Talk:History of Celtic F.C. (1887–1994)

History of Celtic F.C. (1887–1994) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Football: Scotland / Celtic Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Celtic F.C. task force (assessed as Low-importance).

ShugSty (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic the "British" Club

I think its controversial and unnecessarily antagonistic to tag Celtic as a British club, its just stirs up more trouble between Celtic and Rangers fans - in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British.

The article already states that Celtic were the first Scottish and Northern European club to reach and win the European Cup is it necessary to you the British label also when the others are sufficient?

I suggested and changed the term to being from the "island of Britain" rather than "British" as it conveys the same message and is a lot less controversial but I have been threatened over this (see below) Vintagekits 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am annoyed that you characterised my warning sa as threat. I offered you a way out of this and you have not taken it. It will now be out of my hands; so be it.

As to the description of where Celtic are from, "British" is a simple term of geography here. Like it or not, Celtic play their home games in Scotland, which is part of the island called Britain. It really is that simple. --Guinnog 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Guinnog 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from user's talk page, by the user)

Hi. I'm interested in why you reverted my change here without discussion, and without even leaving an edit summary. In my opinion this makes the article worse. Specifically, I'd like you to explain why you prefer "from the island of Britain" to "British". Thanks. --Guinnog 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed you've made no answer to the above. You've also broken Wikipedia's three revert rule, one of the few absolute rules that we have. As you are quite new here, I'll give you this one opportunity to self-revert to the consensus version. Failing that, you will be blocked. Thank you, --Guinnog 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Its my first time in this type of situation so I didnt know what to do with that box, I am learning as I am going.

I gave you the reason when I changed the article. Was my change incorrect? - many Celtic fans (I being one) dont appriciate having their club tagged as British and dont consider it British. In that way I consider your edit more POV than mine, stating that they are from the island of Britain conveys the same message and is a lot less controversial.

Is this wiki or Nazi germany - I am putting forward a valid arguement and you would like to ban people over that!!! thank you Vintagekits 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's a simple descriptive term, as I and another user have pointed out to you. I was serious about the block by the way. Did you read the policy I referred you to? --Guinnog 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Firstly I dont think that an edit that is actually correct dervse a ban. Secondly I dont know how to "self-revert" it without editing it again. Thirdly dont you think I less controversial description would be better.

Just because you disagree with my description is that the end of it, does your POV stand over everything else? Vintagekits 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree with Guinnog here. This is an encyclopedia - it should use simple descriptive terms. In terms of football, "British clubs" are teams who play football in Britain. We can't go around inventing unwieldy terms like "from the island of Britain" because some Celtic fans are not British or don't like to think of themselves as British. It's about the club, which is clearly a British club, not about the politics of some of the club's fans. Camillus (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to describe the club as British when it serves no purpose in the article!

Vintagekits 00.16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It serves the purpose of letting readers know which country they are from. Incidentally, if you type four tildes, like this ~~~~, you will sign and timestamp your contributions. --Guinnog 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Britain a country??? Celtic play their home games in Scotland, the reference to Celtic being British and unnecessary Sligobhoy67 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is ridiculous. Celtic are a British club, because they are a club from the UK. Some Celtic fans either aren't British, or don't like to consider themselves British, but as a matter of nationality, the club IS British. If someone is a Scottish Celtic fan, although they may not like the fact, their nationality, legally, is British.

It's significant in this article that Celtic were the first British team to win because it was achieved before any club from the other countries of the UK, particularly England. Not only was it a great achievement for a team from a small country like Scotland to win, but the fact that it was done before any club from the generally-stronger English league managed it makes it even more significant.Hippo43 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo43 makes a very good point. Its interesting that some Celtic fans are very quick to point out Celtic was the first British (or, i've noticed on occasion, even "first northen European") club to with the European Cup. Yet, in other contexts, have a problem calling Celtic a British club. The club is British. Rockpocket 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seville - 80,000 fans?

I removed "somewhere between 35,000 and 80,000 fans", leaving "around 80,000" as the sources cited are misleading. The Independent article states 50,000 fans the day before the final, and the FIFA article only says that 35,000 arrived without match tickets. This article - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=98023&cc=5739 - states "Of the estimated 80,000 Celtic fans who had launched the most good-natured of invasions of Andalucia, only around 35,000 made it into the Estadio Olimpico for the match. Even so, they still outnumbered the blue-and-white clad Porto supporters by two to one."

So the Observer says "more than 80,000" and ESPN says an "estimated 80,000". FIFA says 35,000 without tickets, so if we add [a conservative estimate] half of the 52,972 crowd to that, we get at least 61,000. Adding ESPN's "around 35,000" inside the stadium to FIFA's 35,000 outside we get 70,000. Leaving 'around 80,000' seems right to me. Any thoughts? .PhilLeotardo 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The error is partly my fault, as i moved this content from the main article to here without checking the sources properly. Rockpocket 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Torbett

Now, I know this is likely to be controversial with some of you, but I'm thinking I'd like to include some mention of the Celtic Boys Club sexual abuse scandal in this article. I hope my credentials (I have made 137 edits to this article, a lot of them reverting mindless sectarian vandalism) will convince you that I am not taking a POV here. It just seems extraordinary that neither this article nor the History of Celtic F.C. one even mentions the affair at all. Including a brief mention will, I believe, make the article more encyclopedic and might even reduce the number of "BJK" edits I am reverting. --Guinnog 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this here from Talk:Celtic F.C. Please direct any replies there to keep discussion in one place. Thanks. --Guinnog 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added what I think is an appropriate and referenced mention to the article. Once again, please discuss on the main Talk:Celtic linked above. --Guinnog 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to keep a very close eye on this - you have shown some colour recently with your editing that I dont like and is also showing signings of POV.--Vintagekits 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your personal slur on your talk page. Meantime, as I suggested, can we discuss this on the main Talk:Celtic page. Tell me there, or here if you feel that is better, why my addition was unencyclopedic enough for you to revert it, please. --Guinnog 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting very close to the bone here, like I told you 1. you are giving undue promenance to an incident 2. it was with respect to Celtic Boys Club not Celtic F.C.--Vintagekits 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that in the real world it has more or less significance to the history of Celtic F.C. than the Cadete affair? Please give reasons. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents - we need to be very clear about the relationship between Celtic Boys Club & Celtic FC. As far as I know, there is no official link between the 2 clubs - Celtic Boys Club is often described as a feeder club for Celtic, but Celtic Boys Club's constitution makes no mention of Celtic FC ([1]), and both Celtic's website and annual report have no mention of Celtic Boys Club. I may be wrong on this, so if someone knows, and has a source, please let us know.

I don't believe that this is 'suppresing the truth' - the story is rightly covered on both the Jim Torbett & Celtic Boys Club pages. I also don't believe that inserting the story on this page would cause any less vandalism - if anything, the version of the story presented here would become especially contentious.Hippo43 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources I think the phrase "feeder club" is used in one or both. If I'm mistaken then we can of course amend the wording. --Guinnog 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. We have

"Former Scotland star Mr Brazil told the trial last week that he was 13 when he was touched by Torbett after being invited back to Torbett's flat in Glasgow.

After the incident, he avoided socialising with Mr Torbett. He said he had always wondered if this had affected Celtic's decision not to sign him when he was old enough."[2]

If Brazil thinks that Celtic FC were connected to the club where he was molested and the BBC reported it, then that is good enough for me. Thoughts? --Guinnog 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - of course there is a connection - one is a feeder club for the other. However, as far as I can tell, there is no formal link between the 2. I'm not convinced this is a significant event in Celtic FC's history - if the Boys Club's name did not contain the word Celtic, and it was called, for example, Parkhead St Patricks FC, would it be so significant in the history of Celtic?Hippo43 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't particularly to do with the name, but in the popular consciousness I think there is a connection. I admit that I thought that (as with including the Old Firm and sectarianism section on both OF clubs' pages) it might reduce the hateful sectarian "BJK" vandalism I seem to revert several times a day, but what clinches it for me is that Brazil, as quoted above, seemed to think there was a connection between CBC and CFC. If he said that, and it can be verified (which it can), I think that justifies the inclusion of (as it is now) a brief mention of the scandal. If you wanted to produce a (verifiable) rebuttal of the connection between CBC and CFC, maybe we could talk about adding it. Personally I wouldn't like to see it get much more space here than it does now. --Guinnog 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree.--Vintagekits 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog - I have removed this paragraph as I don't think it belongs in here - it relates to Celtic Boys Club, which is not part of Celtic FC.

As I said above, of course there is a connection, but as far as the sources I have found show, not a formal connection between the two clubs. As you've said 'verifiability' is what is important - 'popular consciousness', or the mistaken beliefs of the ill-informed, doesn't cut it. I might be wrong - I don't know, for example, if Celtic FC funded the Celtic Boys Club at all at this time. However, as far as I can tell, Jim Torbett was not an employee of Celtic FC at the time of his crimes.

You haven't given a source for any kind of relationship between the clubs other than your view that 'Alan Brazil seemed to think there was a connection'. For me, whether you believe Alan Brazil thinks there is a link doesn't clinch anything. First, even if he did think there was a (formal) connection between the two, his opinion might be wrong - he may not have understood the formal relationship.

Second, the BBC article doesn't even go that far - you have inferred his opinion about the link between the 2 clubs. The BBC piece simply says "After the incident, he avoided socialising with Mr Torbett. He said he had always wondered if this had affected Celtic's decision not to sign him when he was old enough."

I appreciate all the work you put in here on these kinds of issues, and nine times out of ten I think you and I are of a similar mind. However, IMO, on this issue you are being a little over-zealous. I think this story should be reported accurately, but I really don't believe that the "History of Celtic FC" article is the right place. I would like to read what others think, besides the two of us and Vintagekits.Hippo43 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Supercaley.png

Image:Supercaley.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TheCelticView2003.jpg

The image Image:TheCelticView2003.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to divide article into sections

This article's getting quite big and unwieldy now. I think it might be a good idea to divide it into two sections, say the first covering 1887-1994 and then the second part from 1994 (when Fergus McCann took over) to the present date. "History" articles for the top English clubs are generally in 2 or 3 parts, presumably for the same reason.

Any thoughts? ShugSty (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> After over seven months, nobody's commented here so I've gone ahead and split the article into two parts (1887-1994 and 1994-present).ShugSty (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Celtic F.C. (1887–1994). 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:

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) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Celtic F.C. (1887–1994). 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:

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) 15:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year 1994

This is wrong, 1888 - to date. Desmobhappy (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wrong should read 1887 to present day

Possible mischief making in title. 95.147.86.151 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No liquidation

Celtic never went into liquidation in 1994 and have never been in liquidation. Clearly someone has got mixed up with another team from Glasgow. 2A0A:EF40:2C3:B801:2148:FE00:8079:DDFA (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]