Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Home changing room

Is it true that at Ibrox in the home changing room, they have a picture of The Queen in there? The C of E (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to wee Rino Gattuso they do.[1]. It seems they took the piss out of him when he asked who the woman in the picture was. I wonder if the Queen has a picture of Ibrox in her bedroom. Jack forbes (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not any more, i was in there a couple of year ago (ibrox stadium changing room) and never saw anything, although, there would be nothing wrong with it would there.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Well, why would they take it down? The C of E (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its prob cause they redecorated, moved it somewhere else, i think.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

There were 2 pictures of the Queen, one above the dressing room door, tapped for luck by players making thier way onto the pitch, and a more recent one bought by Terry Butcher and other players, hanging above the coat hooks on the left hand wall.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

History

This history section of this article is ridiculously long, currently about 2/3 of the size of the History of Rangers F.C. and containing almost identical material. When we already have an sub-article covering the history at such length, all we need here is is a summary style paragraph or three. Anyone want to attempt this? Rockpocket 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would volunteer, how do you feel about the sectarianism section with regards to the fact that there is already a 'sectarianism in glasgow' article. This could be reduced vastly and put what we remove onto an old firm and sectarianism section on that article, leaving a summary paragraph like the celtic fc page.(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

I think that too could do with a serious prune. Rockpocket 00:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'The club's most distinct rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888). Rangers came to be identified with the Scottish Protestant community.'

This bit could be left as it gives a good summary with the rest moved to the 'sectarianism in glasgow page, that would be my proposal.(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest perhaps a little more about the club's sectarian problems themselves might be appropriate, but if that is your concern you could start another section to discuss this. I anticipate reducing the history section would be less controversial and we don't need to conflate the two discussions. Rockpocket 04:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh suppose so but if we remove a lot of the history the page will be overburdened (over weight) on the fact of sectarianism. I would only think that it would be best to remove some of that section at the same time to give balance.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

It should be summarised to only inclue brief detaisl about early history, cup winner cup, 9 ina row, post advcoaat reign the main artilce cover the rest. the secterism section is geting dealt iwth now, and might be rmoved and moved to the main article soon--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I took out some of the major points, some could be expanded i suppose bu they are probably covered to greater degrees elsewhere;

Early Years

The four founders of Rangers - brothers Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath - met in 1872 and named their team after an English rugby club upon seeing the name in a book. The official founding of Rangers is recognised as taking place in 1873, when the club held its first annual meeting and staff were elected. The 1890–91 season saw the inception of the Scottish Football League, and Rangers were one of ten original members. After finishing equal-top with Dumbarton a play-off was held at Cathkin Park to decide who would be champions. The match finished 2–2 and the title was shared for the only time in its history, the first of Rangers' world record 52 championships.

European and Domestic Sucess

In 1961 Rangers became the first British team to reach a European final when they contested the Cup Winners' Cup final against Italian side Fiorentina, they lost 4–1 on aggregate. The 1971 Ibrox disaster overshadowed what happened on the pitch to a large extent in the early 1970s where 66 people died due to a stairwell collapsing.

In 1972, Rangers defeated Dynamo Moscow to win the Cup Winner's Cup, their first and only European trophy to date.

In the late 1970’s manager Jock Wallace led rangers to two trebles in 3 years. Every year from 1988–89 until the 1996–97 season, Rangers won the league title. This 9 in a row achievement meant that they equaled Celtic's record. Rangers reached their fourth European final in 2009, losing out to Zenit st petersberg. (Monkeymanman (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Apart from commenting on daft things does anybody think that this would be ok to replace the history section at some point(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

I think the post 9 a row shoudl be expand a bit "Rangers reached their fourth European final in 2009, losing out to Zenit st petersberg. " this bit a think should be it own section and expand btw it wasnt 2009 they reach uefa final it was 2008

This is how i think it should be laid out

===Early Year===
The four founders of Rangers - brothers Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath - met in 1872 and named their team after an English rugby club upon seeing the name in a book.  The official founding of Rangers is recognised as taking place in 1873, when the club held its first annual meeting and staff were elected.  The 1890–91 season saw the inception of the Scottish Football League, and Rangers were one of ten original members.  After finishing equal-top with Dumbarton a play-off was held at Cathkin Park to decide who would be champions. The match finished 2–2 and the title was shared for the only time in its history, the first of Rangers' world record 52 championships.  

===Eurpeon and Domestic success===
In 1961 Rangers became the first British team to reach a European final when they contested the Cup Winners' Cup final against Italian side Fiorentina, they lost 4–1 on aggregate.  The 1971 Ibrox disaster overshadowed what happened on the pitch to a large extent in the early 1970s where 66 people died due to a stairwell collapsing.  

In 1972, Rangers defeated Dynamo Moscow to win the Cup Winner's Cup, their first and only European trophy to date.  

In the late 1970’s manager Jock Wallace led rangers to two trebles in 3 years.  

Every year from 1988–89 until the 1996–97 season, Rangers won the league title. 

===Post 9-in-a-row===
Rangers reached their fourth European final in 2009, losing out to Zenit st petersberg. <-- this bit expand to meantion advocaat i think first forgeign manager, then mcliesh a little, then le guen and finally walter smith return

--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh looks ok could expand / blend the last section into the stuff from recent seasons. Would like to wait and see what will be done about the sectarianism section tho because the page will be very unbalanced with that if we take out the majority of the history section at the top.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Forget about that section for now jsut work on that one, as for what happening with it, it goign to get summarised and the only main icdents reported so will go from 50 od dliens ot about 5-7 and the rest will go to the secterism pages as firstly ther eis no guideliens regardless of what hippo says, secondly main article are that something splitting out a large section to new article and summairse the article content to a smaller amount and now we have reached that limit so it need ot be summarised and split out--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK everything else aside, you could add in 98/99 and in 02/03 rangers won domestic trebles, and then blend into the current manager section. I suppose that would be a major points summary. What you think?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Unident

Give me in the format i used above so i can see how it look on the article change what you think should change and add what you think shoudl eb added and i will give my opinion i do not liek to comment on sokething befor ei know how it will be--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

===Early Year===

The four founders of Rangers - brothers Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath - met in 1872 and named their team after an English rugby club upon seeing the name in a book.  The official founding of Rangers is recognised as taking place in 1873, when the club held its first annual meeting and staff were elected.  The 1890–91 season saw the inception of the Scottish Football League, and Rangers were one of ten original members.  After finishing equal-top with Dumbarton a play-off was held at Cathkin Park to decide who would be champions. The match finished 2–2 and the title was shared for the only time in its history, the first of Rangers' world record 52 championships.  

===Eurpeon and Domestic success===

In 1961 Rangers became the first British team to reach a European final when they contested the Cup Winners' Cup final against Italian side Fiorentina, they lost 4–1 on aggregate.  The 1971 Ibrox disaster overshadowed what happened on the pitch to a large extent in the early 1970s where 66 people died due to a stairwell collapsing.  
In 1972, Rangers defeated Dynamo Moscow to win the Cup Winner's Cup, their first and only European trophy to date.  
In the late 1970’s manager Jock Wallace led rangers to two trebles in 3 years.  
Every year from 1988–89 until the 1996–97 season, Rangers won the league title

===Post 9-in-a-row===

Rangers reached their fourth European final in 2008, losing out to Zenit st petersberg.  Dick Advocaat became rangers first foreign manager in 1998 winning 5 out of 6 domestic trophies in his first 2 seasons.  He also spearheaded the building of Murray Park - a £14m training complex at Auchenhowie.  After Advocatt took up a director of football position in 2001 alex mcleish was appointed.  Mcleish also won 5 out of the 6 domestic trophies that were available (when he took control the league was virtualy over).  In season 2005-2006 the club became the first scottish side to qualify from the champions league group stage.  Mcleish was replaced with Paul Le Guen at the end of that season.  Le Guens tenure was short lived having fallen out of favour with fans, personel and directors and resigned by mutual agreement in January 2007.

Seems fine to me--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

the bit about uefa cup could be left out of this as it would be mentioned in walter smiths return(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Sectarianism section

AndrewC, I didn't say there were specific guidelines on football articles and sectarianism. I said there are wikipedia-wide guidelines and policies, particularly WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV, which address the issue of decinding what to include in articles. Consensus on this article has been to include the section as it is. If you want to change that, you will need to achieve a new consensus for any text you propose. --hippo43 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which i plan to do, as other polocies states that a no one section so over power the article ie like the history section jsut hence why i am for summarise it big style, but the secterism section is now overly big, i agree that there a lot of incident and it durely needs to be reported but when you have after the history clean up a section taking up 1/4 of the article then you have problems, i think it time to summarise it to main points of say 5-6 lines then the rest moved ot th secterism article on section about rangers themself with all the incdeints that are here and will happen in the fuutre be there. --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo have i ever really opposed having the section and the incdents in the articles? or have i generally agreed to have them there because as fan myself i hate it, i am not wanting to shorten teh section for the reason other fans do to censor it from other views i want ot bring it in line wiht guigeliesn which is to summairsed logn sections of articles--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you have proposals for new text, please bring them here first. I can't see how we will ever agree to condense the current material to the size you suggest, or how to accurately summarise the situation, but I'm open to ideas. --hippo43 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is where i fail my english is poor so if someone is able to rewrite teh section ot summarise the main points which i think i can easily pick out and then we can moved everything here to the secterism article. Trust me i DO NOT WANT TO CENSOR it, i want it to come into line with size issues of sections as per MOS maybe 4-5 liens would be a bit short we could probally go to as much as 15 lines for summiseing but 40-50 lines jsut now is out of context witht he rest of the article sections but i have ot agree it warrents it. As for new text nothing that hasnt been talked about--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 02:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a first go. References have to be resolved. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ifc we shorten the efforts part down to what is down below about 5-6 lines and shorten the acutally events that have happends to about 8-10 lines then it will be back within guideliens and i will agree to it :) although i am flexible on size but not to the way it is now it to large for one section--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangers and sectarianism (proposed by Nedao)

Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. Until Graeme Souness signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston, in 1989, Rangers were said by him to have had an "unwritten policy"[33] of not signing any player who was Catholic.[34] In 1999, Rangers' vice-chairman Donald Findlay was forced to resign after he was filmed singing sectarian songs[37] (The Billy Boys) at an event organised by a Rangers Supporters Club.

On 12 April 2006, UEFA investigation and fined Rangers supporters for sectarian song singing at both legs of their UEFA Champions League tie against Villareal. Despite measures implemented to reduce this problem, UEFA again fined Rangers (12,000 Euros) after some Rangers fans were filmed making sectarian chants and clashed with riot police during their defeat by Osasuna in the UEFA Cup in 2007.[41][42] Osasuna were fined 45,000 Euros for their failings in organising the match and for their own supporters' behaviour. The Rangers Supporters Association secretary indicated his belief that a small minority of fans were to blame, suggesting "it doesn't matter how often they are told [to stop sectarian chanting], some people will just not listen."[43]

In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song, containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song, and warned they could be arrested for it.[44] Rangers' chief executive Martin Bain also warned fans they could be arrested for singing the song, but would not condemn the chanting.[45][46][47] He also said "Clearly some supporters feel aggrieved that a song they believe to be no more than a tit-for-tat 'wind up' of Celtic supporters should be singled out in this way and merit the attention of police, governments and anti-racist organisations".[48] The song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card[49] and described as "vile, vicious and racist" by Celtic chairman John Reid[50] and complaints prompted Irish diplomats to contact the Scottish government.[51] The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying : "Racism is not a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".[52]

In November 2008, a fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine song during a game on 9 November against Kilmarnock.[53] In February 2009, sectarian chanting by some Rangers fans during an Old Firm match at Celtic Park was reported to the SPL by the match delegate, again relating to the chanting of the Famine Song.[54][55] In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at Rangers games, from both home and opposition fans.[68]

Rangers' efforts to eliminate sectarianism (propsed by Nedao)

Due to an ongoing problem with sectarianism and racism, Rangers have taken measures to combat these. These include in August 2003 'Pride Over Prejudice' campaign to promote social inclusion. The club's 'Follow With Pride' campaign was launched in 2007 to improve the club's image and build on previous anti-racist, anti-sectarian campaigns.[66][67] Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the

club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed]

Nedao that is the most pathetic attempt to condense something i have ever seen. Remember anything removed would be reposted on another more suitable page (before you say i am censoring it)(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest.(you wont agree nedao to pre-empt your response)

Rangers and sectarianism (proposed by Monkeymanman)

The club's most distinct rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888). Rangers came to be identified with the Scottish Protestant community. Rangers have been fined by uefa on two occasions for innaproprite sectarian chanting at european games. In 2006 following an investigation into both champions league games against villareal and the 2007 uefa cup matches against osasuna. In November 2008, a fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine song during a game on 9 November against Kilmarnock. Both the club and its fans are disparagingly called Huns by some fans of other teams.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] The anti-sectarian charity Nil By Mouth considers "Huns" to be a sectarian insult.[63]

Rangers' efforts to eliminate sectarianism (proposed by Monkeymanman)

In recent times, both Rangers and Celtic have taken measures to combat sectarianism. Working alongside the Scottish Parliament, church groups, pressure groups such as Nil by Mouth, schools and community organisations. The club's 'Follow With Pride' campaign was launched in 2007 to improve the club's image and build on previous anti-racist, anti-sectarian campaigns.[66][67] Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed] In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at Rangers games, from both home and opposition fans.[68]

In September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.[70] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed if the above is used then i agree that this would be th best summary maybe wiht some tweaks and the old stuff moved the other article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Nedao's proposal is a lot closer to the mark but both have real weaknesses. I'd prefer to see more commentary by various reliable sources about the nature/history/extent of Rangers' sectarian problem, rather than just a list of incidents. At the moment, neither proposal is actually a summary, just a shortened list of examples. I also wouldn't be ok with leaving out the club's attempt to cash in on their sectarian element by selling an orange strip. There is nothing to stop other editors (myself included) re-adding some of the incidents which have been taken out.

AndrewC, what policies or guidelines are you referring to about the size of sections? I haven't been able to find something specific, so I'm not sure what policy you mean. If the history section si trimmed down appropriately, the article as a whole will be well within the limits suggested by WP:SIZE, so I don't really see a problem on the grounds of size.

There is, however, a real problem with moving this stuff to the article suggested (Sectarianism in Glasgow), as this material is about the same length as the whole of that other article! It would become an article dominated by Rangers-related sectarianism. This isn't actually a bunch of incidents relating to 'Sectarianism in Glasgow' - it's a bunch of incidents relating to 'Sectarianism linked to Rangers Football Club'. (For example, how does Rangers fans' sectarian behaviour in Pamplona belong in an article about sectarianism in Glasgow?) Creating, and linking to, a main article for Rangers-related sectarianism would, I guess, not be welcomed by many editors, and would apparently be an unacceptable POV fork, per WP:NPOV.

Moreover, the most significant issue, so far avoided here, is Rangers historic policy/decision/whatever not to employ Catholics. It is an obviously contentious area, but one which received considerable coverage in reliable sources since well before Maurice Johnston showed up. I haven't had time to write up a well-researched passage on it, but it would have to go in as soon as I can sort something out - for Wikipedia to have nothing on this is a serious shortcoming. This would seriously disrupt the proposed solutions here. Moreover, moving such an account to the 'Sectarianism in Glasgow' article would exacerbate the problem there.

For me, two possible solutions are to leave this stuff here, or to start a new article (something like 'Sectarianism related to Rangers Football Club'), and include a summary of that article, with a 'Main article' link, in the Rangers FC article. --hippo43 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am only agreeing on the size of the sectiosn not content, i have not read the content of either section from peadro or monkeyman but i would probally suspect monkeyman is more censored but i aint readin eht conetn jsut now i want to agree ont eh amoutn for sumarise section first, i have already said to makea new main article for it and summaise here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me here, Andrew - I don't see how we can agree on how much should be included if we can't broadly agree on what should be included. Can you point to any guidelines or policies you are referring to when you talk about the size of the section? --hippo43 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point i will dig out he policy on article summaries ie when a section of article is to large ti shoudl be spluit out into it own article and summarised on teh main article, what the content that is in teh section does nto matter jsut now we can agree on what it should be later, if we agree that monkeyman amount is fine then we work the current section to be summarised to that amount if we think it to short then we make it bigger until we think we have a amoutn for the seciton that be fine for guideliens however since i am still to give the guideliesn i i will press the matter jsut now until i provide it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. We should not decide on some hypothetical size and then shape the content to fit it. Unless we can reach consensus on what is important to include, we can't decide how much prominence to give it in the article. The size of a section depends on its importance, so if we can't agree on how important the section is, we can't agree on its size in advance. In this article, for example, the history section will be longer than the section on racing cars, because there's more worth saying in the history section. --hippo43 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In that context yes, but is the secterism sectiom more imprtant than the history?? i say it is as important, but the problem is a lot of what there is important but unless we agree to summairise it a lot to remove uneccessary material that can be foudn on serperate article then you are defeatign the porpuse of summaisng. i had to go to helpdesk but here is the guideliens it also meantion size but that isnt improtant here as the aritlce size is fine. Short summary--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

More important than the history? Who knows. Maybe it's more relevant to the significance of the club than a tedious list of dates and results. Anyhow, it seems to me that spinning out the sectarianism section is an obvious POV fork - 'let's keep all the nice stuff about the club's successes here and stuff all that unpleasant sectarianism business in another article'. As far as I can tell, according to the guidelines, POV forks are not acceptable. --hippo43 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident

I have not said that, i have said keep it here but summairsed, you seem to think i want o censor i dnt i want it included but summairsed and for the section ot have it own article because it getting ot large for the entire article, that is once the history is usmmairsed, you dnt seem to oppose that but you do this why??? you seem to have POV as well that you want it on the page to show how bad hte clbu is whihc i agreee but not if it means the section out does the rest of the article it needs ot be summaised and you seem to be opposing it and if oyu this iwll have to go to medaition--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you said anything. I don't understand what you just wrote - you said I have POV because you think I want to show how bad the club is, but then you said you agree?? So if you want to include something it's ok, because you've said you are a Rangers fan, but if I want to include the same stuff I am pushing a particular POV? I'm confused.

I have no objection personally to an accurate summary here and a new article covering Rangers and sectarianism. However, there are a couple of problems with that - first, there has not yet been any proposal which actually summarises the situation. There have been proposals made which shorten the list of incidents reported but do not sum up the situation in any meaninful way for the uninitiated reader. I will try to come up with something appropriate but I can't imagine it will go down too well with certain editors here.

Second, I understood that the original idea was to move this stuff into the 'Sectarianism in Glasgow' article. That, to me, is an obvious attempt at a whitewash - making all the Rangers sectarian stuff part of a bigger 'Old Firm' problem, and implying that it is symptomatic of a wider malaise affecting Glasgow. In particular, this was proposed by Monkeymanman, whose agenda here and in the Celtic FC article has been clear - to paint Celtic in a bad light and remove unflattering coverage of Rangers. This is the same as the earlier idea of adding the same generic statement on sectarianism to this artcle and the Celtic FC article. Moving material out like this seems to me to fit the definition of a POV fork.

Much of the sectarian behaviour of the club's fans has taken place outside Glasgow, by fans who are not all from Glasgow. Further, the sectarian actions of the club itself (not singing catholics, selling an orange strip, failing to condemn the Famine Song etc) obviously merit coverage here, in the article about the club itself. --hippo43 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that example i gave was just an example it could be tweeked. Remember that it was not myself or andrew that wanted to shorten the article an admin came on here saying that it was WAY too long and needed cutting down. If we cut out the history sections then the page will be way over burdened by sectarianism and unbalanced. My idea of moving things removed onto another page was an IDEA, it would prob be better suited to the 'old firm' article under a heading of 'the old firm and sectarianism' which already exists i beleive. This would be more appropriate than sectarianism in glasgow or a separate article as a separate article would just increase the perception about biase because a similar one about celtic fc would be opposed. This would not be shifting blame onto celtic but would reduce the idea of biase. We go to arbitration or mediation about this because you dont want anything to do with reducing the article size, but are simply out to make rangers look bad. I did not say anything about removing incidents involving uefa onto a separate page, these out of all the things in this section deserve to be there more than any other(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).

Apogolise then i misunderstood i thought you way sayign someting else but i have got th wrong end of the stick. I am unlikely to disagree with what you say for summarise version and at the end of the day if there consesus on it being ok it can be added even if there objection. i never said it had to go to secterism in glasgow article but at the time that was only plac ei could hink to put all the otehr information but you made a good suggestion secterism involving rangers footbal club or sometihn similar so there be two main article of the section--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the incdents coudl remains but it coudl be summairese da lot and then explanded on a new article so not censoring here but shorten to cover the main point and main article cover the tory more--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Monkey, no more bullshit. 'An admin' did not 'come on here' saying any such thing. Rockpocket, who has been a regular contributor here in the past, commented on the HISTORY section, and YOU suggested to him that the sectarianism section, which you dislike so much, should be shortened, and he agreed. You had previously suggested that the section be reduced and/or removed but had tried to add material to a similar section in the Celtic FC article. Why the inconsistency, I wonder?

The amount of material in this section may well be too much for one section here, but the same argument would apply at these other, smaller articles - it would dominate them to an even greater extent.

I strongly oppose moving this material to the article on the Old Firm. This stuff is not about the Old Firm rivalry, it is about sectarian behaviour by Rangers and its fans, much of it unrelated to Celtic. If your belief that articles about football clubs should stick to footballing matters had any merit, it would need to be applied to the Old Firm article (which is about two football clubs, after all) as well as here. The chanting of fans in Spain (or abusing players from Hamilton/Kilmarnock/wherever, or selling an orange strip, or not signing catholics, or directors singing sectarian songs ...) has little to do with the specific Rangers-Celtic rivalry. In fact, it would be easy to make the case that Rangers' particularly fierce rivalry with Celtic is merely one part of the sectarian aspect of Rangers, and that the 'Old Firm' article should really be one section in a 'Rangers sectarianism' article. --hippo43 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make the point that an admin is an editor like the rest of us when discussing article content, and in no way do they have a stronger voice than any other contributer. Jack forbes (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct a admin is onyl a editor and there opinions are as welcomed as any but certainly in no mroe power than us, the only ones with that are arbcom. Hippo was you reply to me or monkey as i have never said the football clubs should stick to football as if that wa sthe case the thing about teh car thingy should go, i am guessing your reply was to monkeyman as it does not appear to answer anything i said as i agree with what you said just think the section is now needing to go to it own article and it be summairsed here in some way--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My last post above was to Monkey. --hippo43 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is already a section on the 'old firm' page about sectarianism made up of about 90% of rangers related content and all of it is a repost of the items already posted here (up to a point). So what diff would it make, i have never seen you on that page arguing that it makes celtic fans look bad, and you would never agree (if it was argued) to have anything new relating to celtic fans posted onto it. I suggested that the sectarianism section should be cropped because it would over power the whole article if we reduce the size of the history section, lets get some outside help for this because you (HIPPO) are going to argue on and on and on about keeping that section over poweringly big if we reduce the size of the history.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

unident

both section will be reduced as they both are breaking summary the histroy is withotu doubt breaking it and we have to agree on a new cotnet above that, teh secterism section need ot at the very least half--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be hard to get consensus on this Andrew. Unless hippo writes something you agree with, I think it's unlikely. I'd go along with what you and hippo agree. No disrespect, but if Monkey writes it, it will make the Rangers support sound like the girl guides. I would be strongly resistant to incorporating most of the material in the Sectarianism in Glasgow. My view is that Rangers, or even the Old Firm if you like, are not the main contributors to Sectarianism in Glasgow. Maybe a Rangers Fans Inappropriate Behaviour wiki page my be an idea? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no ojections ot what the new article is called but i think either it rangers article or it a secterism article in general with rangers stuff included. As for me and hippo agreeing it iwll take awhile until hippo is happy important details arent removed which i argee with and i am happy it summairsed ot smaller maount that does not overcrowd the section or article. i really wish i wasnt dsylexic and ic ould writ ebetter as i could probally do it myself as i know myself what i am trying to achive and what is important and should stay--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to summise and keep the poitns would be bullet points? so each of the improtant things are bullet point but short zand to the point, then above it have a brief descritpion of the secterism in rangers and then it says and these are lsit of incidents, same for efforts to eridcat it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

i find it hard to believe that people think what i wrote as an example does not show enough examples of sectarianism. Still think the moved points would be better on the 'old firm' article as it already has a section devoted to it, a knew article would just stir the debate of biase further.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Andrew, I don't think bullet points are a good idea - prose is preferred to bullet points, somewhere in the guidelines.

Monkey, what debate about bias are you referring to? As far as I can see, you are the only one alleging biased editing by others (including myself and Nedao). You talked about adding material to the Celtic FC article to expand the sectarianism section there, but offered no specific examples backed by reliable sources. You haven't made any coherent objections to material currently included here, apart from allegations of point-scoring by some editors. I really don't know what you're talking about. --hippo43 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know bullet points are not the perferred way but as i say it might be a way forward but doesnt meean we couldnt summairse it in prose i jsut think ti be harder--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, 'summarising' means using a few sentences of prose to explain the situation, without using lists of examples. This is why I think this is so difficult. For example, one editor might like to summarise the situation by saying "Rangers have a small problem with a minority of their support sometimes behaving in a sectarian way" others might prefer "Throughout their history, and to the present day, the club has consistently acted in an anti-catholic manner and has tolerated, even encouraged, sectarian behaviour among their support." I don't know how best to resolve this problem, but am open to suggestions. --hippo43 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the second one best summarise as the first is saying is just a few fans that are the problem which is not the case,the second says the problems lie deep within the club and its fan base which is much mroe accurate, i think the best solution to solve this would be to create a sub test page on this talk page to sit and twiddle witht eh current section and bash ideas back and forwards on what should be included then think of way to summarise it like above in your example then think what references would suit the summary and keep going until we have shorten teh entire section to means that both does not censor but still gives a true refelection but is also summairsed downa lot. Do you think that be way forward? Talk:Rangers F.C./Secterism test pageI agree this will be bloody hard to do even harder for me with my writing diffuculties. i also think we should put a current temporary stop to anything new added but keep it for later as this would mean we have to think about how to include it in the shroten version which would cause more problems. So all new things are collect on the test page for inclusion once we have finsed. how does that sound?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The bias that i am referring to would be that if you created an article titled 'rangers and sectarianism' then you would need to have a 'celtic and sectarianism' page aswell to level it up. But seeing as you would not want that then that would be the bias which would stir up even further arguments. That was all.(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I did have specific examples with reliable sources but you were not interested in adding anything new unless it showed celtic fans being the victem. And claimed that because i did not add anything showing celtic fans being the victem aswell i did not have a voice on that article(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I am not saying that none of it should be on here but would you not agree it would be over weight if we removed the history sections.(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Monkey, why would you have to 'level it up' by having a corresponding page about Celtic? What on earth would go in it?? Can you seriously not separate Celtic and Rangers in your thinking? Would you also have to have a similar article about Barcelona? Panathinaikos? St Johnstone? Of course not, because there is barely any coverage of a sectarian problem, in reliable sources, at any of those clubs.

I can't remember any specific examples relating to Celtic and sectarianism that you suggested, but if you have any, particularly with references, please bring them up at that page. I would definitely be open to discussing them. If you don't, I can only assume you don't have any. --hippo43 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, i showed you at the time but you were not interested. Are you not aware of evidence of celtic supporters acting innapropriately singing sectarien songs and acting in a sectarian manner? Do you not see the argument that would be brought up if you have a separate page about rangers and sectarianism? Why is the old firm article full of sectarianism then?(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

You brought up a few examples of Celtic fans singing IRA-related songs, which is arguably sectarian. You did not offer anything which involved the club itself, or provide anything from reliable sources which suggested a widespread problem among Celtic's support. In no way did the material you tried to add justify a significant section in the Celtic FC article, let alone a separate article. If you have anything if that kind, please bring it up there. If you honestly can't see the difference betwen the two situations, and the source material involved, I don't think I can help you.

Of course I see the argument that would be made by some, as I pointed out above. That argument, however, is nonsense. The Old Firm article does have a lot of info on sectarianism in it; for very good reasons, virtually none of it is about sectarian behaviour by Celtic or Celtic fans. It is full of stuff about sectarianism largely because of the sectarianism shown by Rangers and their fans. --hippo43 (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We are weaving off course here, but as a last point to make about that, singing about the IRA, they are the irish republican army, have murdered thousands of british troops and civilians, and celtic fans have sung their praise continually. Here is the definition 'Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.'(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC))