Talk:Green Brigade

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 31 January 2011

{{edit protected}} Okay, so for some reason this article is showing up at Category:Wikipedia_pages_with_incorrect_protection_templates. But it has a full protection template on it and is fully protected. Can an admin figure out why it's still showing up in the cat?

Also, can someone get the article a template infobox and not just a hardcoded one? Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 08:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A minute ago, it was in only the pp-dispute and the protected-no-expiry hidden categories, which I suspect means that you managed to catch a version in the brief interval between the template being placed and the actual protection. I just added the expiry to the protection template, and the hidden categories updated immediately. Refresh your cache, and activate {{edit protected}} if it is not resolved?

Is there a standard template for this sort of organization? I checked a few similar articles, but they all had similar hard-coding or nothing. Ping me with the parameters desired if editors here would like an infobox template to replace the hard-coding. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that works, the page isn't showing up in the cat anymore.

As far as the infobox, I'm not sure if there's a specific infobox for this. But if there are several articles about the same types of thing, then maybe someone should create one? --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeping it in proportion

Hi Adam. I've changed it so that you're picture is used in the intro section. I may be wrong, but I thought pictures could not be used as reference sources. I could not find any written reference to the Green Brigade in the report, and to be honest I can't see any "Green Brigade" in your picture. But overall, I think the picture helps lighten up the page. I don't think we should have a new section every time the Green Brigade takes a banner to the match, as it would fail the notability test if there is no written reference and the page would lack any proportion. Perhaps you could add a caption explaing the banner instead? Mattun0211 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It quite clearly says Green Brigade on the green inverted banner beneath the the one that says "WALK ALONE" when you look at the pictures on the reference given Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1363339/Celtic-2-Hamilton-0-Commons-double-fires-Hoops-points-clear-Rangers.html. Reinserting the removed portions.--Omar418 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address my two key concerns. 1/ There is no written reference. Wikipedia requires written references, rather than making assumptions through a picture, does it not? In any case, the Green Brigade is not clear in the picture we're using. 2/ The notability test - to pass this the event would need some written reference from a reliable source. Otherwise it isn't notable. Until these two points are satisfied, this should not go back in. The picture is fine where it is.Mattun0211 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires written references - Does it? rather than making assumptions through a picture - There are no assumptions I saw the Green Brigade put the banner up, and anyone can see the banner in the match report.

1. You can clearly see the Green Brigade's banner underneath.

2. The 'event' (which is the banner itself not the people that unfurled it) was covered by several reliable sources. Adam4267 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

covered by several reliable sources, then there should be no problem including one that accurately references what has been included.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the Green Brigade page, so the fact that the event was covered by several reliable sources is irrelevant unless those reliable sources mention in writing the Green Brigade. This is pretty basic stuff, is it not? Mattun0211 (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can back up your statements then these are just basic lies. Adam4267 (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can back up your statements then these are just lies. Adam4267 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam, i dont understand what you mean? Why not just include one of the reliable sources that you or omar has stated exist to properly ref this? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Photographic evidence on a news website is a valid reference. If you can find a wiki rule which states that such references are invalid please post. Thanks. --Omar418 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Okay, in the ref given there is a pic relating to a banner about Neil Lennon, (now correct me if i am wrong) not in any part of the ref given does it mention that the green brigade were directly responsible for said banner. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just cut and paste what I wrote above then "It quite clearly says Green Brigade on the green inverted banner beneath the the one that says "WALK ALONE" when you look at the pictures on the reference given Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1363339/Celtic-2-Hamilton-0-Commons-double-fires-Hoops-points-clear-Rangers.html." --Omar418 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just cut and paste what I wrote above then, "not in any part of the ref given does it mention that the green brigade were directly responsible for said banner". Monkeymanman (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just cut and paste what I wrote above then "Photographic evidence on a news website is a valid reference. If you can find a wiki rule which states that such references are invalid please post. Thanks" --Omar418 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably best if we revisited some of the basics of Wikipedia. WP:IRS states, "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." i.e. You can't infer from a picture, you need to have written proof. "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." ditto. WP:NOR states "All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." Adam says the event "was covered by several reliable sources" - i.e. there are written accounts from reliable sources that mention the Green Brigade. Where are they? As we know, WP:IRS states entries should "not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities" and should "not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". i.e. we need more than the fact that there was a show of support for Lennon - we need an actual written reliable source that meantions the Green Brigade.

In any case this is all by-the-by as this also fails the notability test, which states "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Again, if the many sources that Adam talks about do meet this criteria, show them to us. So far, they clearly do not. Again, WP:NOTE says, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." This is currently lacking. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest." ditto. "Merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Very relevant here, obviously. "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." Need I go on?

I probably should have gone into detail earlier on this, as I made the presumption that the editors involved were familiar with these Wiki policies, so apologies for that. No more bizarre accusations of "lies" if you please. Thank you. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What a load of shite, there is nothing that states a picture in a newspaper cannot be used as a source. Adam4267 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Please can you answer the points raised, including the main one on notability (WP:NOTE) with direct references ro Wiki policy and remember Wikipedia guidelines on civility (WP:CIVIL). Thank you Mattun0211 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the Article

I've expanded the article a bit since it seemed too focused on the poppy controversy and therefore not really inkeeping with NPOV. What I've added is unsourced as of right now but I'll come back and add references soon. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry connelly but i have reverted your inclusion. Almost all of it is controversial to the extent that sources need to be applied when included. What Mattun has said above relates to this. Simply stating that there are sources for your text does not justify its inclusion without the sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

i have tidied your addition. The images are not freely licensed and will be deleted for being so in the near future so i have removed them. You can re add them if you like but they will be deleted in due course by wikipedia commons. The pic regarding walfred has no source to state that it was produced and displayed by the green brigade. E-Tims is also not a reliable source. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the images that they may not be free to use and theres no way to prove it was the Green Brigade that put up the banners; I would also agree that ETims is not a reliable source, having taken stuff off articles in the past when they referenced ETims and similar websites; however, two of the existing sources to back up the "poppy protest" section are also from ETims, one of them being the same page I referenced, so I'd assumed it was /accepted as a source for this article. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, i see where your coming from with that. There was a dispute about the poppy protest inclusion (some part of it, i think it was the actual statement from the group) and the editors involved (you could read it from the previous discussion but it got very messy) agreed to use etims as the source for the statement for the green brigade on the protest, for the fact that the fans website would unlikely misquote their own fans group (or something along those lines). I'm quite sure that was the reason those refs were allowed. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at the archives for this discussion page and it looks like the reasons for having e-tims as a source are pretty weak; so I agree with your removal of the stuff I added that was backed up by e-tims, until I can find a better source. It really surprises me how little reliable information there is on the Green Brigade especially since there has been a lot of media attention on them after the poppy protest; I can't even find any other publications of the groups statement other than on e-tims and other fanzine websites. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Connelly. I've deleted most of your good faith edits. The reasons are as follows.1/ As has been mentioned, saying references exist but not put them in is seldom very convincing.2/ You wrote "The Green Brigade have gained a certain degree of negative press through their views regarding The Troubles in Northern Ireland; particularly the groups support of the IRA and Irish Republicanism". Negative press is a bit of a wishy washy term, and the references are only critical off the IRA support, not the views regarding the Troubles or Repubicanism. 3/ As I mentioned there were no references on the section on displays other than the poppy protest that is covered anyway. Bear in mind Wiki policy on notability. The reason that the poppy protest has so much coverage here is that it received lots of attention. The struggle to find references may mean the subject in question isn't really noteworthy.Mattun0211 (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; all good points, but the stuff you took out had references to back them up, I'd already taken all the unreferenced stuff out. As for your second point; the articles that link the group with support for the IRA but make no mention of Irish Republicanism, most likely do so because they don't need to and support for Irish Republicanism comes with support of the IRA (they are the "Irish Republican Army" after all). Sorry, I've reverted your edits, since they had references to back them up. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

forgive me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Republcianism doesn't necesarily mean support for terrorist groups (Aren't the SDLP republican?). Neil Lennon, for example, has said he's Republican but has also stated he doesn't support the IRA. So I think we have to differentiate here. There's still unreferenced material in there BTW - the only reference is to the poppy protest which is covered anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On second read - Sky article does have ref. to Republicanism and IRA, so I've included that and taken out some unref. stuff in the intro.Mattun0211 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally refs. need citations - I'll leave that to you.Mattun0211 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that support for Irish Republicanism means you support the IRA; I mean that you can't support the IRA without supporting Irish Republicanism, since that is why the paramilitary group was set up in the first place. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough - the refs mention both as I said. I've put it in the intro and tightened it up.Mattun0211 (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a side point here. The section that the Green Brigade is situated is mentioned in one of the sources that are already used (cant remember which), also might be worth including that the vast ammount of press that the Green Brigade receives is primarily about controversial banners or IRA / Republican songs. Dont know if its important but it could be easily sourced.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the UK press being the UK press; they don't seem to want to write about the positive side to any kind of ultras group let alone a group who supports that horrible bunch of ne'er-do-wells in the IRA *sarcasm*. In all seriousness though, the UK/Scottish press over the past SPL season have really focused on the Poppy Protest when talking about the Green Brigade due to thier interest in supporting the wars etc. (they need to please the people who pay their wages after all...but thats another subject all together) so there isn't much in the way of ballanced and reliable coverage of the Green Brigade's activities which offers an impartial view of the group. I'm not exactly the kind of person that can offer impartiality on this subject either, but you get my point. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

i dont really understand what you mean in your reply. Are you arguing that it was wrong for the press to pick up on that. The poppy appeal and remembrance day are in support of WW1 & WW2 casualties. In all aspects the press are only focussed on negative stories, that is evident in daily news broadcasts and newspapers, so it is not solely related to this supporters group. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No; don't get me wrong, I don't think it was wrong for the press to cover the poppy protest; I think its it's wrong that they only cover the poppy protest. It comes across to me as forcing people to have a certain opinion of the Green Brigade, rather than presenting all avaliable information and allowing people to make up their own minds. But, I get your point about the news as a whole only covering negative stories, or favouring them at least; but then wouldn't the "negative press" the Green Brigade recieves be a charactaristic of the press and the media as a whole rather than the group itself? also, the protest was partly about their disaproval of the use of the poppy to drum up support for recent and ongoing illegal oil-driven wars and the actions of the British Army in N. Ireland rather than to thank the people who fought for freedom in the past. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose your correct in your assertion that the green brigade have disproportionately been given negative press about one incident, but the press like i have said are only interested in negativity. In that respect should it not be included in the article then. That the green brigade receives mostly negative press (perhaps because of said display)? Could be difficult to word neutrally though so it might be best left out. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see! I get your point now. Yes, I think it should be mentioned that the press received by the Green Brigade is disproportionately focused on the protest; but, you're right, it will be quite difficult to word it with a NPOV. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the undue weight box put in by Connelly90 due to the focus on the Poppy Protest. Monkeyman has put in a lot of sourced material that has rectified this. Mattun0211 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue now is the occassional vandalism, but these usually get picked up automatically by the Wikipedia anti-vandalism safeguards. A number of different IP addresses sound like a politburo member who's had one too many vodkas, suggesting it could be one serial vandaliser. Mattun0211 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of "undue weight" box; the article looks a lot better now, thanks. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes must be properly discussed and sourced

Hi Adam. You appear to want to make considerable changes to this page. As you see, I have reverted them becasuse they either deleted sourced content without any discussion here, or added content that was either unsourced or had sources that didn't meet Wiki requirements, such as fanzine forums and what looks like photobucket, or something similar. The way forward is to discuss changes here, and make sure sources are up to Wiki standards.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattun, You seem to be misrepresenting my changes. I did not use a random fazine or photobucket as sources. The first one was actually the Seattle Sounders ultras page, which had a section that explained certain things about ultras groups(In this case why they have their banner upside down). The second site was called Ultratos, it compiles photographs of different ultra groups around the world.In this case I used it to show one of the Green Brigade's tifos. If you could show why either of these sources don't meet wiki standards that would be helpful.

Also I do not appreciate being called a vandal when what I did was blatantly not vandalsim, you seem to be misrepresenting what vandalism actually is. Either that or you do not understand it. You should read WP:IRS, WP:VAN and WP:OR as your knowledge of these seems to be a little sketchy, thanks. I am going to put my additions to the background section back in but I am not going to remove the sourced content there again i.e security guard getting a bloody lip. I consider this to be un-encyclopaedic however as you correctly stated this needs discussion as it is well sourced. I am also going to remove the WP:SYN which has been on this page for a while. That is lines 2 and 3 in paragraph 3 of the Poppy Protest section and add an undue weight tag to this page as it is heavily focused on one incident (The poppy protest). This should be cut down to a few lines and put under a heading of banners or something like that. As in its current state it violates WP:STRUCTURE.

In the future if you could specifically point out what I do, that you do not agree with and why it is "specifically" in breach of Wiki policies. Rather than just making general statements which misrepresent both my edits and wiki policies themselves it would be much more helpful to editing on this page. Also I hope you are more mature than when you left this edit, and do not still engage in edit wars when people make edits to this page that you do not agree with and that you are not still trying to use spellgate as a WMD. Adam4267 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it Adam if you would revert back to the version that had consensus from the editors involved at that time here and discuss future changes on here before making them to prevent disruption. This version had been agreed upon after some intense discussion as you are probably aware of. Ultras pages like you have referenced are not deemed reliable sources according to wikipedia as far as i am concerned. You could ask the reliable sources discussion page if you like (I thought using fan forums on this article had been discussed and agreed on before on this discussion page). Please, please, please tell me we dont need to explain or discuss why that image cannot be justifiably used on this article, we discussed this before and had agreement (or so to speak). You have also removed at least 2 sections in both the background and the poppy protest sections that were reliably sourced, regardless of WP:SYN. With regards to the poppy protest section Adam we discussed, and agreed upon the content, therefore there was consensus for it. Again i would appreciate if you would self revert back to the version i have previously stated and we can discuss proposed alterations from there. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Monkeymanman

I do not see why the Seattle Sounders ultras page is not reliable. It is an ultras group therefore it is reliable for information about ultras groups and it is not widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions (wikipedia definition of a questionable source). So what makes you so certain it is not reliable?

There is no reason why a non-copyright image of the Green Brigade cannot be used on the Green Brigades page (the Green Brigades banner is visible in the picture and there are reliable sources which show the same image). If you want to re-open this discusion by all means do.

"I thought using fan forums on this article had been discussed and agreed on before on this discussion page" If you would like to point me in the direction of this discussion. Or at least tell me what the outcome of that discussion was. That would be helpful as I do not know the outcome of every discussion on this page.

I have only removed one section from the poppy protest area. I pointed out that this was in violation of WP:SYN and you cannot disregard such an important Wikipolicy (Even if it hampers your ability to get your viewpoint across).

I will not self revert the aditions I made to the background section as there is no reason for me to do so.

I will self revert the poppy protest section. Providing you give me a reason why WP:SYN should be disregarded in this situation. Adam4267 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the reliably sourced information that has been removed regardless of WP:SYN. In the background section the inclusion In April 2011 some members of the Green Brigade had not been sent season ticket renewal forms after the club had threatened to disperse the group around other sections of the stadium was removed which was referenced by the evening times and the scotsman, both undeniably reliable sources. In the poppy protest section the inclusion In the weeks leading up to the incident, the Green Brigade had reportedly stepped up pro-IRA chants was removed which was referenced by the glasgow hereald, again undeniably reliable.

The image used in this article has not been backed up by a reliable source to say that the Green Brigade themselves were directly responsible for it at that match. The article simply says Celtic fans show their support for their manager Neil Lennon. This was explained in great detail by another editor here Talk:Green Brigade#Keeping it in proportion. To which you replied What a load of shite, there is nothing that states a picture in a newspaper cannot be used as a source.

As for the Ultras website and fan forum. Here Talk: Green Brigade#Attn: Omar - please, please try to understand this ... was where the forum business was discussed by a very experienced editor who gave us his time to clean the article up. The problem i have with this ref [[1]] is that it is a blatent fan forum posted by an annonymous editor which to the best of all knowledge could be his own opinion. There are no people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing which is a fundamental basis of what wikipedia regards as a reliable source.

Do i have to point out where some of your other inclusions are unsourced.

I repeat, you have removed reliably sourced information, could you please revert back to the last sourced version that had consensus and raise any issues you have on this discussion page. Thank you. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

With the ticket issue you are correct that it was sourced however sice those articles were published new information has come to light which proves them to be wrong [[2]], [[3]] Also the Evening Times is not a good ref as the whole article cannot be easily read.

I am not denying it was sourced however its placement was original synthesis. That information can be kept but it needs to be moved.

With regards to the [[4]] source I agree with you it is not a good ref. I will try and find a copy of the Green Brigade's mission statement from a more reliable source. However it is undeniable that knowing what is in the Green Brigade's mission statement is vital to making an encyclopaedic entry about them and I am curious as to why you have not tried to source it yet. Its almost as if you have an anti-Green Brigade agenda and don't care about the group at all. You only want to collate all the negative press they had recieved in the media into one easily manageable list. In fact you might as well have renamed the article Bad stuff the Green Brigade have done and the supposed Background section which contained one sentence about the group might as well have been renamed Bad stuff the Green Brigade have done what wasn't the poppy protest. Its clear Mattun has an anti-Green Brigade agenda as this shows and it seems you do to. As the article the two of you ran for so long contained 2 sentences about the group and 9 paragraphs about Bad stuff the Green Brigade have done

The picture clearly shows the Green Brigades banner and with regards to my previous comment to Mattun ,I agreed with myself then and I agree with myself now. Adam4267 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry one of your links to the Scotsman seems to be broken (I believe that paper sometimes does that to prevent blanket copying). The other appears to be a good link which can be used to supplement the inclusion that was already there. The evening times ref I had in originally was fully expanded but as you point out they can become shrunk over time probably to reduce server loads (but that does not discredit the ref).

I am not denying it was sourced however its placement was original synthesis. That information can be kept but it needs to be moved

I am intrigued by what you mean by this.

As for the image, The reply still stands, there was no reference that the green brigade were directly responsible for the banner.

I am slightly concerned by your reply. You seem to believe I have some form of agenda against the Green Brigade. This is entirely false. You have attacked my attempts to add some degree of neutrality to the article (and has become personal) since it was raised by another editor (and quite rightly) that there was undue weight towards a certain event. In doing so I investigated reliable sources that have reference to the group themselves. All sources I added to the background section were sourced to the group, it may be the case that its negative material but hey that’s what the media want to portray from any organisation. I have already said this in a previous post.Monkeymanman (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The link at breaking news.ie was actually copied from an article in the scotsman and you are correct about the Evening Times (If you go into view source you can view the hidden text). This was the article in the scotsman that didn't work.

Celtic pledge to Green Brigade after fans feared they would be banned

Published Date: 29 April 2011

By MARTYN MCLAUGHLIN

"In response to the Poppy protest, Celtic said in a statement: "The Club is currently carrying out an investigation into this matter. When it is concluded, it is the Club's intention to ban those identified as responsible from Celtic Park".[13] In the weeks leading up to the incident, the Green Brigade had reportedly stepped up pro-IRA chants.[6] In its Social Mission Statement, Celtic FC states it aims "To maximise all opportunities to disassociate the Club from sectarianism and bigotry of any kind."[14]"

This is clear OS the placement of the IRA-chants-sentence suggests that not only is it either sectarian or bigoted but also that it is related to the clubs intention to ban the Green Brigade. Also the social mission statement has no place in this article. These three unrelated (but factual and well sourced) pieces of information together try to advance a certain viewpoint and are OS and POV.

LOOK AT THE IMAGE!!!!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1363339/Celtic-2-Hamilton-0-Commons-double-fires-Hoops-points-clear-Rangers.html

I apologise for stating you have bias against the Green Brigade that was not appropriate. However, you (and everyone else who has edited this page) could have tried harder to find out about the Green Brigade rather than what the media have reported. This page really might as well have been named The mainstream UK media's perception of the Green Brigade because that is all that has been on it. 2 LINES about the group and 9 paragraphs of Bad stuff the Green Brigade have done is incredibly POV and weighted. I do not want to blanket over everything bad the Green Brigade have done; they endanger other spectators through movement, they have let off flares and they have been in trouble with stewards, police, etc. But similarly this page should not just become a list of everything bad they have done. This page is about the group themselves not the media's perception of them and we really need to change this. Adam4267 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see you discussing what you propose to alter in the article. For that fact I have reverted back to the previous version that had consensus.

The inclusion about the green brigade possibly being banned can be clarified now, with the fact that you have a reliable source to say that the club will not ban them with some requests. I don’t see how this inclusion does not relate to the green brigade or should not be on this article.

I agree the social mission statement may not be in the right place or even deemed worthy of inclusion. But the other 2 perhaps should not be placed side by side like they are. But both are in relation to the poppy protest incident.

I have looked, repeatedly over the last few months at that banner in that source. I see the flag that you are referring to, below the written banners about Neil Lennon. But in the same picture I also see what appears to be other celtic supporters flags, I think from memory one from the Jock Stein celtic supporters group (don’t quote me on that because I really don’t know but I think it is) Therefore how can we justifiably state from looking at the picture that it is undeniably produced, displayed and ultimately part of the green brigades support.

could have tried harder to find out about the Green Brigade rather than what the media have reported

Explain to me how exactly is that to be done according to wiipedia rules. Do you expect editors just to make stuff up, safe in the knowledge that it is okay because it is not negative material.

The page reflects what reliable sources have said about the group. Across Wikipedia similar groups and organizations have pages that are full of negative information, related to them in reliable sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2011

[unindent]

Celtic stated they were going to ban them after the protest but decided not to. There was lots of media conjecture(i.e. foresight) about the GB and whether they would be banned, moved, whatever but none of that has happened and most of this should be taken out and replaced with what has happened(i.e hindsight). Really two sentences should some it up, something like "Celtic stated they would ban those responsible for the protest and there were widespread reports in the media that the entire group would be banned or not have their season tickets renewed. However, Celtic did renew the groups season tickets on the condition they refrain from violating the spectator safety code."

Again with the picture, the Green Brigade are the only supporters club that do banners or tifos or anything really. Not to mention the fact that the banner is being held up in front of their logo (upside down) which signifies their section. The entire section 111 is for the Green Brigade. Also in their 2010/11 season video at 7:08 you can see the banner in question.

I want to stress that was not a personal attack on you I include myself but I have to disagree with you on this issue. This page reflects what the mainstream media has said about the Green Brigade, which as we know is mainly negative. However just because a source is not in the mainstream media does not mean it is not reliable and that is where we seem to disagree. Also there is a complete lack of primary sources relating to the Green Brigade absolutely nothing published by them has been referenced in this article. Obviously their website requires registration which is why it is hard to get their mission statement, however it has been republished on tons of forums and I'm sure there was a screenshot of it from the official website as well. I know you will immediately say you tube is not a reliable source but the green brigade do have their own channel and you tube is not on the blacklist and it is allowed sometimes. Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

okay i agree with the removal of the mission statement, and perhaps the add on of the irish celtic supporters group. As for what they support (outside celtic) the refs given state that they have become known for their support of both irish nationalism and the IRA.

Celtic stated they were going to ban them after the protest but decided not to. I have looked for a ref to say that celtic decided not to ban the group because of the poppy protest. There are refs that do say that they were deciding whether or not to ban the group for violating safety regulations. Two separate incidents. Putting the two together (i.e. poppy protest and the group being banned for violating safety codes) would be an example of WP:SYN.

At the back of the section in question there are other banners on display, possibly from other supporters groups. So it could be difficult to say who is whats. As for youtube, it is a dodgy line to go down in my opinion. It is very rarely accepted across wikipedia. If the group had any weight at all they would have their own website.

It does seem to me that negative press, and negative incidents relating to Celtic FC are being palmed off as being down to this one group 'The big bad green brigade', to in some way state that they are the only supporters who support celtic that behave unacceptably.Monkeymanman (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic didn't say they were going to ban the Green Brigade only those responsible which could have been one or two people. It seems like no-one was banned though. To be honest I think a lot of what has been reported in the papers about the GB is mostly rumour and speculation and they seem to fall into the Questionable Sources category. I think it would be best if we look towards Celtic, The BBC and The Green Brigade for sources about the actual group. While the Tabloids provide more than adequate information relating to what they have done wrong.

The Green Brigade do have their own website but you have to register to view it. The only other way to get information from them is their you tube channel, football forums, and what has been quoted in the press.

I don't really understand your statement here and to be honest it seems like you don't understand what the Green Brigade actually do. Adam4267 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

we're getting a bit side tracked here from the original discussion which was about your changes to the article. I wouldn't mind an inclusion sourced to the mission statement of the group from the messageboard which went something along the lines of, 'The Green Brigade have organised various displays at Celtic matches involving banners, flags and demonstrations which have been credited to improve the atmosphere at Celtic Park' or something like that. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The most reputable source I can find with the Green Brigades original mission statement is the celtic wiki apart from that it is on many different football forums. http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/Green+Brigade+-+Original+Statement+%26+Q%26A Adam4267 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have went with the other already agreed upon mission statement source but i am not bothered really as long as those sites are not used freely as reportedly reliable references. What do you propose to include about the group directly? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well basically I want the page to show what the Green Brigade do as a supporters group. They try to act like a european ultras group and specifically try to emulate St. Pauli fans. However their use of flares, movement and public processions gets them into trouble as these are not allowed in scotland. You can see most of this from their POV on the GBultras you tube page. This is one of there public processions called a corteo by the group. This is what I was trying to do when I made changes to the background section previously. I think this page should be split into three sections, background which would be mission statement, info about their foundation, and their views and style of support. Then examples of how there support and views are manifested i.e Poppy Protest, Neil Lennon banner, flares, tifos, problems with the law, opposition to john reid etc. Then a section on the perception of them both negative(mainly medias perception of them) and positive(what they have contributed to supporting celtic). Adam4267 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the only part of that which could be attempted at the moment (using the reference to the mission statement that has been used previously in this article) would be about what they attempt to be i.e. ultras group. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my 2ps for what it's worth. I think the key point now is sources - or more particulalry reliable sources - which doesn't mean forum postings or fanzines. This talk page has always had an element of groundhog day about it - so I'm going to copy and paste something I put up previously from WP:Source.

"Self-published sources (online and paper)Main page: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

Unless sources meet these guidelines, then they should not be used. The mission statement can be included on the proviso that it is a one-off.

The sentence about increased IRA chanting was sourced from a Glasgow Herald article giving background to the events and should stay. The Social Mission statement can go - it was originally put in with a very different version of this page, and was meant to offer some balance and make sure the Football Club itself wasn't seen as a bunch of terrorist supporting nut jobs. Including it comes up against the conceited moral one-upmanship that while the other side are bigots, Celtic fans are "political", which means adding having to explain that the IRA are "generally seen" as sectarian, which means the whole thing becomes convuluted. And anyway, I'm not sure the club deserve it.

The Internet is a vast resource. I've recently managed to reliably source information on a DJ in Sarawak, Borneo using it. If these good things that the Green Brigade have done are of any interest, they will be there. But perhaps we're back to WP:NOTE again (I know you think this is "a load of shite" Adam, but these are guidelines laid down by Wikipedia.) Maybe waving flags and shouting a lot simply isn't of encylopedic interest, and that's why there's a lack of reliable sources. In any case, as Monkeyman says, there is a place on Wikipedia for asking whether sources are deemed reliable or not. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattun I am well aware of what constitutes a reliable source and I know that a forum does not. However I have found it rather hard to find their mission statement from any reliable or even questionable source. I am glad we can all that there mission statement would be helpful and hopefully work constructively together on improving this page.

I am not really sure what to say here Mattun. You seem to have a very "strong" view on the Green Brigade. Just please try to seperate your personal opinions from your writing about the GB.

You are misrepresenting what I said Mattun. I never said that WP:NOTE was a load of shite just your misrepresentation of it.

Waving flags and shouting a lot may not be of encyclopaedic interest but the media seem to love it and seeing as the GB have been talked about by every news outlet in the UK would suggest they are notable. Adam4267 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified certain elements of your inclusion Adam. I have also removed said image again. Now that there is some degree of explanation of what the group attempt to be, can the undue weight banner be removed? Monkeymanman (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt notice those other two questionable sources that you had re-included. I think we have agreement that the mission statement can be used as a reference from the source given, but not other fan forums and the like. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The other two are not fan forums and the like is an awfully general term which doesn't really mean anything. Neither of those sources are questionable and I still don't see why the image cannot be included. Adam4267 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the image has been discussed (repeatedly) and why there is no justifiable reason as to why it can be directly related to the Green Brigade themselves. The emerald city website is a football supporters website. It even states who and what they are in the page entitled about, Emerald City Supporters (ECS) are a independent supporters group of Seattle Sounders FC. In my opinion this does not justify a reliable source. You can ask the reliable sources noticeboard if you like. Ultratos, is basically another fan forum where people have posted images and videos. It does not appear to be any more reliable than that. Again please take to the reliable sources discusion board if you like.

As for the other sentence. The ref from sky says, Known for demonstrating support for Irish republicanism at matches, The source from the herald states One group called The Green Brigade regularly express republican views at games and in recent weeks has stepped up pro-IRA chants. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Monkeymanman I really don't care what your opinion on a source is, wikipedia is based on policy not your opinion. If you can show that a source doesn't meet the policy requirments then I will listen to you however if you keep saying that in your opinion a source doesn't meet requirments then your opinion will not mean much. In any matter the additions are hardly contentious This is a tradition amongst ultras groups and this is mainly done through their large, colourful displays, often known as tifos

Just because you mis-quote several sources does not make your additions any more valid either one or the, other you cannot mix and match sources. Adam4267 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I've reverted your edits as I think ideally you need to take this to the reliable source discussion page as fanzines are undoubtedly a questionable source. You also seem to be keen to separate out support for Irish Republicanism and waving flags and singing songs about IRA. Not sure why you're doing this, but anyway, its not supported by the sources quoted so is original research.

As regards Seattle Sounders fanzine, certainly on the reliable sources noticeboards fanzines are not held in high regard. Can this be backed up by a secondary source?

As regards the picture, the trouble is there is no actual evidence that this is the Green Brigade other than the fact that there name appears elsewhere. I noticed that even on that youtube video, there were some clips that I suspect show Celtic fans in general rather than the Green Brigade. Surely there must a picture of the poppy protest somewhere?

The irony of all this, of course, is that when people (including experienced neutral editors such as Drmies) were putting in information sourced from notable published newspapers such as the Irish Independent, you were deleting them, so I don't think you can expect much sympathy if you're using football forums and fanzines as sources. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattun, please stop lying about my additions. Neither of the sources I used were Fanzines and I don't see why you keep trying to denigrate them by saying they are. You will not win anyone over with these statements, I know what I added and you and Monkeymanman are already on the same side.

So you are fine with a picture of the poppy protest becuase that would re-inforce your POV but any other picture of the Green Brigade is unacceptable because there is no actual evidence that this is the Green Brigade other than the fact that there name appears elsewhere Adam4267 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Right Adam, do not try and make out that myself and Mattun are on the same side. One of the first things i said to you both many yonks ago was that i dont care for either of you. That still stands.

Adam, if you were simply stating what Ultras groups are / what they do, then there was already a link to the Ultras article on wikipedia.

Adam please, please, please, please take your two sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree and if you think they can be regarded as reliable references. Until then i cannot accept them as such. I have learned from past experience that sources such as those have no weight in their reliability.

What i believe is trying to be explained here to you Adam is that if there was a freely licensed pic of the poppy protest banner then that can be directly related to the green brigade, because it has been explained in reliable sources that the green brigade were directly responsible.

I think we should clarify what is being disputed here. The page has been reverted back (again) even though what has been disagreed upon within said revision has been discussed to some degree. I am inclined to revert right back to the version that had consensus. The inclusions with the disputed sources should certainly be removed / altered / re referenced until clarification can be brought as to how reliable they are. The other inclusion about what they support etc have become known to support etc could be discussed further. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay i have reverted back. This has removed the disputed refs, the disputed image and the inclusions are now more in line with the refs. If you disagree adam please raise it here to discuss. As for the refs it has been stated where you should take these to clarify their reliability. The image blah blah. The reference to the green brigade mission statement only says comrades therefore it is not the clubs that they are saying they have a similar ideology as. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board. You two do not own this page and have no right to attempt to make me do so. I will continue to make additions and if you have a problem with anything I add or any references I use feel free to bring it up here, and if you can show using policy, rather than your partisan opinions, that any of my additions are in any way wrong then I will of course listen to you and if I beleive you to be correct then I will personally remove said violation of policy to save you the trouble of doing so. I will of course discuss any removals of sourced content I feel should be made to this page in line with policy and not simply remove sections of the article. I have re-instated my additions with some slight changes and I would consider another blanket revert of my additions without a clear explanation as being aggresive.

I will no longer be contributing to this particular discussion as I feel it has been exhausted. Adam4267 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the previous version. I have also made some slight grammatical changes. Adam it is up to you to check with the reliable sources messageboard as to the reliability of your sources. Please make use of WP:DR if you wish, or we could ask DrMies to see if he has time to lend a hand.

Of course no one has ownership of this or any other article but with a dispute it is up to you to gain consensus for your changes as per WP:BRD. You are firing around terms like partisan now. It appears to me that you may be the one with a WP:COI in this matter. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The agreement to allow forums and fanzines as limited sources if agreement can be reached is clearly causing all sorts of problems, so I've reverted back to an older version that doesn't include them. If agreement cannot be reached on whether the sources that some editors believe look like forums and fanzines are relaible, then they need to go to the reliable source noticeboard, or we will be trapped in a circle and the risk of edit warring will rise.

Adam, remember to assume good faith. At the moment you seem to be assuming there is some sort of conspiracy and you're not properly reading the points being raised by editors as a result. Assume good faith and explain why you think the sources you mentioned are reliable, as I honestly think they look like self-published fanzines. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted. This 'sourcing' is unacceptable. I read above that "I do not see why the Seattle Sounders ultras page is not reliable. It is an ultras group therefore it is reliable for information about ultras groups"--well, anyone who doesn't see why that would make their website unreliable needs to re-read WP:RS. No one would expect an ultra group to objectively report on ultra groups. Furthermore, I am going to warn all of you for edit warring; the history is full of reversals and counterreversals, and while not everyone may have broken the clear line of 3R in 24 hours, you're all edit-warring--and some more than others. I don't want to ask for full protection of this page, but I hope that you will find some way to work this out. Perhaps the first thing to do is to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and pose the question about the sources used in the passage I removed. I think that's purely pro forma, but let other editors speak out. If those answers are not accepted and a consensus is not reached, it's probably time for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please, y'all, stop edit-warring and don't get yourself blocked over this. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to help out on this page Drmies. I appreciate that you have done this and that you are a very experienced editor however, I have several issues with what you have said.

You probably consider me to be in the wrong here. Coming on to this page, pushing my POV, using dodgy sources, disrupting consensus. I'll admit that without properly looking at the sources, the discussion and the two other editors histories. You would be completely right to think that. I appreciate that you may not have had the time to look through this entire discussion and at all parties invovled and I don't blame you. its taken a lot out of me just being in the discussion.

Firstly I would like to point out that I am not a common vandal or POV pusher. I have over 1000 edits which may not seem like a lot to you but I am quite pleased at the acheivement. I also contribute regularly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and I revert a lot of vandalism.

I would like to address a few things with yourself. Firstly stating that the writing I added was not very good, as I'm sure you are aware per Wikipedia:PERFECTION additions do not have to be perfect and it is very hard to write well knowing that what you add will be reverted within a few hours. We are not all perfect, for example you listed websites as an unacceptable source in your edit summary. Rather odd because I think websites are quite a good source. Also you stated that some were edit-warring more than others. If you meant me then I would be unhappy with that because there are twice as many editors on one side which means they can make twice as many edits.

I understand that some of the sources I used were not perfect however per WP:YT you tube is not banned and my links were only to official Green Brigade videos and only to prove that they had done what was in those videos. Also the link to an ultra groups website was because they had a summary of what ultra groups do. They were not being used to report objectively on this group, this website contains absolutely no information about the Green Brigade it is only about ultra groups in general. I am dissapointed that you took the same line as both editors on this page by completely disregarding all my work because one or two sources were questionable.

Also I was not trying to push my POV onto this page. All I want to do is provide information about this group and what they do. I do not want to remove the bad stuff they have done as I stated previously in this discussion.

I have tried to be civil and use discussion with these two editors and I honestly thought we were making progress. This same thing happened at Celtic F.C. a while ago when I challenged the long standing section presided over by Monkeymanman Talk:Celtic_F.C./Archive_5#Nil_by_Mouth and eventually it took several editors who are more experienced than me to remove his POV from the page. That page was eventually protected due to Mattun's [edit warring]. You should notice that underneath my report of Mattun, Monkeymanman reported me for not doing anything wrong. Again I thought we were making progress and could work together to make a better article. However, these two editors, who share the same view about this group, will clearly not let me make any additions. They revert eveything I do without proper explanation, they want every single sentence on this page to be referenced, Monkeymanman constantly references Wikipedia:BRD despite it not being compulsory (something I ddn't know until just now). They use "no consensus" as an argument for reverts, despite this being against guidelines ([[5]]), Mattun in particular constantly misrepresents both what I say/write and the sources I use in an attempt to denegrate my additions. Not to mention the large amount of Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:OS that they had in this article for so long that "just happened" to support their POV and they "just happened" not to remove. I strongly beleive both these editors have a bias against this group and despite my best efforts to make resonable, NPOV additions which in no way challenge what they have put into this article. They will not allow any changes or work constructively to improve the article. They use the tactic of picking out one or two questionable additions I make to allow themselves to completely remove everything I put into the article which is completely ridiculous and unfair.

As any chance of constructive collaboration on this article is clearly dead I am going ask for outside opinions at WikiProject Football before this article inevitabely goes to dispute resolution. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Allow me a short response. First of all, I offered two ways to move forward--the first one to judge those sources, and a second, more general one. So to say that constructive collaboration is out the door is very, very premature. Second, you may say that websites are fine, but I disagree on the matter of these websites, and I think a visit to the RS noticeboard will bear this out. Third, if you want to get more opinions, you're more than welcome: that's how this place works. Fourth, some editors have edit-warred more than others, and yes, that's you. That there's more on the other side doesn't matter: you may well have broken the 3R line, and besides that, you could read that differently--that the consensus is against you. Three editors now have said, I think, that those sources are not acceptable. Finally, I haven't said anything about how many or how few edits you've made and I wouldn't, since that's beside the point. Taking everything personally, as if they're ganging up on you, disallows one from objectively looking at the quality of the edits, as if those don't matter. They do matter.

Feel free to find a consensus for your edits, but if you don't find that, you are going to have to be at peace with it. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(directed here from a message on WT:WPF) Offering an opinion on an Old Firm editing dispute can be foolhardy at the best of times, nevermind during a period of heightened sectarian tensions, but for what its worth I endorse Drmies revert. Sourcing based on self-published sources and Youtube videos is simply too weak for inclusion. I also see that [{The Sun]] is used as a source in the article, and we really ought to avoid using the red-tops as sources. In terms of the wider media, the majority of material pubished about the group appears to relate to the poppy incident. As a result this dominates the article. If that's the only bit that can be written about while maintaining adherence to our sourcing guidelines, it might be better to merge that material to somewhere like Sectarianism in Glasgow, and redirect this page to Celtic F.C. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For starters Adam to say that I have presided over the Celtic article is absolutely ridiculous, and Adam I reported you for edit warring because you were being extremely hypocritical, but that’s not the point here is it.

They revert eveything I do without proper explanation

Then what's the discussion above about then, I have stated why I have reverted and even pointed to where you could find out if the sources you have used are acceptable. Repeatedly! To which you have still not even attempted to ask the question.

Monkeymanman constantly references Wikipedia:BRD

I said it once on this discussion here. That hardly amounts to constantly.

They use "no consensus" as an argument for reverts, despite this being against guidelines

I have only said that there was a version with consensus, from which we could discuss the inclusion of disputed material and sources.

Back to the article content. I have made some small alterations to the text, mainly grammatical but (hopefully) not that big a deal. There was also this section The Green Brigade were opposed to the appointment of John Reid as Celtic chairman because of his past as British Cabinet minister and Northern Ireland Secretary. To protest Reid's appointment as chairman the Green Brigade displayed their banner upside down. Which was sourced to the Sun which i think should be reincluded. There were also the sentences sourced to the GB mission statement. The mission statement was from a fan noticeboard but we had accepted that it would be unlikely that it would be incorrect. In this respect i think those sentences could be re included? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Oldelpaso. The use of the Sun (or tabloids) may be frowned upon but my understanding is that it / they can still be used as a reliable source. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Drmies - I think once again we all got a bit caught up in this. Also in response to Oldelpaso, I'm not aware of any wiki policy against using tabloids as a reliable source, although common sense suggests using broadsheets where ever possible and not relying too heavily on "red tops". Perhaps the incidents in the background section, which IIRC were added to try and redress the focus on the poppy protest, could be condensed somewhat as it could be argued these are run-of-the-mill fan misbehaviour incidents.

For myself, I'm not a fan of either club - my interest here is in the sectarian aspect. I agree my past inclusion of the Celtic Social Contract was a clumsy wasy of dealing with this factor, and have added other reliably sourced background info instead. I think this is important as for many people this is the real "heart of the matter" so to speak. I've done a quick search and also added a link to the GB's support for the Give Racism the Red Card campaign.

As regards the issue of weight towards the poppy protest, this is what I was referring to above, perhaps not very clearly, when I talked about how waving flags etc. may not be that notable. In short, I think it's unavoidable given the relaible refs we have to work with. This is the incident which has enough solid references to really back it up and meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Perhaps the key is not to separate this incident out, and perhaps have the page separated into background and "notable events" or something similar.Mattun0211 (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the issue of the reliable sources that were questioned, I guess the next step is the reliable sources noticeboard. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a fair point that you have made Mattun with regards to the sources that you recently added with IRA singing and its links to sectarianism and its contradictions with the group. But it may be better off at a different article. With regards to the inclusions that i have stated above (protest of john reid and hanging the banner upside down) i still await a reply from yourself Adam over this. I am also wondering if we all have an agreement over the use of the GB mission statement for other inclusions about the group directly? Monkeymanman (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a question on the RS noticeboard about these sources here Monkeymanman (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - after all that I think we've actually come up with a better page! Agree with limited use of Green Brigade statement as a primary source. The guy who replied on the RS Noticeboard has come up with some good guidelines and advice. Agree that my recent inclusions could also be used elsewhere. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes July 2011

Adam said image has been discussed. As for your other reversion you may have a point but to prevent any possible disruption please state your reasons here. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again I will state that no consensus was reached but have self-reverted so we can discuss this. Adam4267 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

correct, no consensus was reached but that does not mean the image can be included. I ditto what i have said above, how can i change that? Monkeymanman (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you don't think the image should be added. Adam4267 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to chip in and say that I support the inclusion of the image, provided there are no issues with copyright etc; barring this I see no reason to exclude this image from the article. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to the image inclusion if you can find a reliable source which states that the green brigade were directly responsible for the banner relating to neil lennon. Until that happens i dont see how i can change what i said in past discussions. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, there is no real way of proving the Green Brigade were actually the ones who put up the banner; if the picture showed it was set up in section 111 or was clear enough to see the Green Brigade logos then I suppose that would be enough. I still support the inclusion of the image since I know it was set up by the group but can't relly prove it in a way that would satisfy the conditions on WP. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1363339/Celtic-2-Hamilton-0-Commons-double-fires-Hoops-points-clear-Rangers.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JtRx_NQFJs (7:08)

There are two sources which show that the Green Brigade did this banner. That is enough to merit its inclusion in this article. Adam4267 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam we have been through this, time after time. The first link says celtic fans show support for neil lennon. There is a picture of the banner. There appears to be numerous other flags and banners in the picture also. Hence the reason why undeniable certainty cannot be made that the green brigade were responsible.

The second is a youtube reference. Which you will point out to me in a minute that it does not automatically mean it should be rejected. But for youtube to be used as a ref it must be an official page of whoever and whatever and must be cross referencable to whatever or whoever. As was explained on the RS noticeboard a short while ago. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are a few banners on the back wall. Various slogans and flags and also a massive banner which says ULTRAS I wonder who that could belong to? The You Tube link shows again that this was the Green Brigade, whether it is the official channel of the Green Brigade or not (it claims to be). You still don't seem to realise that this is the Green Brigades section, the banner identifies them as being the Green Brigade. The ULTRAS banner on the back wall further shows that it is the Green Brigades section. Adam4267 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam - rather than go through this for the upteenth time, why not take it to one of the noticeboards. You have been very reluctant to do that on a number of occassions, for some reason. Inclusion of Youtube has already received advice from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard here [6] Mattun0211 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The ULTRAS banner on the back wall further shows that it is the Green Brigades section"--as clear an admission of original research as we're likely to get. FYI, YouTube videos are not acceptable sources--they aren't secondary. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to which policy. Adam4267 (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For real? WP:OR. ("...for which no reliable published source exists.") Drmies (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay firstly since when does a picture need a source, it can be clearly seen in the Daily Mail picture and my one that the Green Brigade banner is there, and they claim responsibility for it on their you tube page. A bit of WP:COMMONSENSE here please folks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph

In the weeks leading up to the incident, the Green Brigade had reportedly stepped up pro-IRA chants.[5] Celtic has been investigated by UEFA in the past for alleged sectarian behaviour including pro-IRA chants.[15] Former Celtic manager David Hay has called for singing of IRA anthems to be banned,[16] while current Celtic manager Neil Lennon has also said that IRA chants "embarrass" the club. [17]

Source 15: As this source shows the investigation was dropped not long after it was opened, yet there is no mention of that in this paragraph.

Source 16: The Sun claims that David Hay called for Celtic to ban IRA anthems from Parkhead, however no quote is attributed to him saying that. The Sun is noted for not being a reliable newspaper and Oldelpaso has already that it should be avoided where possible.

Source 17: The sentence attributed to this quote claims that "Neil Lennon has also said that IRA chants "embarrass" the club" however what he actually said was

“In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a re-emergence, from a small minority, of some of the singing and chanting which is simply not acceptable around our club.

“This has no place at Celtic Park or at any of our matches and it must be tackled. All this does is tarnish the great name of Celtic and embarrasses the club.”

IRA is not mentioned anywhere yet he is quoted as saying that in this paragraph.

This paragraph has been put together to advance a clear POV and sources have been misquoted and misrepresented. Not only that but it doesn't even relate to the information around which is about the poppy protest and Celtics response to it. Adam4267 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well. Here we go, one statement and source at the time.

• Pro-IRA chants, from the Herald: "One group called The Green Brigade regularly express republican views at games and in recent weeks has stepped up pro-IRA chants." (I have access to the full article.)
• UEFA investigation of sectarian behaviour, from The Telegraph: "Celtic could be the subject of disciplinary action from Uefa after the game's ruling body....They are studying several films which allegedly feature Celtic followers indulging in sectarian songs and chanting....'We have received some footage showing Celtic supporters singing some alleged anti-Queen and pro-IRA songs - sectarian songs,' said a spokesman." (If that investigation came to naught, add it--reliably sourced.)
• Day quote, from The Sun]: "FORMER Celtic boss Davie Hay has called for the singing of IRA anthems must be banned at Parkhead...'It's maybe been a part of the history of the clubs and one man's sectarian song might not be viewed that way by someone else.'" I have no reason to believe that The Sun would have misquoted him, and I do not know who Oldelpaso is, besides a manufacturer of taco sauce.

That'd be a reference to the comment I made near the bottom of the tl;dr section above [7] Oldelpaso (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Lennon, from The Evening Times: "IRA chants were heard at Tynecastle last week when some Celtic fans clashed with stewards following an incident on the touchline which saw a fan charged with assaulting Lennon. The Northern Irish manager again praised the supporters for their 'magnificent' response to him and the team on Sunday as Celtic lost out to Rangers in the SPL title race despite victory over Motherwell. But he urged a minority of fans not to tarnish the club’s reputation. You may note that the article does, contrary to your argument, mention "IRA chants". Did you read the first sentence?

I am going to revert you again. You keep on making the same argument, which is faulty every single time. You have reverted me three times, and this is my third. I think you should stop. You are welcome to take this to ANI or any other board, but if you remove this valid and properly sourced content again I will report you for edit warring--moreover, I think the term "vandalism" is perfectly justified, given that the removal of sourced information is considered disruptive, and considering that your continued badgering is taking up way too much time. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history of the page left me contemplating full protection. I can see why Adam2467 is unhappy with the text as written, though that of course does not excuse edit-warring. We have sources that say the Green Brigade have republican sympathies. We have sources that say some Celtic supporters have engaged in sectarian singing, sometimes extending to pro-IRA songs. Very few sources explicitly link the two, though the Herald article does*. It could indeed be argued that using the other sources to reinforce the Herald's position is synthesis.

The Herald should be explicitly attributed as the source in this case (something like "Glasgow's Herald newspaper reported that the Green Brigade had "stepped up pro-IRA chants" in the weeks leading up to the incident" or a more gracefully worded variant). The Telegraph article could be used in an article about Old Firm sectarianism, but it does not mention the Green Brigade, and so shouldn't be used here, at least not in a way that implies the Green Brigade are responsible for the events that occurred in Barcelona. The Sun should generally be avoided for contentious issues involving football supporters. The origin of its dim reputation for such issues is summarised at Hillsborough_disaster#The_Sun_newspaper. The Evening Times article does mention IRA songs, and does contain quotes from Lennon, but Lennon's quotes do not mention IRA songs specifically. So it cannot be used to back up the statement "current Celtic manager Neil Lennon has also said that IRA chants "embarrass" the club.", as what he said was that "some of the singing and chanting... ...embarrasses the club" without mentioning any songs by name.

Having said all that, I'm still not entirely convinced the Green Brigade merit an article of their own, particularly as I've just spotted the existence of the article Celtic F.C. supporters. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

*The full Herald article can be accessed through Newsbank, which most UK library card holders can access at home through the website of their local library. Failing that, I can email a copy of the article to any editor who requires it. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting Oldelpaso. I can understand why you think this group may not be notable. But nearly every newspaper in Britain has commented on them and they regularly recieve attention in the Scottish media not to mention the toilet papers absolutey love them. Adam4267 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting oldpaseo. Bear in mind that there are actually very few sources for the Green Brigade full stop, which perhaps relates to your last point, but anyway, there is a source that says the Green Brigade chant pro-IRA slogans. Sure, we can say it's the Herald. But it's a reliable source - simple as that. I think you are imagining a synthesis that does not exist. Bear in mind that this is a reference resource for people of all walks off life, who may not know why the pro-IRA chanting is controversial, or how it relates to the sectarian problem. This is merely providing background. It even states the club, not the Green Brigade, were investigated. So there is no conclusion being drawn - i.e. no original synthesis.

As regards The Sun, can you make direct reference to Wikipedia policy why this is not a reliable source? Can we really say a newpaper isn't a reliable source because of an article more than 20 years ago? The journalists involved have probably worked all over Fleet Street since, so shall we say that all Fleet St. papers are not reliable sources? As regards Neil Lennon, the article's first two words are "IRA chants". That's pretty clear, is it not? What other chants do you think Lennon might be referring to?

Shall we completely ignore the sectarian aspect as some editors clearly want, and you seem to be suggesting? I would argue that this would do a disservice to Wikipedia.Mattun0211 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mattun IRA chants are simply not sectarian. You have stated on this page that you interest here is in "the sectarian aspect" and have tried to advance that POV on several different pages. This suggests that you are not acting neutrally when making edits. Adam4267 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope - read the source - "We have received some footage showing Celtic supporters singing some alleged anti-Queen and pro-IRA songs - sectarian songs," said a spokesman[for UEFA]. You really need to put an end to these claims that other editors are just pushing there POV.Mattun0211 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the opinion of an unnamed UEFA spokesman, some low-end media outlets in the UK, The Rangers supporters trust and you is that IRA chants are sectarian. However chanting about the IRA was ruled not to be sectarian by a Judge and eminent scottish historian Tom Devine said that the IRA were "not sectarian in intent" [8]. Add to that Celtic have never been in trouble from UEFA for chanting despite fans constatnly chanting about the IRA. Adam4267 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's like me saying that the opinion of an historian no one's heard off and you is that IRA chanting isn't sectarian, or sectarian "in intent", whatever that's meant to mean. Can you try and make your arguments less personal and more about sources etc. Mattun0211 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Devine wasn't a judge at the case you cited - he was a witness. Witnesses can't give judgements! Mattun0211 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Scotsman describe him as being ONE of Scotland's foremost historians. If you haven't heard of him thats your problem. Your correct he was an eyewitness and he cannot pass judgement. However, the judge can and did pass judgement stating that IRA chanting was not sectarian. Adam4267 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - I was trying to show you why it's wrong to dismiss sources that are 'inconvenient' by saying things like, "Yes, the opinion of an unamed spokeperson ...". He was still speaking on behalf of UEFA in an official capacity, and was aauthorised to do so unless you can show me otherwise. It's quite normal for spokemen to be unnamed. As regards the article you cited, MSP David McCletchie says: ""The case to which Tom Devine refers proves conclusively what I have maintained all along, which is that the legislation is not focused on what most people in Scotland would call sectarian behaviour. The legislation needs to be re-examined."", Suggesting there is a feeling in some quarters the legislation is outdated or inadequate.Mattun0211 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for misunderstanding you, He may be a spokesman but UEFA's position is clear IRA chanting is not sectarian, if it was Celtic would have been fined or at least disciplined. What one MSP thinks is not relevant and he didn't mention IRA chanting anyway. It is clear that Tom Devine, UEFA, and the Scottish Judicial system do not regard IRA chanting as being sectarian. Adam4267 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's clear that UEFA thinks IRA chanting is sectarian - that's what the source says. Can't be bothered to check, but IIRC UEFA said there wasn't enough evidence for a fine, not that IRA chanting wasn't sectarian. People who disagree with you aren't irrelevant. He was talking about the case, so yes, he was talking about IRA chanting. That was the opinion of one judge, not the "Scottish judicial system", on a single case. And some thought it reflected an outdated law. Mattun0211 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

UEFA never opened disciplinary action so a fine was never possible. I never branded anyone irrelevant. You cannot attribute quotes to people when they never said it that is WP:ORAdam4267 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We're heading into straw man territory here. At least we're presumably agreed that there is no evidence that UEFA 'clearly' believes that IRA chanting isn't sectarian. You said what McCletchie thinks "is not relevant", i.e. that he is irrelevant. If you're trying to hide behind semantics, it's probably time to go to bed.Mattun0211 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good advice Mattun. It's 01:16 here and I need to be up by 17:00 for the Celtic match. Celtic legends v Man U legends, should be good. I will try to get some pictures. Adam4267 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this again. It clearly does not adhere to WP:OR and WP:OS. Adam4267 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Have undone, as there is no WP:OR as it is referenced with national newspaers. WP:OS appears to be some sort of admin tool, so not sure what that's about. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The group's 'support' of the IRA

None of the sources provided in support of this assertion (3,4,5) back it up.

My own knowledge of the group is that it may be pro-Irish Republican, but this does not necessarily mean it supports of the IRA.

And which IRA are we talking about here? If the Provisionals, they actually no longer exist, so they cannot support them now. I am aware of no evidence to suggest that they support dissident groups.

Therefore, it may be better to have the group described as pro-Irish Republican (if indeed a source can be found to prove this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.175.46 (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do - the Glasgow Herald says the group had stepped up its IRA chants. The Irish Independnet notes they add 'IRA' to songs. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That Glasgow Herald article doesn't mention the IRA at all. 87.194.31.160 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does - sixth paragraph "One group called The Green Brigade regularly express republican views at games and in recent weeks has stepped up pro-IRA chants." Mattun0211 (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the poppies

I took out some of this material as it was undue weight. As a clue for the future, if the only real-world sources to mention something are tabloids, it probably doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. --John (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree some of the sources used may not be the best. But to remove approximately 90% of a section that had been developed over time by several editors (including editors who had not contributed to the article before) and was stable ...... I think you should revert the section back.Monkeymanman (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. However the article is supposed to be about the Green Brigade, not this incident from a couple of years ago which doesn't seem to have had lasting notability. Having 60% of the article be about the one incident was definitely UNDUE. If more decent sources can be found for this article in general, that would be the way forward. --John (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The section was only approximately 30% longer than the background section and to this day the green brigade are still directly related to this one incident. Your edit has removed almost completely why the group made such a protest and why there was such a reaction from people indirectly involved with football. If there was another article such as "protests at football matches" then I suppose it would be justified to be cut / copied there, but there is not. We (the editors who have contributed) have discussed the use of certain sources before and the consensus was to include them. You have also selectively removed inclusions that were (in all respects) reliably sourced, bearing in mind that tabloids are not banned from use as a source on wikipedia. My request still stands. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE? --John (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Solution could be to summarise and transfer? Monkeymanman (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To a standalone article you mean? That struck me too and there are probably (just) enough sources to satisfy WP:N. It would be better than having this incident overwhelm this wee article. --John (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed ...

... that adam4267 has deleted this bit without recourse to the talk page and despite having a previou stopic ban as a result of these couple of sentences, amongst others. Have reinserted. 220.255.1.139 (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph in poppy protest section

I have removed this because I believe the majority of it has nothing to do with the article. Apart from the first sentence which although relevant I feel is not an encyclopedic statement as it seems to me that it is just fluff used in a newspaper article to try and sway the readers' opinion. Adam4267 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• And I have put it back again. See the current ANI thread. Word to the wise: Adam, you would do well, very well, to leave this article alone. Removing such a contentious section in this way is a foolish thing to do. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You could try leaving an explanation as to why and engage in the process of discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam that picture was discussed to death here. The outcome was that there was no direct proof that the green brigade were directly responsible for the banner. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note of the incident on User:GiantSnowman's talk page. Whatever his opinion on the matter is I will follow it. Adam4267 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GS said he saw no issue with using the picture in the article. I would suggest that if you feel a picture needs a written reliable source confirming that the picture is what it says it is then you should raise that at WT:FOOTY as that's not something that is normally doen there or even anywhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Adam4267 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GS didn't say that [[9]]. He said it's fine to release it here but it should be discussed on the talk page, (i.e. not the wiki footy forums). 220.255.1.174 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He said he saw no issue with the picture. It's use here should can be discussed if anyone feels there is a reason not to use it in the article. I can't see a reason not to use it. Adam4267 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, but given everything, it should be discussed here first. 220.255.1.108 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please discuss... Adam4267 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with it. But best to put these things on the talk page. 220.255.1.108 (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do what you want, all thats going to happen if I try to follow wikipedia´s guidelines of NOR and IRS is that your going to get everyone banned. Show one reliable source that states the Green Brigade were directly responsible for this banner (or the display in the other picture). That was the original sticking point in this debate. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Adam, there's a year's worth of edit warring here--claiming that BRD should still apply for something you were reprimanded for a year ago is disingenuous and does not help your case. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Content not contributors please. As far as I'm aware written sources are never required for pictures on football articles or indeed Wikipedia in general. You feel differently? Then take it up with Jimbo Wales, WT:FOOTY, anywhere but here really. Until you get that done however, stop trying to enforce non-existant and frankly ridiculous "rules" in an attempt to stop valid content contributions. Adam4267 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be discussed at WT:FOOTY or with Jimbo Wales???? You ran to GS and even he stated whether a picture or not should be used on the article is a matter for the talk page. What am I trying to stop or even enforce?? I am simply asking the question (and reminding you that there was a significant discussion many months ago about the same edits). From WP:NOR it states Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. What I am arguing is that there is no definitive proof that the Green Brigade were directly responsible for the banner´s / display. Its clear both from analysis and the sources that they were produced by Celtic fans, however to narrow that down to one supporter organisation is difficult without a reliable source to support it.Monkeymanman (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No blogs please

Bellacaledonia is a blog and can't ne used as a relibale source per WP:RS - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable" It's highly questionable that the globalmail is a reliable source, certainly not a "well-established news outlets" per WP:RS. The scrolling on the page doesn't even work properly. The only reference to the Green Brigade is that they sung "bye bye England". To deduce from that that they support Scottish Independence and want to replace the queen as head of state would be WP:OR.220.255.1.147 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Hunger Strike Solidarity Display

I shall be adding the following text as an interpretation of this source:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/2012612204354413741.html

It was reported in Al Jazeera that on Celtic's last game of the 2011-12 season the Green Brigade organised a display of solidarity with Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails. This included a banner reading "Dignity is More Precious than Food" alongside a flurry of Palestinian flags. A spokesman for the ultras groups is reported to have stated: " "We did this in solidarity, to raise awareness and because it's the right thing to do. We want Palestinians to know we are thinking about them and encourage Scottish civil society to look at the injustice in Palestine." Omar418 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

References

March 2013 and April 2013 demonstrations

Based on the following three articles: http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/220380-celtic-fans-protest-disproportionate-policing-of-green-brigade/ http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/13-fans-arrested-as-police-break-up-celtic-protest-1-2841535 http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/217910-thirteen-arrested-in-aggressive-protest-by-green-brigade-in-gallowgate/

I have produced the section below. It has already been reverted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BadSynergy once for being biased. I have used wording from the media outlets which contain neutral reporting and quotes from the police and the group. If there are any problems I would like them discussed here.

On 6 April 2013, the Green Brigade took part in a demonstration comprising 3000 Celtic supporters as part of Fans Against Criminalisation, a body comprised of the Green Brigade, the Celtic Trust, Celtic Supporters Association, the Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs and the Association of Irish Celtic Supporters Clubs. Police Scotland said they were "delighted" by the conduct of the protestors. The protest was organised after a previous protest was broken up by police on the 16th March. This initial protest had been called over supporters receiving bans and what was described as "harassment by the police". The Green Brigade announced on its website that it would be holding a "corteo to Celtic Park to raise awareness and show support for the growing list of Celtic supporters receiving and facing bans from both the Club and the PF. It is no secret the level of harrassment many fans receive at the hands of Strathclyde Police nor is Celtic PLCs complicity able to be ignored. As such there is an ever growing list of fans being denied their passion of following their team." Fans took to social media after the initial protest, posting pictures of mounted police and a group of supporters surrounded by police with batons being prevented from leaving the area. Celtic fans felt that the initial demonstration had been improperly policed and turned out to show their support for those demonstrators.

Hi Omar, going through your sources you neglect to mention a few things on the police side of things. For instance the first source says, 'The rally was held at George Square between noon and 1.30pm on Saturday. Police had initially cautioned attendees against forming a procession, an event for which they had not secured a permit. However, after the demonstration Police Scotland said it was "delighted" by the conduct of the protesters.' This ties in with the second source which states, 'About 200 officers were deployed to disperse the unauthorised march outside the Chrystal Bell pub in Glasgow’s Gallowgate about 1pm. You neglected to mention the fact that it was an unauthorised march, which would explain the arrests. For your last source we again have police explaining why arrests were made (unauthorised march) which receives no mention. Your edit is written in a way to show the Green Brigade's view of events and no other, therefore not NPOV. BadSynergy (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet you offer no NPOV yourself, no edits yourself, you simply revert the work. Vandalize much?

Below is a revised piece.

--Omar418 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On 6 April 2013, the Green Brigade took part in a demonstration comprising 3000 Celtic supporters as part of Fans Against Criminalisation, a body comprised of the Green Brigade, the Celtic Trust, Celtic Supporters Association, the Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs and the Association of Irish Celtic Supporters Clubs. Although the march to Celtic Park after the demonstration had not been granted permission, raising concerns about dispersal amongst police. After the event Police Scotland said they were "delighted" by the conduct of the protestors. The protest was organised after a previous march that had not received council permission was broken up by police on the 16th March. This initial protest had been called over supporters receiving bans and what was described as "harassment by the police". The Green Brigade announced on its website that it would be holding a "corteo to Celtic Park to raise awareness and show support for the growing list of Celtic supporters receiving and facing bans from both the Club and the PF. It is no secret the level of harrassment many fans receive at the hands of Strathclyde Police nor is Celtic PLCs complicity able to be ignored. As such there is an ever growing list of fans being denied their passion of following their team." Fans took to social media after the initial protest, posting pictures of mounted police and a group of supporters surrounded by police with batons being prevented from leaving the area. Celtic fans felt that the initial demonstration had been improperly policed and turned out to show their support for those demonstrators.

References

Headings

I tried to put the above piece under a new heading "Fans Against Criminalisation Protests" to give the page less of a muddied feel.

This didn't work as this immediately made a contents box appear as there is already a heading for "Poppy protest".

I decided to break up the rest of the page under headings of "Controversy and Reports of Disorder", "Palestinian Hunger Striek Solidarity Display" "125 Celtic Full Stadium Display" "fans Against Criminalisation Protests" and "Poppy protest". I have also moved "Poppy Protest" further up the page in order that the page reads chronologically.

i have also moved the sections regarding the views of David Hay and William Gallard (respectively of Celtic and UEFA) to the "controversy and reports of disorder" section as they are more relevant there than simply in the "Poppy protest" section.

If there are any objections can we please discuss before automatic revertings as this isn't really a massively controversial move. Its just a bit of editorial work to make the page look less cluttered.

--Omar418 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clear Vandalism on the page by unregistered addresses

As it says on the tin. There been a spate of deletions of information on this page in the last week.

Surely this is vandalism? --Omar418 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112134748/http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=3319 to http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=3319
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112134645/http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=3325 to http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=3325

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)