slightest inkling of any undercurrent". The published book is "It's Rangers For Me?" Ronnie Esplin and Graham Walker, 2007, Fort Publishing Ltd. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this article, I am just going to give an opinion of the bat. Huns is a sectarian term, Northern Ireland and Scotland is full of a variety of phrases which are sectarian abuse. Unless there was an extremely good reason for inclusion I would be very wary about adding this. It seems tantamount to noting that Black people are called Niggers, Woman are called cunts etc. All unpleasant, unwelcome and vile language. I for one do not read wikipedia for foul language. My gut feeling is no. Why not simply note that sectarian names are attached to Rangers fans?--ZincBelief (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Mostly because wikipedia is not censored. Suggest you actually read the arguments above - there are plenty of reasons given. --hippo43 (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction needs improvement

In the inroduction why not put infro the reader more about the club as a whole. For Example

Rangers F.C. (Rangers Football Club) are an association football team from Glasgow, Scotland. The club was formed in 1873 and play it's home matches at Ibrox Stadium (51,082).[23] The club has been successful throughout it's history winning 51 domestic league titles, the Scottish Cup 32 times and the Scottish league cup 25 times. They have also won the UEFA Cup winners' Cup once in 1972 having been the runners-up in 1961 and 1967. They also go to the UEFA Cup final in 2008 losing to Zenit St. Petersburg.[24]

Rangers have a fierce rivallry with Celtic, and together they form the old firm. One the most fiercest football rivalries in football do the sectarian element to the clubs fan bases.

P.S I know it isn't perfect and not referenced well but i'm new to wikipedia and the rangers page needs much improving.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Curror1 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 March 2009

I've added your suggested mention of European competition to the introduction. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vice Captaincy

Does anybody know who the second choice captain is now?RicoRichmond (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ricorichmond. The vice-captain is Nacho Novo.--86.45.170.18 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chairmen

List of the men who have been chairman of the board of directors at Rangers Football Club. Any help gettin this list complete/perfect would be great, it is needed for the Rangers F.C. seasons Yatesy1988 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

President

• 1890-1891 James Watson
• 1891-1896 Dugald Mackenzie
• 1896-1898 John Robertson Gow
• 1898-1899 James Henderson

Chairmen

• 1899-1912 James Henderson
• 1912-1923 John Ure Primrose
• 1923 William Craig (June 1923-November 1923)
• 1923-1932 Joseph Buchanan
• 1932-1934  ?
• 1934-1947 James Bowie
• 1947-19?? John F. Wilson
• 19??-1973 John Lawrenc
• 1973-19?? Matt Taylor
• 19??-1986 John Paton
• 1986-1989 David Holmes
• 1989-2002 David Murray
• 2002-2004 John McClelland
• 2004- David Murray

Is article about Rangers Footbal Club or Sectarianism ?

Why is there so much content about sectarianism ? Is this an article about Rangers Football Club in relation to association football or an article about sectarianism ?

The corresponding Celtic FC wiki page devotes 10 lines to sectarianism and the old firm, whereas the Rangers FC page contains 46 lines devoted to listing sectarian episodes involving Rangers supporters,and only 3lines about Rangers winning 9 in a row. No mention of UEFA presenting the club with 5 red stars in recognition of the setting of a new world record on winning their 50th league championship.

This is the largest section on the page and detracts from a page that should be about the Rangers Football Club and it's history and achievements in the world of football, not a listing of sectarian episodes.

I would ask that the following be cut from this page and if need be placed on a page more suited to the discussion of sectarianism:

In 1999, Rangers' vice-chairman Donald Findlay was forced to resign after he was filmed singing sectarian songs[30] (The Billy Boys) at an event organised by a Rangers Supporters Club.

In 2002 the club dropped their controversial orange away strip after a "furious debate over whether Rangers were profiting from their sectarian overtones."[31] Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians had criticised the club's decision to market an orange shirt, as the colour is associated with the Orange Institution.

On 12 April 2006, following an investigation into the conduct of Rangers supporters at both legs of their UEFA Champions League tie against Villareal, the Control and Disciplinary Body of UEFA imposed a fine of £8,800 on Rangers following the improper conduct of some of their supporters, notably the smashing of a window of the Villarreal team bus at the second-leg match in Spain on 7 March.[32] However, UEFA declared the Rangers fans not guilty of alleged discriminatory chants.[32] UEFA challenged the ruling, and their Appeals Body partially upheld it,[33] fining the Ibrox club £13,500 and warning them as to their responsibility for any future misconduct.

On 9 June 2006, Rangers, in conjunction with representatives from several supporters clubs, announced that they would comply with three UEFA directives:

• The club were "ordered to announce measurable targets in order to reduce sectarian behaviour amongst its supporters".
• The club were "to control their anti-sectarian activities by producing comprehensive statistics that are communicated to the public".
• The club were "to make a public address announcement at every official fixture, be it international or domestic, stating that any sectarian chanting and any form of the song "The Billy Boys" is strictly prohibited".[34]

Despite these measures, UEFA indicated that they would launch another investigation after Rangers fans clashed with riot police and were filmed making sectarian chants during the defeat by Osasuna in their UEFA Cup match in 2007. The Rangers Supporters Association secretary indicated his belief that a small minority of fans are to blame, suggesting "it doesn't matter how often they are told [to stop sectarian chanting], some people will just not listen."[35] In September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club has taken against sectarianism.[36]

In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song, containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song, and warned they could be arrested for it.[37] Subsequently the song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card[38] and described as "vile, vicious and racist" by Celtic chairman John Reid[39] and complaints prompted Irish diplomats to contact the Scottish government.[40] The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying it was a "a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".[41]

In November 2008, a fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine song during a game on 9 November against Kilmarnock.[42] Rangers fans have also sung the song at the Hamilton player James McCarthy.[43]

In February 2009, sectarian chanting by some Rangers fans during an Old Firm match at Celtic Park was reported to the SPL by the match delegate, again relating to the chanting of the 'Famine Song'.[44]

Both the club and its fans are disparagingly referred to as Huns by some fans of other teams.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] The RST regard the nickname as "sectarian abuse".[41]

It is my intention to contact the club and raise awareness of the content of this page for their consideration.

Again, this page is about Rangers Football Club NOT a listing of sectarianism episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.142.96 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

because it is notable and important with regards to the ranger article, this is not a fansite devoted to making rangers or celtic something special, it is about giving facutal information, if you think things like the 9 in a row need expansion expand it with referneces and no point of views, same goes for other things. I am awaiting th reply you msut be a celtic fan or something but i aint i am a wikipedia editor who trys to follow as much as i can by the guidelines and questions the guidelines when they makea article wrong--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask again, is this an article about a football club or an article on sectarianism ? 46 lines that do no more than list sectarian episodes detracts from the article. I contest these episodes do not belong in a article about a football club. By all means people should feel free to mention the problems of sectarianism, but not on apage that should be about a football club.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to let me know how to take this further ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.142.96 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To take it further you will have to bring a dispute to the article contents her eon the talk page, which you have started which is a good point. Second this is only friendly advice other editors ar eless likely to take your comment with more thana pinch of salt as IP user are seen as nothing more than just acomment you be best to register and start eiditng other article by improving them or fixing faults and referencing unsoruced material, it will at least show you want to edit for the best and not just edit because your a support of the club. The section on secvterism is small in comparsion to the rest of the article so you might not get very far with it. Again this article is not about a football club itself but about the football club and its supporters. Teh celtic article will be getting more about secterism added in the future as well. One other place you bring this up is within the wikipedia project football and leave a message on there talk page, they are responable for all football related articles--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

direvct link to the project [25] talk page--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance and patience, Andrew, I will register as you suggest which hopefully will add more weight to my comments. It was not my intention to debate sectarianism, but only to query the scope of the article.

Thanks again for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.142.96 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)