Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

All Time Greatest Eleven

Someone should put a section about the greatest eleven as voted by the fans a few years ago like other teams pages have.

Goram

Jardine Gough Butcher Greig

Laudrup Gascoigne Baxter Cooper

McCoist Hateley

Simply The Best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.148.218 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This has no worthness ot the article, it is original research, it impossibel to source, this ocudl change from year to year, There nothng this will bring encloypedia ways.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

it was voted for andrew a few years ago so will be on rangers fc website, would prob need to get consensus but i would agree to have it included(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

but would need to be stated that it was at that time the greatest eleven, to resolve issues about possible change from year to year.(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

There's no need for this. It is at best trivial. We're not exactly short of material to add already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Financial problems

Why no mention of this? --John (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2 reasons, firstly it a very little point and might not be worthwhile adding, but the most important thing is only walter smith has said it, the bank and the club have denied it so ther eno realible source for it unless osmething has bene annoouced today?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that little.

• Rangers are estimated to be about £25m in debt and are currently being run by Lloyds Bank.
• Lloyds Banking Group insists it is not running Rangers after manager Walter Smith suggested the bank was effectively operating the Ibrox club.
• At least it's not just bar-room gossip any more or whispered asides about the Ibrox club being deep in the financial manure. (Chick Young).

I'm sure I could find more easily. The BBC is a reliable source. So, what will we put in the article? --John (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that is all guess work by the bbc yes bbc is realible but nothing offical has bene annouced by rangers or llyods which is more important until then it techincally original research, but i know personally rangers are in trouble even to the poitn the amdinistrator might be called in but until that happesn we cant add anything as clubs can be in fincaial trobule but nothing happens that why i say it is little point, if they go into administration that is major and will be added. wait and see what other thinks of adding it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned to some degree with financial constraints, like Andrew said until something major happens it would be just a repeat of this mention of financial constraint.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Rangers Riot in Romania

Where in the article should we put the charge from Uefa about inproper conduct? [1] Uffiziuzi (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Probally the secterism section however this section is now unde review to summairising it more so all new material should be collected here or on the test sub apge once created--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason to not add material because discussion is ongoing - feel free to put it in the article. However, unless reliable sources identify it as sectarian, it should not be in that section, and should probably go in the history section. --hippo43 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i havent reviewed it myself yet not sure if it was secterism but i am getting the impression from news reports it was fueled by that, but in the end it is the voilence that there charging, i aint sure the history sectionis best either, maybe the secterism section should be renamed Problems with secterism and voilence or something simialr? no i aint censoring it jsut think the section should be more broader to cover this type of problem to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we just wait to see what uefa say before jumping to put it in the article, they will give rangers a fine but shall we just wait to see to make things easier(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Monkey, it's notable enough to include now. If and when UEFA punish Rangers, it can be updated easily enough. Andrew, I don't see any need to expand the sectarianism section. If you want to include other examples of violence and crowd trouble in a separate section, fair enough - I don't know how much material there would be. For me, it belongs in the most recent subsection of the history section. It is far more notable than the individual match results that are in there already. --hippo43 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a few incedints that could go into voilence section--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think there is a need for a separate section, i have made an attempt to inlcude this in the article(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

This is a good first attempt. Should we also mention that they have been charged by Uefa? Uffiziuzi (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

like hippo said will be updated when uefa make their decision(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Why not update it just now? New info isn't going to suggest Rangers' weren't charged again by Uefa.

Also, I recommend a separate section like:

==Rangers Fans Inappropriate Behaviour==

===Violence===

Cup Winners Cup Final Barcelona 1972 plus 2 year ban, 1980 Scottish Cup Final, Manchester UEFA Cup Final, Villareal, Romania riots etc

===Sectarianism===

Existing section

Uffiziuzi (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Monkey, please don't try to speak for me. The most up to date info goes in - Rangers have been charged by UEFA. If the picture changes, we can update the article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kit links

links to kits should be updated ref 21 and 22 of links since they no longer work

suggest these links

22 current rangers

21 current rangers away shirt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrjo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather bizarre reference to zoologist Adam White playing football for Rangers

Please see:

• Talk:Adam_White_(zoologist)#Rather_bizarre_reference_to_White_playing_football_for_Rangers.21

Can anyone knowledgable about the early history of Rangers help? Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can inform you that nobody named Adam White has ever played for Rangers FC I would also say that considering the fact that Rangers were founded in 1873 adam white would have been 63 when the club was founded way to old to have been a player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.135.208 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JunkersUK, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It is rumoured that Rangers' first team kits will be manufactured by Vandanel, though for an unknown length of time

JunkersUK (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The edit request doesn't state what should be changed and therefor cannot be actioned. Also, Wikipedia is not meant for rumors. All content should be based upon reliable sources Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kit

The kit manufacturer for the coming season is Umbro, so could someone add it? I read it on a sportswear company, and previews are starting to go around (http://i40.tinypic.com/2hdtut2.jpg). I'm looking for the source now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.27.151 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

probably best to leave it just now until some more 'Reliable Sources' become present(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Physio

I read somewhere recently teh physio's name was Jeremy Von Baumseex but he's not on the wiki page? (User:HermanGelmet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.0.37 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

I think Von Baumseex may be a figment of GermanHelmet's imagination. If not, I'll eat my Scottish bunnet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion that Glasgow Rangers were the first British club to appear in a European final

The article states that Rangers were the first British team to appear in a European final - the 1961 European Cup Winners Cup. But this is not true - Birmingham City lost to Barcelona in the 1958-1960 Fairs Cup final - source information is at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Inter-Cities_Fairs_Cup

Would it be fair to remove this assertion?

Martincolloby (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Inter Cities Fairs Cup article you point to states; "UEFA do not consider clubs' records in the Fairs Cup to be part of their European record." So why should Birmingham City's appearance count? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because while it wasn't a UEFA competition, and irrespective of what UEFA claims about clubs' UEFA records, it was European, and it was a final? What UEFA says about competitions does not determine factual accuracy - the Fairs cup was not under their auspices, so why would they be an authority on it? What do reliable sources say? --hippo43 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's true. But does that mean if I go on holiday to Spain and play a couple of games against invited European pals, calling them "finals", does that mean, irrespective of what UEFA may think, I've played in a European final? It would appear that the Inter-City Fairs Cup at the time Birmingham City played wasn't much more than this. UEFA is the authority on European football, and we need to work to what they authorise as a 'European Final'. Perhaps we could tighten up the definition on the article? But a cite on the actual fact on the article would certainly help. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't as organised as UEFA competitions became, but I think it had more in common with a "proper" competition than with your lads' holiday! :)

UEFA is the governing body for European football - it is not an authority on historical facts, especially about competitions that it did not control. It is an authority on its own competitions, but nothing else. UEFA's website repeatedly uses the wording "Matches in the Inter-Cities' Fairs Cup and the 1972 Super Cup are included only for information as these were not held under UEFA auspices." (emphasis mine) It doesn't say anything about clubs' "European records" or that the Fairs Cup was not a European competition. We absolutely don't need to stick to what they say about European competition - it's far more important that we get information from reliable, third-party sources.

So Rangers were the first British club to play in a final of a UEFA-run European competition, and the first to play in the Cup Winners Cup final - we should maybe mention one of those? --hippo43 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, when birmingham played in the final the matches were basically friendly games like the summer tournaments that are played now. Would it be correct to say that celtic won a european trophy this season because they won the 'wembley cup'(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Wow, you managed to finish one whole sentence before mentioning Celtic! ;) Whether you like it or not, within football the Fairs Cup is widely considered a European competition. Let's rely on reliable sources for this. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem intent on trying to downplay the achievement of being the first british club to reach a european final. You could perhaps put in a footnote that it was the first 'official' final involving a british club(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Not trying to downplay anything - just trying to stop fans pushing exaggerated info in an encyclopedia. Rangers were not the first British club to reach a European final. --hippo43 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is funny how the original user who brought this up has somehow disappeared, you are pushing a pov, you have a biased view against Rangers F.C. and are clearly sore about something, a footnote to state it was the first official final including a british club would have sufficed, this is not the first time you have pushed your 'authority' on Rangers F.C. articles.(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

What biased view? What POV am I pushing? The facts? It wasn't the first "official final" - Birmingham played in the official final of the Fairs Cup. Rangers were the first Scottish team in a European final, but not the first British team. You have edit-warred to restore unsourced and challenged material. You have now reverted 3 times in 30 minutes - I suggest you revert yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need just a bit more than the fact it was played in Europe to call it a "European Final". Fact is it was a by-invitation-only tournament, that happened to be conducted on the continent of Europe. Calling it a "European Final" is a stretch when the conditions for entry were so limited. No matter, our opinions and analysis of what the Fairs Cup was, or wasn't, doesn't really matter, the fact about Rangers being the first British team in a European final should be cited or at least clarified.

Either way, edit warring over it isn't going to resolve anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right - the statement needs to be sourced, so I've removed it per WP:V. Please don't restore it without a solid reference. I changed it to 'first Scottish team', which is obviously true and seemed uncontentious to me, but Monkeyman didn't like that. --hippo43 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have a footnote to clarify the issue, it was the first 'official final', the fairs cup was an unnoficial final.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Because your distinction between 'official' and 'unofficial' is pure original research. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hows this for original research http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090227/a-classic-team_2255467_1571369 3 paragraphs down from second picture and with that evidence i propose that the article should be reverted back to the way it had been with the link given as the source. User:Escape_Orbit do you concur?(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Except that is not an independent source. Or if we are accepting clubs' websites, how abouth this - "Last Monday was the 50th anniversary of when Blues became the first British club to play in a European final." --hippo43 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

here happy now if the words are changed to 'major'(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm confused by why you want to include inaccurate information. Rangers were the first British club to reach the final of a UEFA club competition. This is not in any doubt, so this is what should be included, with a footnote explaining Birmingham's appearance to prevent any confusion. Using unencyclopedic qualifiers like 'major' is the sort of writing fans would propose, not serious editors. --hippo43 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you have changed your tune now, is that not a reliable source then?(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

seventh paragraph down two thirds down the page next to 1961 third paragraph second paragraph i tried to find a great variety of sources for you to satisfy the 'Reliability'(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

What 'tune' are you talking about? I want the article to reflect the facts, not serve as an inaccurate fan site - that is all. The Citizendia and Argyll Hotel sources are not reliable, as they are copies of wikipedia. My objection to the word 'major' is not that it is not reliably sourced, but that it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - it is a peacock term which does not explain the matter to readers. The fact that something appears in a reliable source means that it can appear in wikipedia, it doesn't mean it must appear. There is all sorts of journalistic hyperbole which has no place in an encyclopedia, although it appears in otherwise reliable sources - this is an example. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'tune' i am talking about is the fact that originaly you seemed to think that this could not go in the article because it was 'unsourced'. Your own words not mine. And since i have provided numerous reliable sources You have completely changed your argument. Any 'serious editor' would have come to an agreement on this a long time ago and not simply continually reverted sourced information. I would like to see what User:Escape_Orbit has to say on this matter.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

No, my objection from the start has been that it is quite obviously untrue. (The only time I used the word "unsourced" was when I referred to your edit-warring.) Rangers were not the first British team to take part in a European final. They were, however, the second British team to reach a European final, or the first Scottish team to reach a European final, or the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition. Do you see the difference?

Although there are clearly sources which say various things about Rangers' final, there are plenty others which refer to Birmingham's as a 'European final' - FIFA here for example (aixth paragraph), or this source, used as a source for the same claim in the Birmingham City article, or the Guardian here (first paragraph). --hippo43 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Other editors will want their say on this, but by just having a quick look at some of the well known teams articles on wikipedia and UEFA competion articles on wikipedia your 'peacock' word major appears more than you probably think to represent the value of the competition in question. You forget it was yourself that started an edit war by removing something that had been on the article for some time and not even attempting to alter it to suit reliable sources or gain concensus first but battered on regardless. Other editors who have contributed here i am sure will want their say but if there is no word from any within a couple of days i am afraid we will have to come to some agreement.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to gain consensus before removing patently inaccurate info - removing it is not edit-warring. I replaced it with a factual version, but you didn't like that.

You may be right that the word 'major' is used elsewhere, but in general I disagree with it. It might be appropriate in some cases, but not in a situation where there are more detailed, factual alternatives. It is ridiculous to argue for including "major European final" in favour of any of the three factually accurate examples I gave above. Unless you want to make it sound like a more impressive feat, of course. --hippo43 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, lets end this now. Seeing as no one else either cares or cant be bothered we will make concensus ourselves, anything else can be taken to my discussion page for an explanation. the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition put that in and end this, if you had altered the text at the beginning to something like this then it would have ended all this nonsense, now could you read my reply on my discussion page, thanks.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The only nonsense here has been you arguing for including something that is clearly untrue. I don't see a reply at your talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be now(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes, thanks. Let's move on and try to work together. --hippo43 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition your words that i now agree with to end this?(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Looks good to me. --hippo43 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

hippo43, still pushing your anti Rangers agenda ? Wikipedia should really crack down on editors like you and it is time for a neutral editors to look deeper into your contributions, not only in the article itself but in the discussion contained in the archives. You have shown your Celtic bias in articles all over Wikipedia, and you still find yourself drawn back to the page discussing Rangers. You have been warned several times for edit warring and disruptive behaviour, it is time someone took a look at the history of your posting in regards to the Rangers article. Wikipedia is not for pursuing personal agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Famine Song section

The section on the Famine Song should be removed for the following reasons:

1.)Recentism

Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, deleted, or added. Certain articles might be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion; conversely, new articles might be created for balance. Sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews, which can be reached here..

Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective

2.) Undue Weight

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

The section on the Famine Song falls into both the above categories and as such should be removed.

I intend to make this edit after discussion with other editors and will be requesting a neutral editor to over see the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any discussion will need a neutral editor as certain ‘overlords’ of this article will fight to the last to have every part of the sectarianism section remain. It does seem that the part in question does meet both of the Wikipedia guidelines that you have mentioned but agreeing that with active editors of this article will be very difficult(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

First off, there is a paragraph on the Famine song, not a section. Secondly, why would it not belong in the section sectarianism? The song caused trouble not just in football but also in politics. There is nothing disproportionate about it. Jack forbes (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is not relevant enough to be included due to it's recent and passing importance given that the club is over 135 yrs old. It is therefore grossly disproportionate. The rules on recentism are very clear, therefore it should indeed be removed. I intend to edit this paragraph once majority consensus is achieved and urge others who feel the same to back this edit. I have also called for neutral moderators to intervene.

Wikepedia is not for collecting news articles. Unless you can convince me it complies with the rules, which it plainly does not, it will be edited. These articles belong to no-one person here, no matter what some may believe.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I can convince you? Surely you don't think you own the article. Wikipedia is indeed for sourcing news articles when it is relevant to the subject. This story is indeed relevant to the subject. It is for you to convince others that the section should be deleted, not the other way round. You have certainly not convinced me of any such thing. If you edit it without a full discussion here and without consensus I will revert your edit immediately. Jack forbes (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the sectarianism section many parts of it meet both of the guidelines that seeker has mentioned, I am not denying that there should be a sectarianism section but parts of it seem to be just included to add ‘weighting’ to the subject (Donald Findlay, ‘orange’ shirts, some parts of the uefa measures)

The so called ‘Famine Song’ has its own Wikipedia article now believe it or not so why doesn’t the vast majority of what is on the rangers article about it be moved there?(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

The section in query fails on both recentism and undue weight as well as the reasons Monkeyman points out. So revert restored. Lets try to keep the article within the rules. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would propose the following be removed as it's link to sectarianism is tenuous at best and its unverified.

"In 2002 the club dropped their controversial orange away strip after a "furious debate over whether Rangers were profiting from their sectarian overtones," though the club said their decision was "a commercial decision, not based on politics. We change the shirt every season with new designs to try to make it new and fresh."[24] 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."

Why is the colour of jersey considered sectarian ? because of a entirely different organization with no links to the club ? The club explained fully the reasons for the change, and given the large contingent of Dutch nationals who have been at Rangers, it is not surprising they choose orange, the national colour of that nation in order to maximise commercial returns through overseas sales, just as other clubs play in colours of other nations with whom they feel an affiliation. If a small minority choose to read something else into the colour, the it is they who have a issue with a paranoid perception of sectarianism.

For these reason the section should be removed for being unverified, hearsay, own work, Undue weight and being just plain wrong as no sectarian link is shown. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The section about uefa action could be shortened to about two lines instead of about 20, that part is quite clearly overkill and seems to be only there to bulk out the section and add weighting. The link given about the 'orange' tops has quotes from unmentioned people and is bluntly hearsay, and as i have been told already just because there is a ref does not mean it has to go into the article. It is also questionable whether or not the ref is reliable.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I concur MonkeyMan, The section should be removed as no verified source is given amongst the other reasons highlighted.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't concur and have restored the section. You obviously haven't looked closely enough at the verifiable source. That, or you are hoping to remove anything that is critical of Rangers and their fans in the sectarianism section. I hope that's not the case. Jack forbes (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your input is noted Jack, however you are failing to grasp the argument and the clear breaches of wiki rules, I have therefore reverted your edit. Also you should be aware of wiki rules on AGF (Assume good faith) before casting aspersions. There is no attempt to remove critical material, only material that has no place in such an article or is unsubstantiated hearsay. I could ask, could it be that you are actively trying to include critical material or lend undue weight to its importance for some reason ?, but of course that would be rude. Lets just keep the section within the rules.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How very kind of you to notice my input. I'm afraid you don't quite grasp the wiki rules. I'll say it again. Everything you are trying to remove is well referenced so please stop removing the text (I have reverted your revert). You seem to have appeared here thinking you have the last word on this article. It doesn't work that way. Jack forbes (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the verifiable source. The Sunday Herald is as good a source as you'll get. The headline, "Rangers drop orange strip after sectarian outcry." To quote part of the article: "The decision has been welcomed by politicians and anti-sectarian campaigners. Donald Gorrie, MSP, said "I think it is a very good gesture to drop the shirt. I think it was a mistake on the part of Rangers to introduce it in the first place - I don't think they thought through the implications."" Now, your assertion that this is undue weight falls down when you see how important this story was in Scotland where politicians and ant-sectarian organisations were getting involved. The text in the article is certainly not unsubstantiated hearsay, it is a report from a journalist working for a major newspaper who actually quotes an MSP. If you don't believe this belongs in the sectarian section I really don't know what you think should belong there. Your opinion that this has no place in the article is just that, an opinion. Opinion does not trump good sources I'm afraid. Jack forbes (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you still believe it does not belong in the article you can always ask for an RFC, not forgetting of course that any request must be put neutrally. Jack forbes (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeker can if he wants i am not bothered, both that part and the part about donald findlay are questionable but as long as it has a sectarian element to it you will probably argue it is important to the article as a whole.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

I have no problem if new posters come here from the Request for Comment. This important discussion needs more than the three of us. If they do comment here I would have no problem abiding to a consensus, whatever that would be. The three of us here are too few for a consensus and of course I have argued that the text in the section is verifable and not undue weight. The text should remain while we wait for the outside comment. Cheers. 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Text as it stands is fine, is well-referenced, and is not undue weight. --John (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article quoted also states that the decision to drop the tangerine shirt was "a commercial decision, not based on politics. We change the shirt every season with new designs to try to make it new and fresh". So where is the sectarian content ?, where is the so called "furious debate" ? One 8years old sensationalist newspaper article does not mean that the strip is any way sectarian. None of the organisations describe the jersey as sectarian, that is in the eye of the beholder. Undue Weight, edit reverted.

82.9.98.40 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The following text is being repeatedly removed from the section:

"In his resignation letter, Mr Findlay described the incident as "a serious misjudgment". He said his conduct "was not acceptable" and he regretted any harm done to the club's reputation. "

Is verifiable, cited and relevant, so why is it being removed, reverted.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be my fault. I inadvertently lost it when I made a revert. My apologies. Jack forbes (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit summary wasn't correct. You stated you were restoring text previously removed. You did not mention you were also deleting the text we are discussing at this moment. I've put it back. Now, as I said, if you want outside opinion ask for a RFC. This is getting silly now. Jack forbes (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, on the point of neutrality, Jack, I noted user John's comments, then saw it was the same John who posted the following on the Celtic FC article:

"My dad, a diehard Celtic fan, has no problem with calling them the first British team to win the European Cup, and neither should we. --John (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)"

Now I am not suggesting anything and AGF applies, but Jack you are also a regular contributor to the Celtic FC article, so some may feel neutrality here is questionable, no ?. As the topic of sectarianism is naturally divisive, it is impossible to give it the coverage it needs, hence it now has it's own article. No-one is trying to remove the section, just makes sure it is relevant, balanced and not just a list of perceived sectarian incidents. The section should not carry undue weight over the rest of the article which is about a football club.

We all know the rules guys, if we are going to get consensus, then truly neutral admins will have to be involved and lets keep it civil.

Jack it is my intention to revert the strip section for the reasons I pointed out, nothing sectarian about it, a commercial decision perceived as a sectarian by a minority.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If your intention is to get neutral admins involved then that's fine by me but, do not revert the long standing text until you do so. I wouldn't say I was regular contributer to the Celtic article as I have contributed to several different types of articles. Now that you have brought it up though, I notice that in your short time here you have only contributed to the Rangers article. Jack forbes (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also tell you that you shouldn't break the three revert rule. I wouldn't want anyone getting into trouble. Jack forbes (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

yes the old o-x-o rules that can lead to so many of wiki's problems with accuracy.

What better place to learn ? ;-) Long standing text should be edited if it is wrong or misleading, the section in question is misleading in that a journalist alludes to a sectarian motive is behind the jersey's design and colours, neither organisation claimed the strip was sectarian, more that it could be perceived by some as such, hence they welcomed the club's decision to change it. The club states it was a commercial decision, borne out in sales of a ratio of 60% to the blue home strip. Given the large contingent of Dutch players and coaching staff at the club it is not surprising that their national colours were included in the strips design ? There is nothing sectarian about it. There are enough unfortunate sectarian acts involving a minority of the clubs support without inventing them. Thankfully these are on the decrease.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The text does not claim that Rangers brought out the shirt because it was sectarian. The text claims that wearing an orange shirt would have sectarian overtones. We know that it did have sectarian overtones used by people like the Follow Follow (fanzine), who were eventually barred from Ibrox Park. This is not about Rangers intentions, it's about the consequences of their actions. Jack forbes (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution?

Jack forbes asked me for advice on getting neutral admins in to consider the issue above.

There are three editors apparently involved, so I can't suggest my favourite venue, WP:3O. However, there are at least two WikiProjects involving Rangers: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glasgow. I'd recommend posting on their respective talk pages - keep it neutral, merely mention there's a disagreement, and ask that non-involved editors come here and take a look.

Another possible venue might be Wikipedia:Requests for comment - "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content..."

Hope this helps!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glasgow so hopefully we'll get some responses in the near future. Jack forbes (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to gather support from like minded individuals now Jack? I never tried to remove all 'criticisms' from the article regarding sectarianism and by the looks of things neither has seeker, We take the argument over to neutrals for what should stand on the article for such a long period of time such as the orange tops and donald findlay, remembring that this is an F.C article and that the club is over 137 years old are you trying to tell me that this is set in stone for the article and that it has such a great importance for the history of the club that it should remain forever? I have been told that just because there is a ref doesnt mean it has to go in the article, also that 3 editors can make consensus alone and that consensus can be reached without a unanimous vote.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

I think that will be enough from you. Who are these like minded supporters I'm trying to gather. Are you accusing me of canvassing? Be careful now how you answer that one. Jack forbes (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice how you avoided that question of mine. I am not accusing you(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

If you can now explain your comment "Trying to gather support from like minded individuals now Jack?" I'll answer your question after you explain yourself. Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You left a comment here and noticed it on my watchlist as for some reason in the past i had added that particular discussion page (cant say when), and you said 'a couple of editors are trying to remove all criticism from the sectarianism section', now how does that sound? I perhaps jumped into it with you a bit quick but it annoyed me for the fact that i already stated at the beginning of this that i am not arguing that there should not be a sectarianism section. I could of phrased what i meant better(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Asking Rockpocket (an admin) to take a look at the article is certainly not canvassing. If I asked him to change anything in the article he would have told me take a powder. Oh, and yes, I do believe a couple of editors are trying to remove all (or almost all) criticism from the section. This club which is 137 years old has an article here. Quite rightly this article has a sectarian section. If we have a sectarian section we must give examples of any prominent sectarianism. Whether we choose an example from last year, 20 years ago or 100 years ago does not matter. Our priority is to the reader and without any text explaining how sectarianism can manifest itself we are doing a disservice to them. Jack forbes (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually had enough of this article. Perhaps there will be outside views on the way but I won't be here to read them. Maybe you can do as you wish now. Jack forbes (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to posting at WP:Football

My initial view is that the 'Old Firm and sectarianism' section of the Rangers article is a little too long considering there is also a separate 'Sectarianism in Glasgow' article, and given the overall history and achievements of the club. The series of statements within that section of the club article read a little bit like snapshots that have been added singly, rather than a coherent set of paragraphs on Rangers experiences of sectarianism and their efforts to combat it. I'm not sure whether specifically the section on the orange away shirts should be removed, and I appreciate that all the statements in the section appear to be sourced, but it just seems that a certain part of Rangers history (and a modern bias at that) may be having a little too much sway on the article? I hope this is of some use. I am happy to provide further views on specific points if wished. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, You do no service to the reader by peddling inaccurate information, the decision about the jersey was commercial, no organization claimed it as sectarian. You have been repeatedly told that no-one is trying to remove the section, yet you persist in accusing other editors of this, what happened to AGF ? I would also remind him there is an article dedicated to Sectarianism, and further information can be obtained there.

I would also ask Jack why he is asking user Rockpocket to mediate or intervene, perhaps he feels that user will be more likely to agree to his point of view, given his statement(not that I would suggest an Admin would be non-neutral):

"Being a big sports fan, I developed an affinity for both Celtic and Hibernian."

I would ask Jack if this his idea of nPov ? So far, all who have opposed editing the section have affiliations with Celtic, this will be apparent to any truly neutral observers. Reverting edits is the only course of action open to those of us who feel the section is in error. I would urge anyone who feels the same to edit the page to more accurately reflect the truth of the matter, until the matter is resolved. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favour. Since you joined wikipedia the only article you have edited or even talked on is this one. You wouldn't have an affiliation with Rangers, would you? I'll leave you to your neutral editing. LOL. Jack forbes (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I have in the past tried to encourage a more summarised section with detail perhaps moved elsewhere i.e. Sectarianism in Glasgow, but was laughed away by certain editors.

I also asked that when the large portion of history on the article was moved to the History of Rangers F.C article and summarised here that the same could be attempted on this article with the sectarianism section, as the problem was that this article was too long, but again was told it was too controversial.

I am not saying that there should not be a section about sectarianism but as with certain other clubs on Wikipedia who have certain sections like this it is summarised very briefly, and that only the most recent info is included in detail in the up to date seasons section of the article.

With regards to your statement above Jack, is this really the place to show ‘how sectarianism can manifest itself’?(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC))