Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"The Bumblebee"

The new Celtic away strip will be released on the 20th of July. Do we have an illuminous yellow, to display the ne kit? [[70.90.198.172 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)]]

The Womens Team

Celtic L.F.C have been playing now 4 a couple of years and are performing well and deserve to be mentioned to this page!

i agree! its way past time that the ladies get their mantion, just look how well they are doing, thoes girls are doing us proud!

!?

All right, what's going on here!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. That's that cleared up then.

regarding the club physio entries..has gavin mccarthy left and when did ross harvie and the other physio join the club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Greatest ever team - diagram

Anyone know why this diagram has 'SIMPSON' in yellow and 'JOHNSTONE' in gold? hippo43 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming Simpsons is yellow due to the colour of his jersy. Why Jinky's is gold I don't know. Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed them to white. If there is a very good reason for the different colours I'm sure someone will explain it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnstone was almost certainly depicted in gold because the supporters' vote named him as the greatest player in the club's history as well as a member of the greatest ever team. Simpson, being the goalkeeper, would wear a different coloured jersey to distinguish him from the outfield players. Henry Clarson (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest foreign travelling support at the time

I wonder if this statement is actually correct. We know that Rangers took more fans to Manchester for their UEFA cup final. Where they a foreign travelling support? Since when has Manchester been deemed a city in a foreign land? If the Rangers article mentions that they took the largest away support for a European game that is quite correct. If we say that Celtic have the record for the largest support to a foreign country that is also correct. Why does it say at the time? It is still true. Jack forbes (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look, none of the cites actually confirm what is said. We can say there was 80,000, but whether this is the largest travelling or foreign support, either then or since, is not mentioned. So perhaps the entire sentence needs to be reworded, unless someone has a reputable source that can confirm it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference added. I agree with your first point above, there must be a more elegant way of putting this. However we would probably need a recent source to say "largest foreign travelling support" or similar, or it would be original research to suppose that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue. ----hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be original research to say that Manchester does not count as a foreign venue? Rather, I would think it would be original research to say it is a foreign venue and would need a source to confirm just that. Jack forbes (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. I had assumed there would be sources 'confirming' the Rangers fans' record because I seem to have heard it so often, but I struggled to find one with a quick Google search. maybe one will turn up. --hippo43 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately other events in Manchester rather masked any chance of this being noted or publicised. I've looked before without any success. I also suspect that the claims that a proportion of those who turned up were not supporters, but trouble-makers, also makes it complicated. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose to remove the word 'at the time' from the above sentence. As I said, whether or not Rangers had a larger following in Manchester, there is no source to say it was a foreign travelling support. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If someone finds a more recent, good quality source which contradicts this sentence, we can revise it. --hippo43 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.--hippo43 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got this the wrong way around. "At the time" is essentially correct, what needs to be removed is 'foreign', as there is absolutely nothing in the cites that says this. The cite states that it was, at the time, "the largest travelling support to have assembled for a single game".

Any concern about whether Manchester is "foreign" to Glasgow is irrelevant, as it's not a specification that UEFA used. I suspect this additional definition was added in an attempt to prevent it being "trumped" by the Rangers figure. (It can't be a coincidence that it appeared after the Rangers UEFA final.) It may remain accurate, depending on how you want to define 'foreign', which is a POV, but basically it is lovely example of subtle original synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suspicions have no relevence. Since when have we needed a cite to say that Sevilla is foreign? You say yourself it is accurate. Whether or not you think it is just trying to trump Rangers, the fact it is true trumps your argument. Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)PS: The cite does not mention 'at the time'. Jack forbes (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't go creating new definitions of records that are not in the cite, while simultaneously discounting the Rangers figure until it is cited with the same newly invented definition. Particularly when the new definition is open to interpretation and opinion (i.e. what counts as foreign?).

But I'm not asking for a cite that says Seville is foreign, I'm saying that this is classic original synthesis. It is adding one fact (Seville is foreign) to another fact (a record 80,000 travelling supporters were at the game in Seville) to construct a new fact that advances a position; (a record 80,000 foreign travelling supporters were at the game). And that's even before we consider whether Manchester is foreign. It's exactly because of this matter of debate that Wikipedia insists editors don't go constructing facts in this manner. No-one here should be deciding if either set of supporters are "foreign travelling" or not.

And of course it doesn't say 'at the time'. Everything written is 'at the time'. If you don't like the phrase then how would you rephrase it?

And anyway, all this is doing is diminishing the significance of the record. Is it not more impressive that the 80,000 was greater than even any domestic fixture? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Escape Orbit. Although Seville is 'foreign' to Celtic, without doubt, we can only go with what the source says. It says "largest travelling support to have assembled for a single game" so that's what the article should say. If there is a more recent reliable source which says the same thing about another team's fans since, then the sentence should be changed to say "at the time". --hippo43 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. We should go with what the cite actually says. Jack forbes (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been looking for a better cite, maybe one that actually has official supporter numbers for the two finals, without success. Best I've got so far is this, which is ok, but not exactly what I'm looking for. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent seasons

I've removed the Recent Seasons section as is doesn't comply with the policy of avoiding recentism on Wikipedia. However, there ought to be a longer history section on this page, so long as it can be kept nicely condensed and equally weighted in the impotance of the different periods of the club's history. Dancarney (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this. I agree there may be too much, but I can't see that WP:RECENT supports removing it all without discussion. Perhaps you could edit it, tag it, or ask for suggestions on this talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll tag it. Dancarney (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Winning every competition

The article states that Celtic won every competition they entered in the 1967 season: the Scottish League Championship, the Scottish Cup, the Scottish League Cup, the European Cup and the Glasgow Cup, and the article also states that they are the only team to achieve this. It's not clear what they are the only team to achieve. I think the implication is that they are the only team ever to have won all competitions they entered in a given season but this would not be factually correct. Can someone explain what achievement is being claimed, and suggest an altertative description that is unambiguous? --Bab Nyc (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The achievement is that every tournament Celtic entered that particular season they won - 1 European (UEFA) trophy, 3 Scottish FA trophies and 1 Glasgow FA trophy (then the First Teams of Glasgow football Clubs competed in the Glasgow Cup now it is the youth teams which participate in this tournament). They were the first and possibly the only club who have completed a quadruple of major trophies in the one season and the only club to win a quintuple (if that is the correct grammar).

There are examples of other teams winning every tournament they entered. In fact, Rangers did it prior to Celtic (albeit there was no European competition back then). I think it needs to be made clear that Celtic are the first to win a European trophy and all domestic competitions in the same season (if a reference can be found backing it up).--Bab Nyc (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

red star belgrade have acheived the same feat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.11.108 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Star never won their National Cup in 1991 so in fact they never won every trophy in the same season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

European Competition

Teams have runners in in European competitions listed in their honours therefore I think Celtic should have the 1970 European Cup Final and The 2003 UEFA Cup Final listed too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The sole remening?

"and the sole remaining Seville UEFA cup finalist Bobo Balde also left the club as their contracts had not been renewed". Couldn't Maloney be included even if he left then came back? --81.103.46.138 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

European Cup Home Country Players

I have removed from the lead and Records section the claim that Celtic were the first club to win with players all from the team's home country. As an IP editor pointed out, this is demonstratively incorrect;

• Benfica 1961
• Benfica 1962
• Real Madrid 1966

What the cites in the lead also say is that Celtic were the first team with entirely "home grown" players to win the cup, nothing is said about "home country". I imagine by this they mean all the players came through their youth system, rather than being transferred in, but can't be sure. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what makes the "home grown" players part to be mentioned so often is that all of the players were born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park and this is 30-miles because one player was born in Ayrshire. It is more the radius aspect and not the "home grown" which is the important part which I think has been lost over the years to the "home grown" label.

I removed the "home-grown" phrase - its meaning is not at all clear. If anyone can provide sources to clarify what it means, it would be helpful. --hippo43 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Celtic FC and European Sanctions

There is no reference to the fact that in the past few years celtic have had serious crowd trouble at parkhead and have been sanctioned by uefa because of this. There should be a new section detailing the facts so that an outside observer would be aware of this. (Monkeymanman (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

There have been NO crowd disorder at Celtic Park in the past few years. Celtic have been fined by UEFA for fans encroaching the pitch.

Monkeymanman your 2 points are pointless and are invalid with regards to Celtic Football Club.

Celtic football clubs article is about the club and the supporters come under that. Being fined by uefa for fans encroaching the pitch is serious and has happened on numerous occasions. There has also been an occasion where an opposition player was struck by a fan who ran onto the pitch and had to be strechered off. Not to mention a certain old fim game a few years ago when numerous fans ran onto the pitch to confront the referee, hitting him and opposition players with coins and confronting their own players.

I think these are very serious points that a neutral should know about. (Monkeymanman (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Monkey, on this point and the section above, we have to go with what reliable sources say. If there are reliable sources which give substantial coverage to these issues, they may be wirth including, in line with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Do you know of any sources and can you give references? --hippo43 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

what about the idiot who ran on to the pitch at Ibrox Park when Rangers played Hapoel Tel-Aviv and handcuffed himself onto the goal post - that won't be mentioned in the Rangers pages and i think quite rightly so - the page and articles should only be about football fact and not about a minority of individuals who certainly do not represent the vast majority.

For your first point Hippo i gave you some references which you kindly deleted so that you could then make this accusation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. You say i quote 'the page and articles should only be about football fact and not about a minority of individuals who certainly do not represent the vast majority' but as i was sternly told from all moderators on the rangers fc page that the fans come under the bracket of the club and it is important to note all points both good and bad never mind the fact that it might be a minority, so in that sense these points should be included in all fairness. (Monkeymanman (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

There is no such thing as a moderator of an article. We are all just editors who must have a reliable source and reference to include important information on the article. There can also be discussions on whether that information is relevant. Jack forbes (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fan behaviour within their own stadium is important to a neutral who may not be aware that celtic had been sanctioned for the acts that i mentioned (Monkeymanman (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Monkey, I have contributed to both articles you are discussing and my stance is the same on both - we need to reflect what appears in reliable sources, in proportion to its coverage. In this case, I don't think there has been much coverage of Celtic and European sanctions as a topic, except in covering a few specific instances (similar to many clubs) so I don't see any need for such a section here. Perhaps a short mention of specific cases in the History of Celtic FC article. If you want to discuss other articles, this isn't the place.

I'm not sure what references you think I deleted - can you point out where I did this? The quote you ascribed to me was from someone else. As for what should be included in fairness, please read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Firm and Sectarianism

This section should be expanded to give a better indication of sectarianism involving Celtic fans and examples from the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WHY??? what does it matter what one club does and does not do. Are you going to have things like "I was on a bus and overheard one fan saying to another....."

There should be a full story good and bad and it is not only meant to be written by people with one sided views (i.e. a fan who only wants one viewpoint expressed and everything else is censored) it should be all fully covered. (Monkeymanman (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

The section should include in detail that although celtic have tried their best some of their own fans still harbour sectarian and racist values against the United Kingdon, brittish armed forces and have a history of supporting terrorist organisations namely the IRA. This is very important for a neutral to understand as they may be unaware of this (Monkeymanman (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

If you want some references regarding sectarianism / racism involving celtic fans then i shall supply some, the Northern ireland sports minister regarding the IRA songs at celtic games [1], celtic supporters trust chief who spoke in faviour of IRA songs at celtic games [2], Celtic fans disrupt minutes silence for 9/11 victems with IRA chants [3], celtic chief executive embarrassed by ira chants at game [4], mark walters debut at celtic park he was subjected to racist abuse / bananas thrown at him and monkey chants from celtic fans Andrew Smith - The Scotsman (December 2007). "A Black Day For Scottish Football". The Scotsman. Retrieved 6 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Monkey, I removed your partisan edits to this section. Not only did you editorialise significantly beyond what the sources you supplied actually said, you chose to cherry-pick material based on the clear POV you have shown on this discussion page and elsewhere. Per WP:UNDUE, I removed your effort. If you have thoughts on how best to reflect the numerous incidents where Celtic and its fans have been the victims of sectarian abuse and violence, in proportion to how these issues have been reported in reliable sources, I'd like to hear them. --hippo43 (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am dissapointed that you deleted that post as i felt it was very low key, to the point, briefly stated what the articles said in the public media and it was well referenced with high profile papers including the bbc. I did not over editorialise what was said in the articles but actually edited a lot less than could have been. A clear POV would be what I think correct? I was simply stating a general public perception in the media using good references, none of which were my own making and none were from non moderated websites. I have tried to get opinions on how best to show what sectarianism involving Celtic fans has / does involve but have been unsuccessful as people seem reluctant to talk / add to the article. This I believe is censorship. The article should show both sides and not just the one that you want to hear. (Monkeymanman (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

I can't speak for others, but I have no interest in censoring the article. I would be happy to see it include balanced, proportionate coverage of sectarianism as it relates to Celtic and its fans. In keeping with what is published by reliable sources, this would undoubtedly include much more on sectarianism perpetrated against, rather than by, the club and its fans. Your attempt included precisely nothing on the sectarian abuse, discrimination and violence directed towards Celtic. Can you explain this?

The "general public perception" you tried to get across was not supported by the sources you supplied. They did not describe the IRA as "a known sectarian terrorist organisation" - you did. They did not state that some Celtic fans "have traditionally supported" the IRA, and definitely did not say that they "continue to do so" - you did. Your version of the Northern Ireland sports minister's complaint omitted that this occurred in the wake of the outrage around the famine song being sung at Celtic fans. Aside from the obvious explanation, that you are cherry-picking sources to push an unpleasant and unencyclopedic agenda, can you explain your unbalanced edits on this issue? --hippo43 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The general public perception would be that the IRA are a ‘a known sectarian terrorist organisation’ ‘Having traditionally supported the IRA’, would that not mean having repeated instances of IRA songs / propaganda over many years. ‘Continue to do so’, would the evidence not say that IRA songs have been heard / propaganda seen in recent times. I did omit that the Northern Ireland sports minister had been subjected to sectarian abuse on a ferry by Celtic fans 1 year prior to any ‘famine song’. As you have already admitted you have edited the rangers fc page, can you explain the very unbalanced edits on that one regarding sectarianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are describing here is original synthesis. You are combining sources in order to advance a point and the whole thing is opinion driven and undue weight. I am in agreement with hippo43. Your discussions on talk pages suggest that your contribution is pointy, and has more to do with settling an imbalance you perceive on another article than with improving this article.

Unfortunately, experience shows that parties on both sides of this tedious and petty rivalry will argue the supposed crimes of the other until the end of time. But Wikipedia is not the place it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Monkey, no explanation for your POV edits, unsurprisingly; just some stuff about "general public perception", which is in breach of WP:V.

In brief, as this isn't the place to discuss other articles, my edits to the similar section on the Rangers article have focused on cases which involved the football club itself, as opposed to the few incidents you have pointed out here involving fans only. If you want to discuss this further, bring it up at the talk page for the Rangers article. -hippo43 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

'Wikipedia is not the place for it', i would be in agreement if both pages were like the celtic one where a general description of the situation is described and the fundamental basis of it is the good steps that BOTH clubs have made for the better rather than one sided affairs. That would end any 'tedious and petty rivalry' whereby each side 'will argue the supposed crimes of the other until the end of time.' (Monkeymanman (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

I've no doubt you would love that. Unfortunately it wouldn't reflect reality at all. The material in the Rangers article, about episodes involving the club itself, is reliably sourced. You haven't presented anything similar for this article. --hippo43 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So the sources are not reliable now? (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Again, not exactly addressing the real issue. The sources are reliable, your analysis of them not so much. My point was that the material at that page is about incidents which involved the club, not just the fans. There are a substantial number of incidents there, and your idea of a common generic section would be an unencyclopedic whitewash. If you want to discuss that article, this is not the place. --hippo43 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So anything to do with fans is nothing to do with the club is that what your saying? I was told different on a certain other page. (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

No, that's not what I said. However, it seems obvious to me that if the club is sanctioned by UEFA for sectarian chanting, for example, that is more relevant to the subject of the article than a story about some fans singing IRA songs. Look at the incidents mentioned in the Rangers article - the club's sectarian signing policy, the club's vice-chairman being forced out for singing sectarian songs, the club being roundly criticised for cashing in on the sectarian tendencies of some of their fans by selling an orange strip, the club refusing to condemn the famine song, the club being sanctioned twice by UEFA for sectarian singing - all reliably sourced. So far, noone has suggested anything similar should be added to this article.

Again, if you are genuinely interested in a balanced, NPOV discussion, can you explain why you have added precisely zero to this article on the subject of the sectarian abuse, violence etc faced by Celtic and its fans? --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV rules, thats fine by me, but you contradict yourself on that a bit. Anyway, relavence is part of NPOV is it not.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Contradict myself how? Not sure what you mean by "relavence is part of NPOV is it not". Still no explanation for your one-eyed edits... --hippo43 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself because although you say on this page one thing about 'weight' 'POV' 'Pointy argument', on other pages people have acted in the manner that you have been arguing against and you say nothing like that. A relavent topic would be to the opinion of the person who reads it which is their own point of view.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

What are you talking about? If such things are happening on other pages, bring it up for discussion there. Your second sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Again, I note you haven't offered any explanation for your partisan, one-sided contributions. --hippo43 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I made that contribution or tried to because i have that opinion and i felt it could have improved the article and cleared some things up. But now i realise that if you have an opinion then you are not allowed to be an editor on wikipedia, unless that opinion is the same as everyone else on the editing side of the page.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Your opinion is not relevant if it is completely at odds with the coverage of an issue by reliable sources. You say that you wanted to improve the article, yet it seems that you only wanted to add material which denigrated Celtic's fans. Can you explain why you added this material but failed to add a single sentence about the numerous well-reported incidents where Celtic fans have been abused, attacked and even killed for sectarian reasons? In what way did this "clear some things up"? --hippo43 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not relevant if it does not go along with what the opinion of the article is. Reported incidents that you refer to although may envolve celtic fans, but anything outwith a stadium / stadium environment is outwith club control (as stated by uefa) and should not be reflected upon in a clubs article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

What does UEFA have to do with this article? We are discussing Celtic FC and that subject includes its fans - your opinion is not reflected in policy here. You were happy enough to include stuff which happened "outwith a stadium environment"

when you made this edit. Your lack of consistency on this is unreal, yet strangely predictable. I don't want to sound repetitive, but can you explain why you added nothing on the sectarianism directed towards Celtic and its fans? Or should I just draw my own conclusions? --hippo43 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why i had my edit weighted in one direction i.e the way you dislike for some reason, was that i thought a moderator, sorry, editor would have just copy and pasted the sectarianism section from another article into this one afterwards. If you want to discuss where the football club and instances outwith a football clubs control change then uefa have set those boundaries already.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Monkey,I've no idea why you keep mentioning what you think UEFA have decided. Their view about what they can hold clubs accountable for is entirely irrelevant to our discussions about content. Try reading the relevant policies, or take a quick look through most football clubs' articles - there is a ton of stuff about things which have taken place outside the stadium. --hippo43 (talk)

Malky Mackay

Hi there, I was thinking about working on Malky's article, and hopefully take it to at least GA. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with his Celtic days, or give me a nod in the right direction with sources I could possibly use? Thanks, WFCforLife (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the Bhoys

Can someone add a line explaining where this name came from (Gnevin 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

I take it no one knows? (Gnevin 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

There are few conflicting explanations, and no-one really knows for sure. The most widely accepted theory is that the team was originally referred to as the "bold boys" back in the late 1800s and, at some point, the "h" was used to phonetically indicate the soft Irish pronunciation of the word. Rockpocket (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this question from the Archives, do we have any more evidence on the origin of 'Bhoys'? Markb (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Year Founded

Celtic were founded in November 1887, not '88. Somebody please change it, as I do not have editing rights.

its true that celtic were founded on the 6 of november 1887, but as the the clubs first season wasn't untill 1888. a football clubs founding year is most often the year of their first competitive season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.76.14 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, but in the "formation and History" section it claims Celtic were formed on 6 November 1888, rather than '87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

yeh its when they play first competitive games, its already explained(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

why does it say 1888 on the badge and all club related items?(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Because their first official game was in 1888. [5] Jack forbes (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

then i would think thats the year that they are founded in, lots of teams have played games and been an org before their official founding date but it is not until their official first match like you said, you are confusing the issue by having a diff date on the first page, if someone wants to read more about when they first met as celtic i.e. in 1887 then there is the club history page(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm not confusing anyone as it wasn't I who changed it to 1887. The confusion is that it was quite a while from the "founding" to their first game. I'd love to know what they were doing in between. The Celtic website does say that they were formally constituted in 1887 (why it says constituted and not founded I don't know). Hey, I'm a Celtic supporter and I've always been confused over the 1888-1988 centenary year. There must be an explanation out there somewhere, but I don't have it. Jack forbes (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some advice on this at Talk:Association football. Jack forbes (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we're trying to make the info fit the infobox. The details are clear - the club was constituted in 1887, and played its first game in 1888 - yet we are trying to make one of these dates fit the undefined term 'Founded'. We have to provide info for the benfit of readers - if they want to know when the club was constituted, it was 1887; if they want to know when the club played its first game, it was 1888. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo has moved my request for advice on this to the correct place, the football project talk page, WT:FOOTY#Celtic_F.C._founded_1887_or_1888. Jack forbes (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

First Northern European team to win European cup.

Ok, I'll start it off. First off, is it more notable that they were the first northern European team to win it or first British team? Or both perhaps? Jack forbes (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if they are the first northern European team then it follows that they are the first British team?! Pretty straightforward I think, unless one specifically wants to stress the Britishness of Celtic for emotional reasons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that being the first northern European team to win the trophy negates the need to include Britain. Hippo believes the reference is not reliable enough. If that's the case is there a more reliable reference out there? Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that has anything to do with it. Having read the previous threads, it looks like Hippo just wants "British" included, and is prepared to edit-war to achieve this. The edit-summary is a pretty unconvincing excuse to me. Or maybe I'm being cynical. At any rate, even if he does care I don't think reasonable editors should, as all one needs to do is look over the previous winners ... previous winners come from Italy and Iberia. Chasing references to prove something everyone already knows is a game unbefitting of intelligent humans. :) @ Hippo, please see WP:Consensus can change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I too believe searching for a reference for something so obvious is not needed. I have no idea though (and wouldn't like to guess) why Hippo prefers "first British club". Jack forbes (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The crap ref is not an issue for me - I accept that it is true. However, the ref given was a copy of a previous version of this article! Reliable sources simply don't report that Celtic were the first Northern European team, because it doesn't matter to anyone. 'Northern European' is a strange phrase - where is Northern Europe? And so what? Celtic were only the fifth team to win the thing, and the first team from outwith Spain, Portugal and Italy to win it. They were also the first team not based in Madrid, Milan or Lisbon to win it. And the first/only Scottish team. And the first team who play in green...

Previous consensus, after tedious discussion, was to include British, with more detail (since removed, but I'll put it back soon) in the history section. This is how reliable sources in English generally report it, so it seems a sensible choice to me. Particularly, on Celtic's own website [6] they say first "British (and non-Latin)", so I'd go with British, as 'non-Latin' isn't really an encyclopedic term. Deacon, you are the edit warrior in this case - you changed the text, then reverted my revert rather than discussing it, per WP:BRD. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but until it does, let's stick with the existing consensus version. --hippo43 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't performed any reverts ... each time trying to accommodate yourself with adjustments. You have performed three and are one away from violating the WP:3RR. Are you seriously opening the idea of "Northern Europe" to question? Sorry for my lack of patience for bs just now, but unless anyone believes Iberia and Italy are in northern Europe (the north part of Europe), or Scotland is not, then this is just games. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why being the first British team to win it is any more important than the first Northern Europe team to win it. If we don't say first northern European team then why not just say Scottish team as the Scottish league has as much in common with any other league as they have with the Welsh or English leagues. Celtic don't represent Britain in football. Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern with "Northern Europe" alone is it doesn't have a defined meaning that everyone can recognize and agree on (unlike "British" or "Scottish"). The point is not whether Italy or Iberia is in Northern Europe, the point is what countries were are including (excluding) in that statement (for example, will the reader know whether a German is considered Northern European.) Rockpocket 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, according to WP:REVERT a revert is "any action that reverses the actions of other editors." In that case, you've reached 3 reverts - these 3 diffs are all edits which try to remove 'British' and add 'Northern European', albeit using slightly different language:

[7]

[8]

[9]

You carried on with this after being informed that there was a previous consensus reached via discussion, so your claims of "bs" and "games" on my part are horseshit.

The reason, IMO, that 'British' is so widely used is because Scotland and England are part of the same British media market, so reliable sources in English (often based in England) make the point that Celtic were the first British team. Winning the European Cup before any team from the bigger English league is a significant achievement in that context. I agree with Rockpocket - Northern Europe is undefined - and it is not a term used in any reliable sources I have come across.

The club itself uses 'British', so it's obviously significant to them. I'd have no objection to "first British team and only Scottish team" in the lead. In the later History section, there should be mention of this achievement, and in the past I supported something like "...which had previously been won only by Spanish, Italian and Portuguese clubs." I'd have no problem with a similar sentence in the History section now. --hippo43 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"first British team and only Scottish team" is the best solution, fully support that sort of wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a British team so its useful information to point out that they were the first British team to win it, that is far more clear than "Northern Europe" but i dont oppose that being included aswell. Although i must confess when you look at the flags many of their supporters wave youd be stunned to learn the team is from Great Britain. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, if you want to highlight your misunderstandings of our policies, do it in your userspace. Rock, "Northern Europe" is not any more undefinable or ambiguous than "British", and is inclusive of the latter. That's where the argument starts and stops; the rest is just silliness, and I'm actually mildly insulted it was thought acceptable form of argument. ;) I mean ... "will the reader know whether a German is considered Northern European" ... seriously? With just "British", no-one will know if Northern Ireland is British, and it will still be up for question whether or not a Northern Irish side won it previously, nor will they know any more about the previous success or lack of it for German sides. This argument is a joke. And great, if people wanna be parochial and boast that Celtic beat the English by a year, northern Europe still does that. Trust me, no-one will doubt that England is in Northern Europe.

Ah wikipedia .... I just love it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you disagree, there is no need to disparage other's comments as "silliness" or "a joke". I did you the courtesy of taking your opinion seriously, I would expect the same. I'm happy to rectify your misunderstanding by stating that it is not a joke on my part; I hope that clarifies the issue for you. If you are concerned about the ambiguity of "Great Britain" vis Northern Ireland, we could easily resolve that by using the term "The United Kingdom". Rockpocket 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I'm with Rockpocket - your rudeness is not going to help build consensus. I'll assume you were having a bad day. If you think I've misunderstood a policy, please explain. 'British' is the adjective relating to the United Kingdom, and the pipe-linked form British is widely used on Wikipedia without confusion. --hippo43 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think British produces any more confusion than northern European is contrived to. I'm sorry, I can't take this discussion seriously because I see ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments ... I'll just leave it and see if anyone else chimes in. But Hippo, please refrain from calling the current version "consensus". Just because you are prepared to revert more than the numerous people who've objected to this line doesn't mean the line has consensus. It certainly doesn't have consensus.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. "Ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments" based on what? A single, justified expression of an opinion. You are doing a great job of convincing me of the merits of your argument. Guess what, just because we disagree doesn't mean our motives differ. Someone of your experience should have read WP:AGF by now. Rockpocket 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In my last edit, I said that your rudeness would not help build consensus - clearly implying that we are trying to move toward consensus. I also suggested above that 'first British and only Scottish team' would be worth including, which should suggest I'm open to changes, and a new consensus. Further, the wording was stable for some time before your recent changes - other editors' silence on the issue is proof of consensus, per WP:CON. I've no idea what ideology you see here. --hippo43 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) British is just as ambiguous as Northern European, First Northern European is a greater achievement than first British and therefore Northern European should be used.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

VK, your contribution to the last discussion on this subject made it clear your objection is personal (something about the word 'British' making your skin crawl) and has no basis in policy. I've reverted to British (adding '..and only Scottish') while this discussion is ongoing. Reliable sources do not generally use 'Northern European', so I can't see any good reason to do so here. --hippo43 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, I don't see how admitting why one dislikes this phrase makes an opinion less valid. As you may or may not know Hippo, "British" is often a sensitive term in Scotland which is used according to taste, but especially so for an institution so closely connected with Irish nationalism. You wouldn't describe Alex Salmond as British, and certainly not Gerry Adams, even though both of them technically are. I must say, this is pretty much the only context where you could describe Celtic as British ... but I think this point should be respected as an additional one. And Hippo, I must respectfully restate my displeasure at the way you are edit-warring on the page. You don't have to act like that .... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say his opinion was less valid. I understand his view entirely but it's not a legitimate basis for making content decisions in an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be allowed to over-ride policy. I'm well aware that some people dislike the word, but it is still the correct adjective to describe people or things from the UK. Salmond and Adams are British - it's not "technically" the case, it's their legal nationality. I would certainly describe either as British if it was appropriate for the context. As for edit-warring, your criticisms don't have a lot of credibility. --hippo43 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits never claimed in this section that skin-crawling was the basis for his dislike of this sentence here, so your response to this makes no sense and seems a bit provocative. The only difference to me is that he's fessed up to his ideology, whereas you haven't fessed up to yours. If I am wrong, I am very sorry. And "legal nationality" has no more validity in wiki "policy" than actual nationality ... in wiki practice, sometimes less so, as you'll discover by reading the appropriate wiki articles. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

VK has stated in other discussions on this point that "in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British" and "that term British actually makes my skin crawl". I may be incorrect in assuming that his views remain the same, as those comments were made some time ago, but I doubt it. In any case, my response makes perfect sense. I don't know what ideology you think I should fess up to - perhaps you could let me know. Or if you assume everyone has some ideology, fess up to your own?

I've no idea what you think is the diffence between 'legal' and 'actual' nationality. As far as I can tell, the guideline WP:MOSBIO states that "the country of which the person is a citizen or national" (ie their legal nationality) is generally used, and the essay WP:UKNATIONALS states that there is no consensus on how to refer to British people's nationalities. If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out? --hippo43 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is some policy on stating nationality that you're aware of, can you point it out?

You already know about WP:UKNATIONALS ... that sums it up. I suppose what I meant by actual nationality is the nationality people have on an individual and community basis, as held by themselves and any community. As a purely historical point, nationality predates the attempts by states to legalise it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who knows football knows Celtic and their fans are extremely proud of being the first British winners of the Cup, and for pretty obvious reasons. They would never be so daft as to object to the word when used in this context, it would be tantamount to cutting off their nose to spite their face. And 'Northern Europe' from a football records perspective is utterly meaningless and made up, and would mean nothing to people who know about European football, let alone people who don't. MickMacNee (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, another editor with a "joke" opinion full of "ideology, tendentiousness, and conclusions chasing arguments." (i.e. who has the temerity to disgree with Deacon of Pndapetzim) *rolls eyes* Rockpocket 06:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

" 'Northern Europe' from a football records perspective is utterly meaningless and made up" - whereas British is what? Do Celtic play in the "British League"? --Vintagekits (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to step in a minefield here and I'm not intimately familiar with the naming conventions and the related disputes, but what would be wrong with "... the first team from the United Kingdom...?"68.82.136.142 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also what would be wrong with "the first Northern European team and still the only team from Scotland"? - that pretty much sums it all up. Unless there are any objections to that then I propose that that is the preferred wording.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the term "Northern European" is imprecise and is not recognised within the organisations and authorities of football. Nor does it have any political, cultural or even geographical significance. You'd be as well defining their European Cup win in terms of what bus the team arrived at the stadium in. It is an entirely made up definition that would appear nowhere other than in this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"imprecise and is not recognised within the organisations and authorities of football" - its no less imprecise at "British" - a. there is an article on Northern European and once link there is no definition that doesnt include Ireland, Great Britain and other countries. b. Authorities in football dont recognise Britain either! Anyway it is a reference to a geographic area not a footballing term.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

VK, apart from the objections already stated above??

'First Northern European' is a spurious, made-up 'first' involving an undefined area, and which reliable sources do not use. 'British', on the other hand, is perfectly clear, has obvious significance (Celtic being the first club from the UK), and is widely used by reliable sources, including the club itself! In football sources, British records are often discussed, despite there being no British league - the British transfer record, for example.

IP, 'British' means 'from the United Kingdom'. Re-wording the fact because some don't like 'British' is a form of censorship. --hippo43 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"spurious, made-up 'first' involving an undefined area" - wrong on all accounts. Why not say they were the first Glaswegian, Scottish, British and Northern European team? I'll tell you why because you would only include the greatest achievement of them all. Even the Scum agrees! or maybe you prefer non-Latin! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wrong on all accounts"?? Because you say so? Or do you have an explanation? Did you even read the sources you just mentioned? The BBC source says "first British team" in its first sentence! And the Sun article is a list of British sporting achievements! --hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm really still with Vintagekits on this one. There is clearly no consensus for the current version, and the argument that "British" tells the reader more than "northern European" I find incomprehensible. I think it is important to say they are the first northern European club. Contrary to assertions above, there is a recognized difference in football terms between northern and southern (Mediterranean) European teams (the stereotype is that southern teams are small and slick, northern teams big and rough, and so on), and thus it is notable. Germany in this sense is definitely a northern country. The tricky ones are France and the countries in the Balkans, not Germany. As a compromise, how about "First team from the United Kingdom (precise and less counter-intuitive, which "British" isn't) and indeed from northern Europe to win ..." No Balkan team, French team ... nor even a German team ... won previously, so this shouldn't be an ambiguity issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is a totally pointless distinction recognised by no-one. "Northern Europe" is not a political, cultural or footballing entity with any meaning to it. The stereotypes you speak of dividing the continent are exactly that; stereotypes that mean nothing and have dubious accuracy or value. Why stop at "Northern European"? Why not state that Celtic were the first team ever to win the European Cup... except for some teams in Italy, Spain and Portugal. That's more accurate than this imprecise Northern Europe definition, equally true, and just as ridiculous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are exaggerating the imprecision of "northern Europe" and precision of "British", unrealistically and irrelevantly so. To me this point has already been established above. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

'British' is precise - it means 'from the UK'. Not only is 'Northern European' a dubious stereotype, the supposed significance of different footballing styles is obviously original research. So it is not universally understood, and it is very rarely used by reliable sources. On the other hand 'first British team' is very widespread, and is used by the club itself. Per WP:NPOV, 'first British team' is preferable.

Consensus was established when noone objected to the wording for months. While consensus can change, there is currently no such consensus to include 'Northern European' or anything similar. --hippo43 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There may be no consensus for the current version, but there is even less of a consensus for changing it to "Northern European" either. I'm counting 3 editors who are pro-Northern European and 4 or 5 who are pro-Britain/Scotland/UK. Which leaves us with the option of coming up with some sort of wording that will achieve consensus. Of course, that presumes a desire to work with people whose arguments consist of rubbishing the opinion of those who disagree with them. Good faith works two ways. Rockpocket 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

British has a precise meaning ... "from the UK"; it also has the meaning "from the island of Great Britain", and various others like "P-Celtic speaking". Northern European has a variety of precise meanings too. Like I said, the imprecision of "northern European" is being exaggerated as is the precision of "British". Come on ... we're not fools here. Accept this point and let's move on to the next one. Can you suggest a compromise solution Hippo? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether "Northern European team" has a precise meaning or not is the point. So does "Team name starting with C". So does "Team managed by someone called Jock". The issue is that they are all not relevant. No-one defines Celtic in these terms, and doing so sounds very much like a case of defining your terms in a forced attempt to maximize the significance. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It should be using neutral terms and, above all, the terms used in the cites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't make any sense. It's probably best to let Hippo speak for himself, as he understands his own argument. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed a "not" in that first sentence; "Whether "Northern European team" has a precise meaning or not is not the point." You are exaggerating the importance of the "precision" of the appropriate adjective. No-one cares how "precise" it is. The question is; is it sensible and suitable, and can it be cited? I can give you a dozen "precise" adjectives for the Celtic team that won the European Cup. That doesn't make them suitable or sensible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Go with the sources. I think "British" is really clear and supported by the sources, so that concludes it for me. --John (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I think Escape Orbit understands my view and his comment makes sense to me. I'm not sure what you are asking me to accept (that British is imprecise or that Northern European is precise?) but, to me, it's not the main point here. John is right - go with the sources. The sources do not define what they mean by it, but they overwhelmingly use 'British'. My suggestion for a solution is to have 'first British and only Scottish' in the lead, and something like 'which had previously been the preserve of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese clubs' in the History section. This clarifies the club's wording ("non-Latin") and gives appropriate context. I don't see any value in having "first Northern European" anywhere as it is not immediately clear - my suggested wording gets the point across without any ambiguity - and it is not generally used by sources. We should be making decisions on significance based on the coverage within reliable sources, per WP:NPOV, not based on our own opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

When one group of people argue one thing, then another comes to claim it doesn't matter, I get lost. Look at it from my point of view. One thing is being argued, I respond, then after I've done so it's claimed it doesn't matter. I'm actually trying to follow the argument here, but it's not looking like there any coherent argument ... just some loosely connected assertions now. I don't think the conversation is gonna get anywhere if there's no coherence ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points here. First, your tone is still not constructive - your comments make you sound like a bit of a tool. If you're interested in reaching consensus, perhaps be less dismissive of others?

Second, the arguments are clear enough. There are 2 main objections to your position so far. 1 - the phrase 'Northern European' is flawed; 2 - the sources say 'British'. You brought up 'Northern European' and others responded to you, rather than vice versa. It's obvious we are not all going to agree on point 1, so I don't see any reason to endlessly rehash why it's a bad idea. Your view is a valid one, but it's not shared by the majority here. Point 2 is absolutely clear in policy, and, irrespective of editors' personal preferences, is a compelling reason to use 'British'. --hippo43 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Deacon of Pndapetzim; when I said it doesn't matter how precise a definition he had for Northern Europe I meant it remains imprecise in this context. Because it has no valid definition in this context. Because no-one ever defines Celtic in these terms and the term means nothing in the context of the European Cup. The fact that the only cites produced that mention Northern Europe only do so in a secondary nature, after British, demonstrates this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Poppycock! Northern European is no more of less defined in this context then "British" - FIFA dont consider Celtic a British club anymore than they do a Northern European club!

Would you rather be the richest man in Britain or in Northern Europe?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, FIFA do... --hippo43 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No they dont - "British" might be referred to in that report but it aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned, sure FIFA describe Celtic as northern European as well! I suppose that settles it for ya? - FIFA consider the 06, Scotchland, Ingerland and the Welshists all as individual nations - and dont recognise the UK. Even the British establishment are using northern European as does this Scottish football website--Vintagekits (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, noone is denying that that some sources use that phrase. However, if your argument is based on what sources say, it's not a fight you can win - 'British' appears far more widely in reliable sources.

And British "aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned" Says who? FIFA include it on their website, so presumably they know what it means! Your ramblings that FIFA "don't recognise the UK" are both nonsense (see [10] here, for example) and irrelevant - Celtic are still a British club. --hippo43 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rambling?" - you are talkin shite mate! I suggest you actually read the source before you try and use it to your advantage! "Blats" states "four British associations are identified in Fifa statutes as being four different entities" - if the Olympics has a "British" team then that is yet to be seen! Yes, Celtic are still a British club, but they are also a European club! Which is the superior statement? 1. Celtic were the 1st Glaswegian. 2. Celtic were the 1st Scottish. 3. Celtic were the 1st British. or 4. Celtic were the 1st northern European?. You seem to be jumping from point to point to shoehorn the term into the article when there is a better term to use and whilst you have lapdogs such a Rockpocket and John enabling your agenda then this will carry on.

Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon so is it necessary to state that he was also the first American, Ohian, Wapakonetan, university professor or alumni of the University of Southern California to land on the moon? No! Only the great of the achievements is noted. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So - you'd have no objection to changing River Shannon to read "... is the longest river in the British Isles." then? Just to be clear... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that's "superior"; 5. Celtic were the 1st European (excluding Protugal, Italy and Spain). The purpose of this article is not to talk up Celtic's achievements, but to report them neutrally and accurately. And FIFA definitions are not the only consideration, as I've explained. Cultural and social definitions are just as important, and "Northern European" simply doesn't register in these. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First British winner is more than notable considering the amount of times Liverpool and Manchester United have won it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it more notable to be the first British winner when "Northern European" includes Britain - and the logic behond the Liverpool and Man U comment baffles be because neither of those teams had won it before Celtic and anyway Ajax and Bayern have won it just as many times as those to English teams combined.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, you wrote "British aint a defined term as far as FIFA is concerned". The BBC/FIFA story shows that they understand exactly what British means. Nobody is denying that they treat the four associations as individuals - that doesn't mean British is not a "defined term".

In any case, what FIFA thinks (or what you think they think) is not relevant here. Policy clearly supports using 'British', as that is what reliable sources overwhelmingly use. You have yet to address this point while you rant about various editors' supposed agendas. Not only is your 'argument' a rambling mess, your obnoxiousness makes it clear why you are involved in so much grief on wikipedia. --hippo43 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go down the uncivil and personal attack route with me then I am perfectly adept at holding my own on that score - so watch yer mouth!

FIFA also refer to Celtic as a "northern European team" so by your logic that "shows that they understand exactly" what that means - so its equally defined as British!

You refer to my argument as a "rambling mess" - thats funny because I thought your argument was an opportunistic load of bollocks!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So still no reply on the issue of policy?

As for your ability to be uncivil, that's not really in doubt, and it was you who introduced personal attacks into this debate. I don't see anything that could be taken as a personal attack in what I wrote. --hippo43 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would use northern european team rather than british, or say the first team outside of spain, italy and portugal to win it. something to that affect, because its a achieve bigger than just britain imo, (plus Celtic and British don't really go together do they?) Mbr1983 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Celtic themselves use the "first British team" line. Their way of saying that they were also the first club from outside Portugal, Spain or Italy to win the EC is "non-Latin". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the website editor of Celtic decides, we are trying to determine what the best description for the wikipedia is. The Celtic website is an piece of garbage for the most part that looks like a 5 year old made it. Britain isn't a country, The united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a is 3 countries and the occupied 6 counties which come under the same central government. They are part of the EU so I think Northern European makes the most sense or non latin as a comprimise.Mbr1983 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere and is now breaching policy on civility. I propose that unless one of the editors wishing this change can produce good solid cites that use "Northern Europe" foremost, and in preference to "British", then we have a case of original synthesis. The purpose of this article is to report neutrally Celtic's achievement in terms that the cites use. It is not the purpose of this article to attempt to find a definition that makes that achievement sound more significant. It is original synthesis to argue that Celtic is Scottish, Scotland is in Northern Europe, therefore Celtic were the first Northern European team to win the European Cup. Original synthesis to advance a new position is not permissible on Wikipedia. End of discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with this issue. That covers academic matters such as adding A argues X, B argues Y therefore Z. It's just a fact that Celtic is in northern Europe, and there are references asserting the statement in question (removed by Hippo). My own opinion is that, however much we disagree, we should all be adults about this ... previous winners come from Italy and Iberia. Chasing references to prove something everyone already knows is a game unbefitting of intelligent humans. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:SYNTH is incorrect. Please go and actually read the policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

Reverted. You have no consensus here for even your basic assertion that 'British' in this context is disputed, or even wrong, so we are not going to start adding mangled compromises into the lede waffling on about the Iberian peninsula to fix something that isn't even broken. I will repeat one last time: Cetlic and their fans are extremely proud of being the first British winners of the European Cup, and for pretty obvious reasons that have nothing to do with their love of Britain, and thus the term has been widely disseminated through all third party references and the world of football when talking about the club's acheivements. If people are seriously going to carry on this thread without providing a shred of evidence to disprove this basic point, then it will have to start climbing the ladder of attracting outside comment, because this issue has moved on from amusing side-show of how these tedious 'disputed term' campaigns can go oh so very wrong, into actual disruption to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, this was included in the article."Celtic became the first team from the United Kingdom" If any attempt to compromise is dismissed as "complete mangling for no purpose", then I can't see much that can be done. Probably the next step is to seek mediation ... ? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a compromise, there is nothing that is in dispute here that doesn't come from flat out non-policy opinions. 'British' is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed to 'from United Kingdom' for no reason, and 'Northern European' is in football terms, an irrelevance for mentioning in the lede, especially when its own definition has to be mangled into it for it to mean anything. Mediation is not requried, just more outside opinions from people who know football and policy, e.g. wp:football. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The FIFA source provided above referring to Celtic as a "northern European" team for starters!

Its funny that Hippo likes to point out "my POV" but ignore the POV of many of "his backers". Mick -how is British anymore a football related term than northern European? --Vintagekits (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Point me to any evidence that even remotely suggests that anybody in football gives a toss about anything 'Northern European' beyond passing or trivial mentions, especially instances that don't also give equal or even more focus on 'British' or 'European' contexts. It is utterly meaningless. In Wikipedia terminology, it is a trivial intersection of dubious if not non-existent notability. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, your last attempt to cite this is from a fan generated website, the majority of the content of which is a blatant unattributed copy of a previous version of this article. That is hardly a reliable source and Wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, because the "first British club" line is by far the most commonly used. It is original research to argue that it shouldn't be used because Celtic allegedly don't identify as being British. If that was the case, why do Celtic use the term themselves, and why do they have a former British Government cabinet member as their chairman? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is arguing "it shouldn't be used because Celtic allegedly don't identify as being British"? The argument is that first "northern European team" is sourced and a greater achievement than "first British team".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Who is arguing...?" You, the last time this was discussed here. Have you changed your mind since then about Celtic and the word 'British'?

'Northern European' is sourced, but is far less common in reliable sources than 'British'. (See WP:NPOV) Your view about what is the greater achievement is original research (see WP:NOR), not covered in these sources. Again, VK, feel free to address the issue of what policy supports. --hippo43 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

there is Celtic Captain at the time, former Club Manager and current Ambassador, Billy McNeill's take on it: "It (Winning the European Cup) might have been for Scotland, but it definitely wasn't for Britain...it was for Celtic."Mbr1983 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk about stating the obvious. By that logic it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the article whether Celtic were the first Glaswegian, Scottish, British, IONA, Northern European or whatever club to win the European Cup. The fact is that there are nearly 90,000 results on Google for Celtic "first British team", which hints at the notability of the fact. By way of comparison, there are less than 2,500 results for Celtic "first Northern European team".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmorrison230582 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Jmorrison above. This issue has already been debated here several times. We go with what the sources say, not with the POV of a small group of partisan editors. 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)

I think Celtic dont like being called a British team and it would be fair to call them the first team from Northern Europe that won the cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.188.113 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proving the point above. It's an attempt by a small number of politically motivated editors to push their point of view over the substantively sourced fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're making a joke, right? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Leftist?

The article currently characterizes supporters of Celtic F.C. as "Leftist". I see no source for this, and I doubt it's accurate. To the extent that Celtic supporters identify with Irish ethnic nationalism, that is surely a right wing impulse?Irvine22 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Nationalism is not a right-wing impulse. the goal of the Leaders of the 1916 uprising and of the Provisional IRA for many years was to establish a 32 county socialist Republic. Celtic, in footballing circles are generally regarded as a leftist time, their affiliation with clubs like St. Pauli, Barcelona and soon on support this fact. Celtic is a decidedly anti fascist football club. I find it somewhat odd that some many people who have very little knowledge about the Club have so much interest in it. Mbr1983 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Uncited and largely irrelevant. If there is any relationship between being a fan of Celtic and political leanings of any sort, then all that is required is a good cite to establish it and offer some explanation. Presently there isn't one, so this should be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has it been allowed to stand on the article for so long then, with well established editors such as jack forbes and hippo not bringing this up. So you would say to change it to right wing? I would probably leave it with a citation required sig next to it for now until someone comes up with something better. (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

As I said above; I would remove it. I do not believe a person's affiliation to Celtic has any causal relationship to their politics, so it is irrelevant. Happy to be corrected if a good cite can be produced, but until then... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it any different to the fact that rangers fans are all portrayed on their article about being unionists, but thats not the point here. It has been up there for a long time and Hippo has never said anything about it and still has not(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

As has been repeatedly explained to you; what is on the Rangers article plays no part in improving the Celtic article. I also believe that other editors can speak for themselves without you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed "Leftist". If someone wants to put in something sourced about traditional affiliations with Irish nationalism, that would be fine with me. But those impulses are not Leftist, by any means. Irvine22 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

i hope they can, but they seem to be awfully quiet(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Your prob right but what i dont understand is how it was allowed to stand for so long thats all(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Monkey, while I am obviously the arbiter and supreme overlord of all Celtic and Rangers-related articles, I'm afraid I just haven't had time to fact-check every sentence. You're always here - why hadn't you noticed it?? I also have other things to do and can't always comment within a few hours! Escape Orbit is correct - this is unsourced speculation. It definitely shouldn't be changed to right-wing - that would be OR. --hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you said it. I did notice it but thought that because it had been there for quite a while it must have gained consensus from the supreme overlords of the article. I did not mention to change it to right wing that was someone else, i only asked if they wanted to change it to that. You are right tho it has no place on a football clubs article wouldnt you agree(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

No, I don't agree it has no place, if it is referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So say a respected ref came out and said 'celtic fans are leftist' then it would be ok to put in the article, i disagree(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Not much point arguing over hypotheticals. --hippo43 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Respected refs" are not reliable sources for the political allegiance of football fans (unless they are also notable scholars of football and/or politics). Rockpocket 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok if a 'reliable source' mentioned that celtic fans were leftist then would that be ok, i disagree(being hypothetical)(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Let's wait and see if anyone finds such a source. We have enough real arguments going on without starting one over a hypothetical reference. --hippo43 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would agree that Celtic's support would generally be more left leaning and Rangers more right wing - but finding a source which accurately described that is another thing.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason people in Glasgow are both catholic and socialist. No one has told them that the Pope is a Monarch. Anyhoo, Celtic is a leftist club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.220.22 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be mentioned to their defence, this match against Hapoel Tel Aviv. They wanted no problems with their own supporters booing the Israelis. It is my impression that no incident took place, or the media would have a field day. Does anyone have news that may confirm or disconfirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.220.22 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even for the 50s or earlier, when religion had some degree of influence on voting and it's easy enough to find reliable sources saying so, it would require a leap of novel synthesis to get from there to supporting Celtic or Rangers as being a influence on politics or vice versa. But now the Orange Lodge is on record as calling on its members to vote for Labour in 2010 (Scotland on Sunday, 2009-10-18, page 1). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Danny Fox nationality

If McGeady is listed as Irish, shouldn't Fox be listed as Scottish, considering he is a scottish international?--81.96.125.232 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Celtic fan base

I do not agree with the notion that celtic has 9 million fans world wide. Where is the evidence for this? The link provided merely talks about a credit card released in the USA in 2003, and does not mention anything about, or relevant to, fanbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.102.122 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

that link does say what is mentioned in the article about half way down but it was from 2003 not 2008, so could be obsolete by now.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} |Assistant Manager || Johan Mjallby 194.35.205.229 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Celtic Symphony

In case this is of interest, there is now a redirect at Celtic Symphony (Wolfe Tones song) to Wolfe Tones#Notable_works Paradoctor (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyal Berkovich

Eyal Berkovich claims he was responsible for the highest transfer fee ever paid in the history of Celtic. Is that true? if it's true, should it be included? some clubs have notable players or trivia like this. Amoruso (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

was it not chris sutton, £6million(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Celtic ownership/PLC

I came to this article because I was wondering who owned the club, and there's nothing in the article about it. After that I googled it and read somewhere that it was a public limited company, but that's as much info as I could find (and I don't even know if that's necessarily true). I think the article should definitely say something about the ownership structure of the team, so if anyone has info about this, it would be a good contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.119.78 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.146.55.66, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The first team physios are Gavin McCarthy and Graham Parsons.

95.146.55.66 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Glasgow cup 2008

the article states Celtic have won the glasgow cup 30 times with the last being in 2008 which is nonsense considering the tournament hasn't operated for decades itshould be changed to 29 wins and 2008 removed 86.13.135.208 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

its still competed for but with the youth teams, so you might be correct in having this removed or edited to state that(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

but it is an entirely different competition and the article still states 2008 as a year celtic won the defunct Glasgow Cup this should definately be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.135.208 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

i agree having looked over the articles in question, but agreeing that with editors of the Celtic F.C. article might be difficult(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Why would it be difficult Monkeymanman? We can state that the tournament had a break and was then contested between youth teams. We could also make it clear in the infobox that youth teams participated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've all thought of this already, but there is a Glasgow Cup article, which might make the task of explaining easier/shorter. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it, TFOWR. Basically it says what I've been saying. The Glasgow Cup was restarted as a youth team tournament. There shouldn't be any problem there as far as I can see. Jack forbes (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information that the Glasgow Cup became an under 18 tournament from 2008. That should clear it up. Jack forbes (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, figured you'd probably seen it. Recent changes look OK to me, but I'm no expert (I watchlist the Old Firm solely because they're vandal magnets ;-) ). TFOWR^propaganda 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Mcmanus

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celtic_F.C.&diff=360161371&oldid=358405039 ]]This edit which put Stephen Mcmanus back in the first team squad should be reverted Adam4267 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Supercar15, 8 June 2010

Neil Lennon is offically the manager so you should take away the caretaker next to his name Thanks =] Supercar15 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the BBC his appointment won't be confirmed until Wednesday. [11] When it is announced, caretaker can be removed from his job description. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lewisbhoy, 8 July 2010 season 2010/2011

{{editsemiprotected}} Celtic start the 2010/2011 season by signing, Left back Charlie Mulgrew from aberdeen on a free transfer,Right back Cha Du-Ri also on a free contract,

Lewisbhoy (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done here, by Monkeymanman (talk · contribs). TFOWR 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Dallas

The discussion at Hugh Dallas may interest some editors here. Basically the article has recently recieved a major re-write and I'm concerned that sourced, encyclopedic material is now being removed by users who may have a pro-Dallas POV. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The kit has been changed for the new season. Why hasn't it been updated yet? Can someone please update the kit or at least the home kit for the 2010/2011 season?

Whats changed about the home strip? Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This: [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It says 'authentic'? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They are authentic, if that's what you're asking. They've already played 3 times in those kits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.57 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an attempt at humour, what i was trying to say was that there is not much diff between them, perhaps the black v around the neck but to show that on the small diagram pic might be difficult and could be misleading by the size of it, i dont know, but dont think its desperate. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The rings on the socks would be noticable, and so would the collar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.52.163 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.9.99.20, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It was reported that around 80,000 fans travelled to Seville but in truth it was more like between 40,000 and 50,000.

94.9.99.20 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done ... kind of. I've tagged it with {{cn}} - "citation needed". We'd need a source for the 40,000 - 50,000 claim just as much as we need a source for the (current) 80,000 claim. Either way, hopefully the {{cn}} tag will pull in something useful. TFOWR 11:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, there a quite litereally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources which state that as being the figure, some of which state it as being even higher, approximating some 120,000. Please do not fall into the trap of giving credence to the deranged ramblings of bigoted huns. ☘HappyDude The Mad Tim☘ craic 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are "literally hundreds of thousands of reputable sources", then you will have no trouble with adding one to the article. – PeeJay 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I've fallen into the trap of requiring that claims are cited. For which I make no apology. TFOWR 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Pointer1 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Pointer1. That's why references are so important - so that readers (and editors) can verify claims, and we don't fall into the trap of giving credence to partisan editors on either side of the sectarian divide. TFOWR 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from FTP1690, 18 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can we add a section about the hatred towards the British armed forces?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjdE0b5Jhpk

and if this gets removed then extra copies can be sent on request.

FTP1690 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to right the section yourself (including refs), and I (or another confirmed or auto-confirmed user) can add it to the article for you. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - 24 August 2010

Can Paul Slane be removed from the first team squad. He is an Under 19's player who has yet to be involved with the first team. mbsw67 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsw67 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ladies team

http://www.celticfc.net/home/players/ladiesTeam.aspx http://www.celticfc.net/home/fixturesResults/LadiesFixtures.aspx

lets give the girls some air time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.9.30 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - 11 September 2010

John Marsden is on loan at Hamilton Accies and Sean Fitzharris went out on loan to Morton today. GET IT FIXED ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.32.62 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

refs? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although neither are a first team player.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

eh, John Marsden is English and is a striker. Sean Fitzharris is a midfielder. Their both out on loan and count as transfers and Fitzharris has played in friendly matches for the first team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.146.147 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

reliable refs i could find from third parties on the matter were Greenock Telegraph and Evening Times, it is not that big a deal. Will take your word on their nationality and positions.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

These players have never been listed in the first team, so loans have been moved to Celtic F.C. Reserve and Youth squads. Pointer1 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - 18 September 2010

Milan Misun, out on loan at Dundee FC. Get it fixed ! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/playerratings/football/match/3113425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.96.7 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

is there a ref which states it factually rather than a team list? Monkeymanman (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

oh I`ve hit a nerve, well heres a source for ye, good luck figuring it out ! http://www.eurofotbal.cz/clanky/obrance-misun-bude-mesic-hostovat-ve-druhe-skotske-lize-126698/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.96.7 (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the "nerve hitting" stems from your tone. Every time I see "get it fixed!" here I think "nah, cannae be arsed" and leave it. Better folk than me eventually attend to your demands. You'd really get a faster response if you treated the volunteers here like human beings, and not ... well, whatever you think they are. TFOWR 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just going to (continue to) ignore your demands. It's no skin off my back if your future requests go unfulfilled. You want things done quickly, be nice. You want things ignored, carry on as you are. TFOWR 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

its slightly confusing given the fact that he is still listed on celtics own website as a first team player here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Back at club now, so re-listed on squad Pointer1 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gjpm69, 20 November 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} these articles need removed as they are biased and false in nature-

1. ^ "Minister unlikely to visit Celtic after sectarian chanting of fans". Times Online. 19 September 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4791281.ece. Retrieved 25 October 2010.

Mr Campbell is a known rangers supporter who takes every opportunity comment on a football team that is not in his home country. He has done nothing to comment on let alone crack down on the sectarianism and murder perpetuated by the fans of rangers fc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/rangers-supporter-jailed-for-murder-of-celtic-fan-1120956.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1176023.ece

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2006/03/17/horror-fan-convicted-of-killing-4-86908-16823803/2006/03/17/horror-fan-convicted-of-killing-4-86908-16823803/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/453946.stm

52 ^ Foer, pp. 36–37 - this requires amending too to reflect the above

57 'Vile' sectarian songs embarrass Celtic The Scotsman, 27 October 2006

the same article stated-

"Lawwell later told the media, however, that some of the songs being sung have been wrongly identified as sectarian."

"Celtic are different, to the extent we have strong Irish roots and Irish links," said Lawwell. "A proportion of our fans celebrate those roots and links by singing Irish ballads. In no way could these ballads be described as sectarian, but I think in some quarters it is misinterpreted as sectarian. It is not sectarian behaviour. There is a difference there. We are a proud Scottish club, but with strong Irish connections. It's a fact and we don't want to hide it."

The songs sung are not sectarian in nature as they celebrate Catholics and Protestants struggling together to gain control of their own country, therefore, they are essentially political in nature - the point hammered home by Mr Lawell.

Gjpm69 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The majority of what you request is unrelated to this article. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor fan trouble

I removed two trivial examples of crowd disorder featured in this article, Monkeymanman restored them.

I don't see why two minor cases of minor crowd trouble are so significant. Football fans get arrested all the time, what's so significant about these? The first cite consists mainly of Police's praise for fans, with only 3 charges for sectarian offenses, but this article highlights the arrest of 3 out of thousands. The second example in particular, at the Lincoln City game, has a cite that doesn't even mention sectarianism, so what relevance has it to anything?

Personally I don't think it matters if these were cases of the most horrendous sectarian abuse, when taken into the context of the whole of Celtic's history and related sectarian baggage, they are but passing trivial examples that don't merit a paragraph each.

Could Monkeymanman please explain? Thanks.

I agree with you, if you look on the Rangers page they don't have any individual cases just a general overview of sectarianism and these are both quite minor incidents. Adam4267 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been informed on this article, and others, that it is important to show how sectarianism manifests itself and it’s important to show incidents reflecting this. At the NPOV talk page it was gathered that individual incidents were the way to go regarding sectarianism at football clubs.

so what relevance has it to anything / what's so significant about these.

I quote ‘Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.’

Both incidents are reliably sourced and show how sectarianism manifests itself with Celtic football club.

Personally I don't think it matters

This article is about the club and the fans are part of it.

they don't have any individual cases just a general overview of sectarianism

Really? That is selective reading. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case incorporated them into the general article. Listing them as separate news stories makes for a poor article, as all that appears to the reader is a loosely connected series of trivial events. You also have to demonstrate the common thread (as I said, the cite for the Lincoln City game makes no mention of sectarianism and I'm unclear to the relevance of it) and why the action of just 23 fans is indicative of Celtic, the club. Otherwise they appear to be no different from news stories you could find every other weekend at any other football club's ground.

And, lest before we go any further in that direction, what is in the article on Rangers is irrelevant. It gets really tedious when issues in either article degenerate into a childish tit-for-tat comparison. This is Wikipedia, the two articles are not in competition with each other. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So no problems if I implement the above? Integrate the first story into the article as a whole, and remove the second of as its irrelevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am intrigued how you propose to incorporate the first into the article? The second could be shortened, but still shows how sectarianism manifests itself, which as i have been told is very important.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I intend to make it a passing example, along with others, rather than a full paragraph to itself. It is simply not notable enough to have this kind of emphasis and the section just now reads like a disjointed newsreel of loosely associated events. If the second "shows how sectarianism manifests itself" could you indicate where the cite provided says this? Or is that your personal analysis? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

you can implement what you propose at the moment. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have tried to pull the various events into something more cohesive, rather than a disjointed list of events, some of which are, relatively speaking, quite trivial. This also meant chopping a fair bit of dead wood consisting of unimportant reaction-quote "pile-ons". Please, if you disagree with anything in particular, please bring it up here, rather than reverting everything. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

okay, i have only made some very minor edits to what you have done, mainly grammatical. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloostained

Hi Orbit. That is meant for text rather than pictures, but in any case this picture was used in numerous publications - here's one of them, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327697/Celtic-shame-fans-stage-bloodstained-protest-wearing-poppies.html, but in truth I could have sourced this from most national papers. As (I hope) you realise, the fifth letter in bloodstained is 'D', not 'S'. 'D' is clearly missing, as (I sincerely hope) you can see from the picture. If you're having trouble with this, check a dictionary. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem remains that you are adding what is your interpretation of the image, not what the cite itself says. I know what it appears to say in the photo, but if the source doesn't say it, you don't get to "correct" them. Wikipedia would regard this as original research. Please see if you can find a reliable source that points the error out, then we have something we can discuss and perhaps use.

Please do not re-add until then. If you wish to change the article the onus is on you to get consensus on it first. Please read this guideline. It's not the case that your change stays until consensus is reached to keep or remove it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orbit.I've found a "reliable" source, as I presume you would agree that Scotland's best selling evening paper is a reliable source. As for re-editing, it was you that originally edited my contribution without reference to the discussion page, so I'm not 100% sure you're in a position to give out lectures on that one. As for concensus, it's just you and me buddy, but as I've now satisfied your criteria, I guess a concencus has been reached now. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orbit. Incidentally, and notwithstanding the fact that I have found a reliable text source, I've read the Wiki policy on use of pictures and original research and as I understand it the picture reference I gave was valid. Have a re-read of that page as I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this one as there was no caption included and no evidence of picture manipulation. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that cite. That's much improved. Incidentally, if you read this guideline you will see that having your edit reverted is your cue to start discussion. Something you failed to do when it was reverted twice before. You wish to change the article, so the onus is on you to start the discussion.

I'm not sure what policy you are referring to, but I assure you, citing a picture on a file sharing website that could have come from anywhere, be anything and have been the fabricated creation uploaded by anybody, is never considered a reliable source for a cite. You would have been better to cite the Daily Mail directly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was referring to the image section on the original research guidelines page. My reading of it was that images are ok unless they can be proved to be manipulated and no captions are used, but I might be wrong. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've put sic in square brackets as wiki suggests this is the correct style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic. bloo[d]stained is not the usually accepted format for a misspelling. I've also used square brackets, again as this is the standard format according to wikipedia. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. The images talked about in the policy on original research is in reference to pictures that you have taken or made your self, and are uploading to Wikipedia to illustrate articles. This doesn't apply in this case, as the photograph is not yours, is copyright, and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. But the key point is again, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". So even if the photo was yours to upload, you'd still need the Evening Times cite, for example, to back it up. The photo alone could not be used. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for that Mattun0211 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloo[d]stained v Bloodstained [sic]
Having looked at Sic it seems that inserting the missing letter inside the word seems more appropriate because it is only a small spelling mistake that is easily fixed and we know what the writers intended. Adam4267 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with that as long as you can reliably reference why that should be the case. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's normal to silently correct obvious typos. Unless there is a need to highlight the error with a sic, we should just correct it. --John (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

from the refs i have viewed they use the [sic] after the word. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't. --John (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

example to show it has been used that way round. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)