Enkayaitch

Koncorde is mistaken in his assertion that there are reliable sources further on. There is only ONE source, and it is a blog. At his site, he talks of inclusivity. This is not a quality to override all others. For example you would not include someone who thinks the Earth is flat. There is, in other words, a limit to 'inclusion'. Now this section of the Liverpool v Man Utd rivalry is a perfect example of biased behaviour. UEFA is the GOVERNING BODY of all European football. Totalsportteck is a blog. The article cited is poorly constructed, with incomplete sentences, confusion over which honour is which, and cherry picking of International Titles. One cannot leave out the European Super Cup, while including the Intercontinental Cup.This is the ONLY site which has managed to give United a lead in 'major trophies'.It is, in other words, a completely bogus set of statistics. The concept of Major Trophies has, for over 50 years,been understood throughout the football world, to be the 3 domestic trophies, and the 3, later combined to 2, European trophies. Under that system, Liverpool still lead by 1. If International Titles are included, then Liverpool still lead by 1. But, in no serious, world renowned site,( UEFA and FIFA for example) is the COMMUNITY SHIELD included as a major trophy. There are many reasons. 1. It was often shared. 2. It is a pre season friendly- admittedly between Champions and Cup Winners. 3. In the case of a Double, another team is drafted in. In 1961, for example, when Spurs completed the previously declared 'impossible' First Modern Double, an England XI was created.

Earlier on, I mentioned biased behaviour. As far as I am aware, Manchester United are the only club who systematically use bias to promote their own growth. Their Stadium uses the phrase ' European Capital of Trophies'. Now, I will give the benefit of doubt in saying I hope they mean A capital of trophies. But the title really suggests they are the club with the MOST TROPHIES. So below is the truth about International Trophies ( for they are what matter regarding such a claim)

International Titles

Barcelona 20 Real Madrid 19 AC Milan 18 Juventus 12 Bayern Munich 11 Liverpool 11 Ajax 10 7 Inter Milan 9 Valencia 8 Man Utd 7 Porto 7 So, very much not THE capital then. (These statistics can be found on the Wikipedia pages for each club, though it is quickest to use the Italian Wiki pages for each club and look at the helpful graphic under the main summary on the right) Enkayaitch (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lad, I'm sorry but none of this is true. For starters, where is this "Definition of major trophies that has stood for 50 years"? There is no official definition for a 'major' trophy and many people count them differently, hence they are not often used as a measure of club success. If you want to make such outlandish claims, please provide sources to confirm this. Honours are on the other hand far more easily defined, and United have more honours in any case. Secondly, the Community Shield, like all other domestic super cups, is in no way, shape or form a friendly match. it is an official competitive fixture recognised by the FA as a national super cup. to say its a friendly is plain ignorance at best. thirdly, those FIFA anf UEFA sources hold no weight. the FIFA source is from their poorly edited and maintained website, and its content is completely inconsistent on a club-by-club basis. for instance, it includes the community shield equivalent of other countries such as france and holland as "major honours" but does not do so for english teams. it includes regional trophies for the likes of Al-Ahly and Brazilian teams when it doesnt for many other clubs. this makes the source completely unreliable. UEFA's is little better, as they promote bias to their own competitions, excluding the club world cup entirely as an honour as it isnt under their jurisdiction and not recognising Inter Cities Fairs Cup wins for the same reasons. hence the bias means it isnt suitable either.

I dont know what to say about the last Manchester United capital of trophies comment. It is from a year where United won 4 honours and Liverpool won 0 (2008) so as football fans do they boasted about it. There is no "systematic bias" here at all, as thats a pretty laughable claim at best. Davefelmer (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Peejay questions whether UEFA are the authority to check with regarding European Footbal Clubs like Liverpool and Man Utd.....yes, I know...

The wikieditor Peejay replied to one of our many attempts to reassert the truth of the historical Man Utd v Liverpool trophy haul with the question 'Dude, who says UEFA are the authority on this'.

Dear Peejay,

UEFA are the -I will have to capitalise this, sorry- GOVERNING BODY OF ALL EUROPEAN FOOTBALL.This makes them singularly the perfect 'authority on this'.

The ONLY 'dispute'- generating site is Totalsporteck. This is a BLOG and the chosen article and table contains so many errors- as well as appalling use of English-that I am astonished it is allowed as a reference. No other site has United ahead on Major Trophies. For decades, major trophies were considered to be the 3 domestic trophies , and the 3 European trophies- the Champs Lge, Cup winners' Cup,and UEFA/Europa Cup/League. On that count, Liverpool are STILL ahead-despite the tremendous comeback by United over the last 25 years- by 41-40. But even with the inclusion of extra International Titles, Intercontinental, World Club Cup, European Super Cup, Liverpool STILL lead 44-43.

Ive explained above why the sources arent suitable. There is no official definition for a "major trophy" and if you believe there is then please submit a source posting the guidelines for such. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources that reflect facts, the fact is the sources show United have more honours but there is a split as to who has more "major honours" hence that is reflected. Davefelmer (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Enkayaitch, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Enkayaitch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fifty years of Major Trophies definition

Lad,Dude, I will have to seek out all the WRITTEN IN BOOK FORM sources to show as reference-for there was a time before digital information- to prove my assertion on Major trophies.They will have to be sourced as photos. And thankyou for calling a 59 year-old a 'lad'. I hope it was affectionate, and not condescending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But here's a tester, You DO AGREE on THE INTERNATIONAL TITLES list as presented on Italian Wikipedia. So we ALL agree that LIVERPOOL lead 11 to 7 in this area. So,that's progress, eh? Lad Enkayaitch (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Mate, go ahead. Just remember, a random mention of "major" trophies and how much a club has doesnt mean anything as countless sources reference different counts. You have to find a legit and official source that gives a historical definition of a "major" trophy. As I and others here have done research on the matter before and never found anything, I wish you good luck. And yes, nobody disputed that Liverpool lead 11-7 in international honours, just as United lead 56-49 in domestic honours. Davefelmer (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Really, 'None of this is true'? Even, the observation on the blog used for Source 36

Dear Davefelmer, Your opening statement saying 'NONE of this is true' needs explaining. Are you saying you disagree with my summation of Source 36? If you are, then we may as well say literally ANYTHING. The source is so inaccurate and cherry picked. Wikipedia discussions are meant to be considered and civil. To not acknowledge ANY part of an observation is literally an exercise in blinkered contrariness. And this source is the only 'disputing source'. If removed it renders the sentence before it incorrect. Enkayaitch (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please dont be hypocritical. If you want to talk cherry picking, view the FIFA website source you wanted to introduce, which cherry picks different trophies for different clubs with no clear standard or criteria on a club-by-club basis. I am not being anything other than civil and trying to inform you of the process of getting accurate sources and the reasons sources are referenced as they are. Davefelmer (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Davefelmer, but it is not hypocritical to suggest the Community Shield was never a Major Trophy

Dear Davefelmer, Many thanks your reply. It is well argued, up to a point. Yes, there is no Official list of major trophies, though the two governing bodies of the sport have suggested such-judging the merits of domestic charity matches and their history-eg was it shared, pre-season, often using another stand-in team etc. And bot governing bodies of the sport have Liverpool ahead. But you do acknowledge the concept of 'Major Trophies'. That is, there has always been a perception of what qualifies as a Major Trophy. So it is worth mentioning in a football rivalry section that Liverpool lead in so-called major trophies. My assertion that, for 50 years, the Major Trophies were considered to be the 3 domestic, and 3 European-later 2-trophies, is TRUE. I have searched out many books on the matter,from the 70's,80's and 90's. None even MENTION the Comm Shield. It is a recent phenomenon. I will have to research how to present these as photos for you to peruse. You have also mentioned that my assertion that there is systematic bias is paranoid. I can totally understand your view. It sounds mad doesn't it. And I sense you have an underlying sense of fairness about you. So I draw your attention to the Doubles and Trebles section in the Manchester United and Liverool pages(if you have the time- I'm sorry but it is an obsession of mine). You will see that both are now listed correctly. BUT THIS WAS BECAUSE SOME KIND PERSON HAD TO AMEND THE LIST. To see what was originally in the list you can see a copy on the SPANISH Wikipedia page for United. And there, you will see, still preserved, the attempt to swell the Doubles and Trebles section, by extracting a few doubles from the Treble.And not even completely ( for one could extract 3 doubles-idiots). And yet,on the Liverpool site (on the Spanish page), there was no attempt at such shenanigens. And they could have extracted SIX doubles from their TWO Trebles. But they didn't. But United's supporter DID. So, after 50 years(you will have to trust me until I show the photos) the Charity Shield was not even mentioned in lists of trophies for clubs. So, I hope you can see how the world looks to me now. For most of my life the concept of Major Trophies was simply, the 6, later 5. Once that can be established, we come back to the fact that, even if International Titles are included, Liverpool lead,and that source 36-a blog and the only one to dispute their lead is taking out random trophies. Your assertion on the FIFA site is they have cherry picked what trophy? I forget. I look forward to your thoughts.Enkayaitch (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The two governing bodies have never suggested the concept of "major trophies". The lists on the FIFA website do count them but what they included varies on a club-by-club basis. some have their community shield equivalents counted, others dont. some have regional honours listed, some dont. with no clear standard for what they judge as "major" it is completely unreliable to use as a source. on top of this, the site is poorly maintained with several recent club honours for many clubs not added, for some this extends to years. wikipedia and any other noteworthy publishing boards only deals in reliable sources, and this clearly is not one. The source in question at the Man Utd Liverpool rivalry page is valid because it explains what it judges as "major" and why, and gives a fair and neutral overview to back its claims. it is no less questionable and credible as Sporting Intelligence, a similarly run site which features an article defending the assertion Liverpool have more major trophies right next to it.

You cannot keep saying this 50 year thing with no proof. I have at one point looked myself into it and found nothing of the sort, as have others. In fact, as I sourced to you in the talk page of the United Liverpool article, there are sources to show that domestic super cups such as the community shield are seen as "major" trophies in many countries. If you ever find proof of this theory, post them to me and we can evaluate whether it is credible enough to put into the article. if not, then please do not make large claims with no evidence. And for the record, since its inception in 1908, the community shield has always been an official honour, so to claim it doesnt count as a trophy in a trophy haul is ludicrous and officially not true.

As for the doubles and trebles thing, I dont get it. are you saying someone tried to say for example that the treble of 1999 also counted as a double because United won the league and FA Cup as part of it? Or that they added super cups to make doubles and trebles, which is not supposed to be done? If so, I will look into the matter and make notes on the Man United talk page to amend the issue if there is a problem.

Look, I get you believe major trophies should be counted a certain way and by that way, Liverpool have more than United. but the sources do not only reflect only that method. it is your opinion that it is the way it should be counted, but wikipedia is about sources. Too many even within england count them differently. for example, sir alex ferguson won 38 honours with Man United. By your count of major trophies, that is 25 major trophies. But type into google 'alex ferguson 38 major trophies' and you will get a ton of publications from england and abroad writing it. this would include the community shield as a major trophy. so thats my point that too many sources disagree, which should be expected because major trophies have no official definition and so are counted differently. hence it is mentioned that there is a dispute. honours in total are counted far easier and there is a clear establishement of the fact United have more total trophies, so that is also mentioned. I hope this clears everything up. Davefelmer (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Valencia have 2 more International Titles than Manchester United!

Dear All, In the spirit of counting all trophies, I see that Valencia have NINE International Titles, including the Intertoto Cup once! And they all count. There is no distinction between Major and lesser Honours according to-in our(enkayaitch,autonova and the disputes resolution guys)view - a vanishingly small cabal. So that cabal will have to be happy with the following table. And remember, this is what the World of Football sees;

Barcelona 20 Real Madrid 19 AC Milan 18 Juventus 12 Bayern Munich 11 Liverpool 11 Ajax 10 Inter Milan 9 Valencia 9 Man Utd and Porto 7

Which makes that headline put up at Old Trafford* (I'm pretty sure it was there for some time-and should have been removed under the Trades Descriptions Act) quite an exercise is bragging. I thank you for your attention.

• You know the one-'European Capital of Trophies'

Classic United...... Enkayaitch (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly an anti-Manchester United fan and I must warn that using club allegiences to influence articles is not allowed. And for the record, Valencia have won 7 european honours counting the intertoto, the same as United. Name me the nine if you are so confident. And if you want to go into trophies, then from that list alone United have overall more than Milan, Liverpool, Juventus and Valencia. So what is your point? Davefelmer (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am not anti-Man United. I am simply saying , of all the clubs, they are always the most likely to use exaggeration. I do owe an apology re the Valencia assertion. I used the Italian Wiki page for that club! It needs editing. They have mistakenly put '2 Coppa del Fierre AS WELL AS 3 UEFA/Europa without realising they have obviously counted the Fairs Cups within the UEFA Europa Cups. They have double counted. Nevertheless Valencia still now equal United with INTERNATIONAL Titles because the Intertoto is counted in without any regard to whether it is a Major International title. However, I simply do NOT understand your statement re Milan, Liverpool, and Juventus, who all lead in international titles COMFORTABLY. Milan have 18, Juventus 12, and Liverpool 11. To remind,the International titles are the 3 Main European- Champs League/European Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Europa/UEFA/Fairs Cup, and the one-off (or short) European Super Cup,Intercontinental, and World Club Cup.

Now, about the Spanish Wiki pages. I will explain. I don't blame you for doubting me here. About a year ago, the Doubles and Trebles section on the United page tried to list Doubles which included doubles taken from the '99 Treble. Thus swelling the number of Doubles. On the Liverpool page Doubles were listed alone and Trebles alone. It(the Man U page) was amended and ( incredibly) accepted. Thus the English Wiki pages are now correct. But on the Spanish pages that set of shenanigens has been preserved because it was obviously a straight copy, so you can see what it looked like. And that is my point. If Liverpool had attempted such underhand exaggerating, I would be protesting about that club. I am just interested in fairness. Again, I must stress this point. It is some feat to be a richer brand in world football( with 7 International Titles) compared to clubs like Barca with 20 International Titles, or REAL with 19, or Milan with 18. Something must have done it. And it wasn't winning International Titles. Ok, so it's playing in the Prem League 'cos that's the 'greatest League in the World'. But here we go again. Has the Prem League boasted the most European successes. No. So, it's a triumph of marketing. When Ferguson said 'No-one can match our history'. Again, untrue. Barca, Real, Milan, Juve, Bayern, Liverpool ( in Europe-which is more viewed), Ajax, and Inter, all have more European and International Titles. Many thanks for your more considered reply and apologies again for not double checking the Italian Wiki page with the English page(on Valencia). Enkayaitch (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Look mate, this is getting a bit annoying now. You say you have no agenda but your entire post is yet another dig at Man Utd. You say United exaggerate stuff, but what do they exaggerate? Again, you are making a claim about an entire institution without evidence. Secondly, international titles are in no way viewed more or better than domestic trophies. Again, that is another claim with no proof. My point about the success was based on total silverware, domestic and international, where United have more than virtually every team on your list who match or exceed United's success in europe. But none of this even has to do with wikipedia and its articles anymore, so whats the point of this? you seem to be obsessed with United, from referencing a ferguson quote repeatedly to constantly talking about a random banner from 2008 to being hung up over United having an extra double listed on the Spanish wikipedia page. why are these things such big deals? And for the record, Ferguson's quote is justified. United are one of the most successful teams in all of sports, and their history features such uniqueness (Munich, winning the european cup 10 years after, the class of 92, etc) that people with an afinity for the club could view it as most special. I'm sure similar stuff has been said about other clubs at United's level historically, such as Barca, Madrid and Ajax.

Again, I get you dont like United but you have to be objective on wikipedia and any other publishing board. To make claims like you are doing, you need proof to back the theories. Now, if there is a point to this and you have things in mind you'd like to change, then find the evidence and ideally first corroborate with me on what you wanna change on the back of what sources. I would be happy to help. Davefelmer (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that it annoys you. I did give evidence of previous attempts at exaggeration. The Spanish page is, in effect, a copy of the English Wiki page for you to see. That is, extracting doubles from trebles to swell the doubles number. That is surely pretty simple to see. The English page has, thankfully, been altered to the correct totals, while the Spanish page sits there as a reminder of what used to be there. But, remember,my assertion is that it is peculiarly United contributors who do this. That's all. Thanks. Enkayaitch (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Furthermore(sorry, just had tea), I am not digging at United. I am just fascinated by their brand wealth, and was just generally chatting about the phenomenon, Because International Titles ARE what the world sees, and reflects a league's relative position. For example, Glasgow Rangers have 115 domestic titles which annihilates most clubs' trophy hall, but their standing is reflected only truly with their 1 Cup Winners' Cup. So International Titles are the arbiter here. Hence I used Valencia to illustrate the frustration when there is no mention of a particular trophy being of considerably less esteem than a 'Major'. Because of the Intertoto, Valencia are level with United. And, at the end of the day there was simply an attempt to put the rivalry in perspective. You see, I think the Rivalry section should have said; 'United have usurped Liverpool domestically including 20 League titles to Liverpool's 18, but in Europe Liverpool have a clear lead,and in total International Titles, with the caveat that United are the only British club to have a World Club Cup. United also lead in total honours once the Community Shield is included.' What do you think?Enkayaitch (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not a good idea as you are not changing anything, you are just adding non-neutral language to try and emphasize Liverpool in the argument. Liverpool dont have anymore of a "clear lead" in europe than United do domestically, in fact the domestic gap between the two is bigger in United's favour than that of Liverpool in europe. Furthermore you attempt to once again devalue the community shield by saying "when its included" as an honour, as if it isnt one when it officially is and has always been. thats like me saying liverpool "have 60 honours if you include the league cup" as if it shouldnt count. We have to stick to info that is presented neutrally in language.

Secondly, again, you cannot say international titles are anymore important than anything else. there is no proof of this at all. it purely depends on fans of a club. if a team has tons more domestic trophies than another team who has won 1 more trophy in europe, they'll boast about domestic trophies and say something like it means more because its what the season is built around. if a team has won more than another in europe, they'll say it means more because you are proving yourself against the best on the continent and not just the country. It all depends on the clubs and their fans, there is no general standard.

I hear you about the doubles and trebles thing but that is such a minor point and its been addressed now. its really not a big deal. And once more, stop saying this with no proof. there are no "united" editors on here, the idea is to be impartial and neutral. Davefelmer (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm glad you understand the Doubles and Trebles thing. But then you say there are no 'united editors' here. But who attempted the Doubles and Trebles thing?

And I am disappointed you found my attempt to be non neutral. I even included the statemnt about United's World Club Cup ! Liverpool's lead in Europe IS CLEAR. It is 5-3 in Champions Leagues(66% more), 8-4 in European Major Trophies (100% advantage), and 11-4 if the Super Cup is included (175% advantage). That was not non-neutral. I and many others find the inclusion of the Community Shield-without ANY mention of its relative importance-to be the very embodiment of non-neutral presentation. That is the point. But I think we have reached an impasse here. I suppose, if I can be bothered, I will list the publications which never include the Community Shield, but I sense this will be a waste of time. I can console myself with the knowledge that more will have seen those than this particular Wiki page! Enkayaitch (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody "attempted" anything with the doubles thing. it was an interpretation that is easy to make, but its now fixed. To accuse someone of club bias because of that is asinine. And once again, your desired change for the article didnt add anything new, it just rephrased what was there, which is pointless. You are clearly attempting to sway the liverpool side of the argument. 5-3 is 66% greater? so what, that doesnt make it a big gap. 2 is 100% greater than 1 so does that mean a team with 2 trophies has a "clear lead" over a team with 1? Stop saying this "major" trophy stuff because that is your interpretation. And counting all european trophies it is 11-7, not 11-4. where did you get that from?! Again, the gap numbers wise between the sides in europe is smaller than the gap between the two in United's favour domestically, so do you want it to be written that United have a "clear lead" domestically?

With the community shield, what do you mean its relative importance? It is listed as an honour, its officially recognised status. Nobody is calling it the pinnacle of football here! What is non-neutral about it? And your talk about these publications is pretty mute, what are these publications? why havent you listed them yet? I have a lot of football books so maybe I can cross-reference. but also you must realise if a publications randomly lists for example only the FA Cup and Premier League wins of a player somewhere or something, that isnt definitive proof. Plenty of publications wont waste time listing every trophy of a player or club in passing description. if it is a big, well known publication that lists a full club profile with a trophy haul and doesnt include the community shield, then please mention it and I'll check it out and verify. And in any case, you must remember that plenty of others do list it and officially speaking it is an honour and at least in my experience the major publications will list all the official honours if doing a total haul, so you'll have to be a bit patient and look to reach a consenus here before adding anything. But yeah, any concerns re the community shield and publications, if it is a fair and source proven point, go ahead and let me know.

And I dont know about the last thing, but I take pride as an editor that thousands of people visit the page weekly. Plus there are other publications everywhere that do list the CS as a trophy because it officially is one. Davefelmer (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, we are both out there. In ALL European Trophies it is 11-5- I forgot United's Super Cup in '91 ( probably because it was really an abandoned tie because of the Yugoslav War-only teasing). But, no, definitely NOT 11-7-where did you get that from? (The extra 2 for United would be the WCC and ICC which are not European). It's 11-7 in all International Trophies. There IS a concept of Major Trophies. Deep down you must agree because you have allowed the sentence containing it and used the one (chaotic) resource which has the title 'Most successful club in English Football-Only Major Totals'. I agree that, with comparisons containing fewer trophies, the percentage thing is a little misleading, but I still think the phrase 'clear lead' is justifiable. After all , in 60+ years of European competition, United have won 4 major European trophies.So a LEAD of 4 is worthy of the phrase 'clear lead'. But, anyway, thanks for your stimulating discussions;it's been fun, and, anyone reading them can make their own conclusions. Enkayaitch (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC) But thanks for all your time

Yes, there is a concept of major trophies, but it is unofficial and has no general standard. The article is one of the ways to count them, with some ways having United ahead, others Liverpool and some having a draw. The idea United have 4 "major" euro trophies is again flawed because other counts dont see it that way. And just because thats how much they won doesnt make anything a "clear lead" over it, so we cant add that. Again, the domestic gap is even greater in United's favour and we wouldnt add "clear lead" there. But yes, it has been good talking to you and hopefully you understand our process and the concept of proof and sources now. I dont think anyone will read this random talk page as this was more between us to talk it out. Davefelmer (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) The domestic gap is not 'even greater' when the Community Shield is EXCLUDED, and that is what the whole discussion is concerning. The gap in Domestic major trophies is THREE. Even betting sites offer odds of doubles or trebles with the statement 'not including the Community Shield'. The gap in Major European Trophies is 4 or a total that is DOUBLE United's,or, if you want to count ALL European trophies, it is ELEVEN to FIVE -even more than double. So, my original proposal stands as fair, but I accept that none of this will be accepted, as virtually all the previous Resolution statements were also ignored. Enkayaitch (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

They arent resolution statements, they are just you attempting to sway a neutral debate to the side of one club. If this whole discussion is about the community shield, then consider it over because the source in question doesn't even count it as a major title! furthermore I have already provided you sourcing that many countries count the domestic super cup such as the community shield as a major trophy and in any case its an honour so what again is the point of this? and by your idea of major trophies, the gap is 3 to United, which is 1 less than liverpool's in europe yet liverpool's lead is "clear" whereas United's is not? again, makes no sense and pointless to include.

And yes, doubles and trebles typically don't include super cups, that doesn't mean anything. but the fact that they explicitly state the exclusion of the community shield only shows that to remove it is on an arbitrary basis. That only strengthens the point I am trying to convey. The basis of all this should have been for you to explicitly show why you want source 36 removed, yet all you have done is tell me one way, your way, how "major" titles should be counted and since this doesn't match your narrow view of them, it cant count. This is why your "resolutions" cant be passed. I told you to find proof that your system is the officially correct one. you didnt. the rest is just an attempt to try and make liverpool look better on the page, which won't happen. Davefelmer (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I was referring to the resolution attempted over 6 months ago, when the page was marked as 'in dispute'. It was not my attempt at all. I have only started commenting on this the last few weeeks. The original resolution was concerning the attempt by 'Peejay' and others of his ilk to only mention 'Total Honours' without any regard to the long standing method of comparing football clubs with ' Major Trophies'. The ruling, as far as I remember backed the view that Major Trophies WERE used in the majority of publications, and that Community Shields were rarely, if at all, mentioned. So, the use of a list where the Community Shield was used in an overall trophy list WITHOUT ANY COMMENT concerning Major Trophies is misleading and shows bias. This is still my view. My proposed sentence does not attempt to make Liverpool look better particularly. It even features Man Utd's two world titles as a separate comment. Ok, one could remove the 'clear' in 'clear lead', but what is left is purely fair and balanced. Source 36 needs removing because it is chaotic and wrong. It is like me blogging a table where I only include UEFA Cups as Major, while not including the Champions Leagues, while also listing Liverpool as having 2 of those (instead of 3). It is, essentially a worthless source. Do you not agree- it DOESN'T INCLUDE UNITED'S CUP WINNERS' CUP! I mean, is there anything you can find to sgree with here! Because, what's worrying me is that you are simply biased, and will do anything to get the last word, as with the previous resolution those months ago. It was when you tried to compare the League Cup with the Community Shield, that I started to doubt your impartiality.

The following list only the 3 Domestic, and 3 European:

Published in 1972. BOOK OF FOOTBALL- a collectible series over a year in Binders by Marshall Cavendish. In every club's Honours List it DOESN'T MENTION THE COMMUNITY SHIELD. CENTURY OF SPORT -Daily Telegraph- Edited by David Welch. Published 1999 by MacMillan.

The Following list the above PLUS the World Club Cup/Inercntntl, European Supercup, and DOESN'T MENTION THE COMMUNITY SHIELD.; The Complete Book of SOCCER by Keir Radnedge( Editor of World Soccer Magazine) 1997 Published by SEVENOAKS. Now, at the very least, the line used which says there is a 'dispute as to which are Major Trophies', there should be reference to how many include the COMMUNITY SHIELD because THAT IS THE ONLY TOTAL WHICH GIVES UNITED A LEAD. PLEASE TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. Enkayaitch (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have done your research on the article in question's history, you'll have noted that for years upon years there was no dispute with simply total honours always listed which of course included the community shield. This was the case until last summer, 2015, when a dispute arose that I was a part of. Now, I admit that at times I used what is known as a battleground approach, and was reprimanded for it, for I believed I knew what was right and felt I didn't need to discuss it with others because it just was the correct way. That's part of the reason I am trying to help you, because like me I see you feel you are totally right and nobody will change your mind, and if you attempt to force this mentality upon actual article pages, you will be blocked very quickly. The dispute last year introduced several sources, almost all of which had major faults within them, some of which I explained to you at the bottom of the talk page where I and another editor addressed your issues. Furthermore, the dispute was settled with the result a revamped and more informative and sourced body but the same trophy haul as that was the most consistent and reliable amongst accurate publications like the BBC. And these resolutions were not performed by me but by other editors, so to say I am biased and changed it myself is just simply not true. Sure, in the beginning I felt very strongly on my views, but at the very least I used sources to back my points, which you haven't done.

As far as source 36, one again you only find it "chaotic" because it doesn't match your preferred point of view. It is a trophy list just like any other, and the source nature is very similar to those of sources 34 and 35, which show Liverpool in front on major titles. Should those be removed as well then? I see you have provided some sources though at last, one from 1972, one from 97 and one from 99. The one from 1972 you cannot possibly hope to use as a reference point for a club's honours in 2016. The one from 1999 I have and it doesn't list total trophy hauls. I haven't seen the complete book of soccer but I will trust your judgement and we can add it into the sources for the article if you wish, however, again, as long as some sources do not have Liverpool ahead, there is a "dispute". I have seen some which I can post that include United's cup winners cup to make it 42-41 to United while the one listed has it as 41 each. The community shield comment is pointless as none of the major trophy totals listed include the community shield as a major honour. Davefelmer (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Long Awaited List of Publications Which Do Not List The Community Shield as a Trophy, and certainly not as a Major Trophy.

The following publications either do not mention the Community Shield/Charity Shield in clubs' honours or refer to it as 'Other Competitions'. NATIONWIDE FOOTBALL ANNUAL 2015/16 ISBN 139781907524486; LISTS the Comm Shld as 'Other Competitions'.

SKYSPORTS FOOTBALL YEARBOOK 2015/16 ISBN 978-1-4722-2416-3; Does not include the Comm Shld AT ALL in Club List of Trophies.

Daily Telegraph A to Z of SPORTS . ISBN 0-316-72645-1; Lists all trophie.s including Supercup, World club cup, and Intercontinental cup, BUT NOT THE COMMUNITY SHIELD Published in 1972. BOOK OF FOOTBALL- a collectible series over a year in Binders by Marshall Cavendish. In every club's Honours List it DOESN'T MENTION THE COMMUNITY SHIELD. It only lists the 3 domestic and 3 European (it was the early 70s)

CENTURY OF SPORT -Daily Telegraph- Edited by David Welch. Published 1999 by MacMillan.ISBN 0-333-74328-8; This lists all the trophies including International Titles,but DOES NOT MENTION THE COMMUNITY SHIELD.

So to summarise.The Rivalry page for Liverpool v Man Utd says there is a dispute as to which honours are major. The only dispute is 'is it the original 6 (as in the Seventies) or is it that 6 PLUS the International Titles ( SC,WCC, ICC). But there is NO DISPUTE that the CHARITY SHIELD/COMM SHIELD is NOT a major trophy. As I have been repeating ad nauseum, either way, Liverpool lead by 1. My proposed change to the line in the 1992-Present section IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE. In fact it is generous because it at least mentions the Community Shield AND even acknowledges United's World Titles. The only DISPUTING SOURCE is Source 36, a blog. This has phrases like 'the World Club Cup, wich is a major trophy to be fair', forgets a United trophy (the CWC),ignores completely the European Supercup. This is the only source. It has to be removed or there are literally no rules here. So far then, Sources 34,35, and the above 5 sources MAKE NO MENTION of the Community Shield ( or call it 'other competitions'). Against one source (36). So, we have a running count of 7-1, and the 1 is laughable. Enkayaitch (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the community shield, it is not included in any of the three sources as a "major trophy". It shouldn't even be part of this. Are you implying we not even mention it as an honour?? Based on a 1972 and 1999 publication in the face of the FA on their own website referring to it as one of the biggest games on the domestic calendar, recognising it as an official trophy and the Guardian, BBC, telegraph and many other domestic and international media we have on file listing it as an honour? It is good you have finally listed references but we won't use a 1972 book to judge trophies in 2016. Nor is referring to the community shield as an "other competition" a sign of what is major or what isn't as the word isn't used in the source. The fact you I think you have to face is that while sources portray one side of an argument, as the source 36 and others do, you can't say there isn't a dispute. Even if you have the ones you listed and the two already listed so there are more saying Liverpool have more major titles, it doesn't mean there isn't a dispute or one side should be emphasised more. That is the point of neutrality. I think it is fine as is, and your attempts at editing prior have been rebuffed not by me but again by other editors. I think we should lay this issue to rest. If you would like to add more sources to the Liverpool side of the major titles comment, we can add one or two more but we won't fill up the sources on both sides because it is not needed and looks messy if it's like 7-5 to each side in the end! Davefelmer (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Oh dear oh dear oh dear. This is like the so-called 'debate' on climate change( there isn't one, 95% of the world's top scientists say there is 90% certainty humanity is causing climate change). A similar approach was used with anti-smoking legislation, again, no real 'debate'. Introduce some minor dispute from some fringe source and then claim the 'dispute'. The sentence in question is acknowledging so-called 'major trophies'. Those 'major trophies' are either the original 6- as in the 70s, OR those 6 (later 5)PLUS the International titles. What all sources confirm is that the Charity Shield is NOT A MAJOR TROPHY. So, we agree on that. So now the question concerns the 'dispute' on which are considered major trophies. THE ONLY SOURCE (36)-a blog-chooses to EXCLUDE the European Super Cup, which is not done in any Publication I can find. This ommission is the ONLY way United are deemed to be ahead in major trophies. You have hypothesised a potential 7-5 score. But your hypothesis is wishful thinking, and deflecting from the issue, and furthermore betrays a BIAS! At the moment I have shown 5 sources PLUS sources 34 and 35. (Yes, one of my sources was from the 70s, but the Intercontinental Cup DID EXIST then, and was ignored, hence confirming my claim that for many years, the original Majors' were the 6 trophies.) At the moment the score is 7-1. What if this score expands to 20-1. Is it STILL A DISPUTE? Or should the statement be changed to 'there is a general consensus that Liverpool lead in Major Trophies by 1, while listing the 20 sources, and separately list the 1 or 2 sources against. After all this would surely be fair. But I have to be honest here. I don't think your overall aim is fairness at all. The trouble with News today is that things are presented as if EVERYTHING has two sides. When, in fact, there tends to be a majority of expert opinion which exists. I personally feel that all news items should be presented with a percentage allocated to one view or another. It didn't help with Brexit as the majority of expert opinion was obviously against, but there you go! All this is going academic next year, because United will almost certainly catch or even overhaul Liverpool's list of Major Trophies. But this page, as it stands, will render all that pointless. This is because the so-called 'dispute' can sit there forever. Heck, I could even start a blog where I only count League Titles and Champions Leagues, and European titles as 'Major'. Then, I could be 'sourced' and add to the dispute. So, I repeat. What score in sources permits the change I have suggested? 10-2, 20-3,50-4? Because, at the moment, unless I see some other sources, it remains at 7 to 'a blog'. This is a consensus in Liverpool's favour- in the mind of any but the most stubborn, fervent Man Utd supporters. Enkayaitch (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lad you are just going in circles and I am getting tired of it. We have NOT established the community shield isn't a major trophy because the sources show that many countries do value them as major trophies. Secondly, half the sources you submitted are useless towards the point in question. The point is to back the assertion that Liverpool or united lead in major trophies. How the hell you hope a 70s source will do that is beyond me. So that's out. As are all your other sources from 20 years ago, because that means in nothing in how Liverpool or United lead in major trophies TODAY! The SKY yearbook doesn't count either because they don't list total trophy hauls. So really you have 1 valid source, the world book of soccer, which actually addresses the issue in the point. Then, I can also go and from the top of my head get sources from caughtoffside and talk sport again stating United lead in major trophies, from 2015 and 2016. That would be 3-3 if all were used, 4-3 Liverpool if you include sporting intelligence, which is already included really because source 35, business insider, states its facts are taken from the site, which is no less a "blog" than totalsportek". So just stop with this, you are beating a dead horse with totally skewed information. And stop calling me biased, I wasn't the one who reverted your poor edits so clearly the CONSENSUS is completely against you. Put it to rest. I'm done here. Davefelmer (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Hilarious. You are equating caughtoffside, and talk sport with Yearbooks. So any sources of whatever reliability are allowed. I am going to us the 'My bestest ever football statistics blog, by Freddie Stutsucker ,aged 10'. As you say, I'm done here.Enkayaitch (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'm equating them to yearbooks and they certainly have decent credibility. But more importantly, they address the issue at hand of major trophies lists in a current time. Yearbooks don't list trophy hauls. See you, lad. Davefelmer (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that source. So, for example, under Tottenham Hotspur, in the source you have shown me is the Trophy Haul. And in the trophy haul it says Major Honours and under the DIFFERENT HEADING of OTHER HONOURS it lists the Community Shield. And has the following table http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimeEnglishTrophyWinners1871-72to2008-09.html Note the major European Honours at 8-4 to Liverpool. Nice source, thanks. Enkayaitch (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it shows a major trophy total but we've mentioned that as one of the counts used in the article through the business insider article. And it separately lists the community shield as an honour and part of the total haul, also shown in the article. It covers no new ground. But it's mention of the community shield is also notable and included, both here and in the community shield article elsewhere on wiki. Davefelmer (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked and appalled that you have unilaterally undone my added source. This souce is NOT A REPEAT of source 34. Source 34 is slightly out of date and uses a dubious allocated points system. This is surely a question of weight of eveidence. Are you going to remove every source- of which there are numerous-which supports the lead for Liverpool by saying they are a repeat of a previos one. Surely a 'dispute' has grades of dispute. What if I show 100 sources and you still have the two blogs. That would be 100 to 2. A majority verdict will be reduced to a tie! This is obscene. It was my intention to show how many sources exist to support my assertion that the majority view is that liverpool still lead in Major Trophies. I take you back to the 'Flat earth 'discussion. Under your system, the remaining shed dwelling lunatic 'scientist' who STILL believes the Earth is flat despite infinite sources showing otherwise, is given equal weight. This is totally unacceptable behaviour. Enkayaitch (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You're boring now. I apologise, it is like source 35, not 34 exactly. But the point remains, there are numerous sources for both sides, it doesn't mean we will insert 10 sources on the matter because that looks unreadable and messy. Scores of sources for each side don't matter at all, and anyways it's currently 2-1 to Liverpool in the major honours thing so stop complaining. You've now been reverted by 3 editors and warned by many others. Just leave it alone. Davefelmer (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been reverted by 3 editors? Could those editors have been editors like peejay? And who else? I admit my first foray into 'Talking' on Wikipedia was not following procedure- I did not know the procedure, but 'warned by many others'? When you say there are 'numerous sources for both sides', I would like to see some references of such sources. At the moment we have TWO BLOGS for a United lead. While I have given 5 plus the TWO you and 'other editors' have allowed. That is, I repeat, 7-2 AND COUNTING. By the way, notice how My Football Facts supports my contention regarding the original definition of major trophies, for which you ridiculed me ( for using a 1970's Football Collection to illustrate that 'for over 50 years .......'. The truth, unfortunately, can be boring. Enkayaitch (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes editors like peejay, and your personal attacks towards others will not do you any favours. Others like koncorde as well have disagreed with you. You do not have 7 sources, I have explained how all but one are not effective towards the point in question. You have one that isn't listed, two at most. And just because a source listed a trophy count you prefer doesn't at all prove there is a magic definition of a major trophy that has stood for 50 years. Your rubbish is hilarious at this point. There is no truth to it at all. One has nothing to do with the other. Davefelmer (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source edit. It is much appreciated. But, what do you mean, personal attacks? I have never insulted anyone. I HAVE disagreed with them, but that is different. I am simply trying to get across a point. It was peejay who first used the insulting phrase to me -'yawn'. In a previous dispute resolution, before I even entered the fray, you will see how the 'talk' was performed. Reasoned debate from the people who disagreed with peejay, and then the first use of the word 'BS' from peejay. The editors who disagree with me are patently fighting from a Man Utd standpoint. The sources I sought are well reputed printed publications. The 'source you have from 1999' lists trophies for each decade( for example page 390), and there they print the Major Trophies, which I have asserted continually, are the 3 domestic, and 3 european. My assertion that , for 50 years the Majors were those trophies, stands. When I used a massive publication from the 70's to prove my point you then dismissed it as irrelevant! You asked for proof. I gave it to you. It had to be an old source from about 50 years ago to prove the point. I do not understand where any consensus is even being attempted here. The Krysstal source, and Myfootballfacts also support the original view of Major Trophies. That is, of course, trophies that have more than 8 teams, say, and/or spread over more than a month( season long, sort of)( the World Cup and European Championship are 2 years long). I repeat, the question is ONLY 'are major trophies these 6(5) or are they these PLUS the INTERNATIONAL TITLES.' The addition of the International Titles is a relatively recent trend. But, if we must include these, we must agree they are the European Super Cup, and the ICC/WCC. So, Liverpool lead by 1 in either case. But we are left with a source which decides to IGNORE the Supercup, but keeps the ICC/WCC, thus providing the 'dispute'. I have just received in the post, the Playfair Football Annual 2012/13 which lists the trophies as I describe (the 6 plus ALL the International Titles). That's another source. I am going to need an '(a)' to put all the sources which use either of the two counts I am describing -as on Roger Federer's page re Greatest Player of All Time. I am not being cheeky or aggressive here Dave.But which printed, vetted, proofread sources have you got which use the ICC/WCC and NOT the Supercup. Because, this is what we are really talking about here. The Majors defined above are established; 41-40 to Liverpool. The Sportteck article has a 42-41 lead ( its incompetence has it at 41-41)to Utd , by omitting the Supercup. And the Talksport article has attempted the most labyrinthine statistical bending to mangle United into fourth place in Europe, by using the Comm Shield in comparison with national Supercups which started 80 years later than the CS, and therefore excluding Ajax, Benfica, and Anderlecht, who would all finish higher, because they are in weaker leagues.Mmmmm. Would it be permitted for me to use an '(a)'? Then you and the other editors who find sources with different ideas of Majors could use a '(b)'? And it would be nice to see sources in '(b)' which are not blog articles. Enkayaitch (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You are being insulting by yet again talking about a man Utd standpoint from people with 0 evidence. And you again talk rubbish with no proof. Are you seriously incapable of understanding that the point in question is who has more major trophies now and that sources from the 70s and late 90s don't answer that question at all??? I cannot believe I have to keep explaining this. Stop asserting a view with no proof. Just because a publication from the 70s lists a major trophy list you agree with doesn't mean there is ONE definition that has always been. You say the international title thing is recent for instance, where is the proof for that? Again, another pointless claim. The talk sport article doesn't even talk major trophies, listing total honours, which the community shield sure as hell is, so has nothing to do with this. And nobody would finish higher than the 3 teams that did, because you don't know how many super cups Ajax and benfica would have won. No it would not be permitted for you to list a series of pointless sources from 20 and 50 years ago that have nothing to do with the point in question to back Liverpool in 2016 and then list nothing for United. That would make things a jumbled mess and be further than ever from answering the point. Read every damn article we have included for Liverpool before and after. They have to define each time what they qualify as a "major" trophy. That's because they have ALWAYS been selected on an arbitrary basis, thus you have to explain what you mean by them. And if I must continue to talk about this, in South America the club World Cup is considered the pinnacle of football, more so than the Copa libertadores, their champions league. So to say that isn't a major trophy or has never been is a complete joke. It is only your opinion, and what you want to be the case, and like you accused people of editing for United earlier, it is quite clear you are editing for Liverpool. Just stop. You wanted the articles updated, I did it. Davefelmer (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem upset. I have to tell you, I am a SPURS fan. I explained that I was defending my assertion that for 50 years, the major trophies were as I said, yet you still say it was irrelevant to put in old publications.I am NOT saying the World Club Cup is NOT a major trophy, but that, if International Titles are included, then the European Super Cup is ONE TOO. In your rant, you used 'damn' and ' a complete joke'. You are not rationally dealing with my points. I am not being insulting. I just SUSPECT that the editors you talk of ARE United fans. It informs all their actions. It is only a suspicion, mind, but never intended as an insult. The other publications I have used are in the high street , or have been until recent years, not 20 or 30 years ago, and they are all confirming that the majors are the 6(5) plus all the international titles. They are not pointless! Rothmans Football Yearbooks, Playfair Football annuals, and now Skysports Football yearbooks ( which seem to have usurped the others since about 2006). They all use this count; Supercups and ICC/WCC, but no charity shield. So, under the 'recent' trend it's 44-43. When I say 'recent trend', I mean not like the examples from the 70's, when it was always the main 6.( for which I included the 70's Book of Football- a magnificent collection by the way). And Benfica, and Anderlecht, Ajax all finish above United in the count as it stands. That's my point about the article It is contrived and arbitrary. Thanks for updating the articles. When I thank you I am NOT being sarcastic. I was hoping this was all a friendly discussion! Anyway, thanks again. Enkayaitch (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not upset at all, merely annoyed at having to repeat the same point over and over again. You are clearly not a spurs fan as no Spurs fan would obsess over one line in a man utd Liverpool rivalry page and nothing else. To say this and then say you believe other editors edit for United is laughably ironic. Your 70s book doesn't prove any point either, other than the fact that there is a way of counting major trophies that existed then. Just as others did. And I have no idea what you mean by a few year books and a book from the 70s being available on high street, so what? Sky's yearbook may or may not count the charity shield as a major trophy but their official website does, and it certainly is counted as an honour in any case, as they've referenced the difference numerous times. And once again, what does any of this have to do with the charity shield? It is an official honour, as per the FA and every international media and governing body. It's a nationally registered super cup. It counts. Get over it. As it stands, anderlecht do not finish above United. Ajax and benfica do, as they do above Liverpool and virtually all sporting clubs as well. Ajax also only have 5 more honours than United. Again, so what? And what does that have to do with anything? Davefelmer (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I must apologise sincerely-I am not being arcastic here. I mean it. I have just realised it is perfectly reasonable to source the Talksport article for the line 'Man Utd have more hnours'. Because, as you say, the Community Shield is an Honour. I got distracted by the actual article itself, and its contrived nature. But this is a Teahouse after all. I am just giving my thoughts! Please be assured though, I am a Spurs fan. I have no particular love for Liverpool! I was at the League Cup Final in 1982 when Spurs were up for a quadruple, and after Archibald missed a sitter for 2-0 we were pegged back in the last 10, and Liverpool went on to win 3-1, and Spurs suffered their first loss in a cup final at Wembley. More recently, the draw at Anfield started the rot which saw Spurs fall away in the last weeks to leave the title in Leicester's hands. My issue is simply regarding the 'dispute' over who leads in Major Trophies. By the original method, as sources 34,35, 37 show ( using trophies considered 'Major'- basically lasting more than a month),the score is 41-40. By the method of The Above Plus International 'other' titles, the score is 44-43, for which all the yearbooks in the High Street have data, but-I've just realised-haven't been sourced yet! Please be assured I am just chatting things over generally with you. I am new to all this , and presumed the teahouse concept is to allow this!? Cheers. Enkayaitch (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you are new and that's why I'm trying to help. I appreciate you have a greater understanding for the system and about the debate at hand about major trophies now. There are many ways to count major trophies, some United are ahead by and others by Liverpool. I am happy that I chatted to you about the differences and explained why the article is structured as it is. Regards, Davefelmer (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Major Trophies in Football

In my 'coversations' with editors on the Man Utd-Liverpool rivalry, I have been trying to assert that the general consensus in football, is that Major Trophies are basically ALL trophies bar the FA Community Shield,or, in Europe, the National Super Cups. I have =I like to think- shown great patience and tolerance in the 'arguments' I have had to face over this. In my arguments I went out of my way to back up my assertions by purchasing back issues of Football Annuals, and Yearbooks from various years -which all confirm my assertion. This new season(2016/17) has now produced yet further proof-from Sky Sports. In their presentation they have now used the following; Pedro-16 Major Trophies with Barcelona Jamie Carragher- 9 major trophies with Liverpool Gary Neville- 16 major trophies with Man Utd. Just these few examples show that the National SuperCups/Community Shield DO NOT COUNT. In fact, as can be seen by the Gary Neville total, the Intercontinental Cup apperars to not count either. But the Pedro total DOES include the European Super Cup. So, arguments with me are now arguments with SKY SPORTS, so good luck with that. Enkayaitch (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11715/10676765/leeds-united-englands-13th-biggest-club-according-to-sky-sports-study

SKY, as everyone knows and the link shows, list United above Liverpool and count domestic super cups. And for the record, nobody beyond me has visited this page, as I have tried to educate you on using sources and reliability. Making things up and hoping someone will believe it doesnt constitute reliability. Good day kid. Davefelmer (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, the Sky list has United above Liverpool- in 'HONOURS'( though interestingly, the Sky 'Study' has Liverpool and Arsenal above United!?). Not MAJOR honours. I repeat- the heading is NOT 'MAJOR Honours. Shall I repeat it again just so you understand-jeeeeeez. This IS NOT DIFFICULT. But you are being DELIBERTATELY OBTUSE. This has been the argument all along. As it turns out, United will probably draw level at least -in MAJOR HONOURS- if they win the League Cup in 2017. But there IS a DISTINCTION between Major Honours and Honours. In fact, on Sky Sports coverage of the Utd v West Ham semi final tonight (30/11/16) it had a caption under Phillip Neville '9 Major Trophies with United'. Now look at Wikipedia's list of honours for the player- and FINALLY SEE MY POINT. This has been repeated in all coverage from Sky Sports. The Community Shield is NOT CONSIDERED a major trophy. I have already asserted earlier that you acknowledge the concept of major trophies- hence the inclusion of the ONLY source which has United level with Liverpool on major trophies- so why are you suddenly using a list which simply says 'HONOURS'. I have no problem with United leading Liverpool in HONOURS. That is stated in the 1992 to present section. But- here we go again- they TRAIL LIVERPOOL BY OOOOOONNNNNEEEE in MAJOR HONOURSSSSSSSSSS! I have to ask- what is your level of education? Kid, Lad...... Enkayaitch (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Enkayaitch (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Enkayaitch (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The sky study has Liverpool and Arsenal above United in average league position for the last 50 years. That means nothing at all. Sorry matey but all you are saying is a laughable interpretation of some kind of listing of a number of trophies for people in a little bar when they appear on sky, and trying to infer some crazy trophy count from it. It's just not there, Sky have never said who's got more "major" honours, you just infer stuff that isn't there. They only have full lists of "trophies won" where United lead. Liverpool do not lead man utd in a 'major' count definitely as different sources show different things. I've read sources that describe the total count as "major honours" counting the domestic super cups. Because "major" trophies as a concept is unofficial and completely subjective, there is no clear way to measure the teams. There is only 'trophies won' and United indisputably have more trophies. Davefelmer (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know it means nothing at all. I just found it ironic that you cited a source which puts United 3rd. You are still not getting it. On Sky TV yesterday, during the League Cup Quarter Final between United and West Ham, Phil Neville was a pundit . He was shown with a caption below, which said '9 MAJOR trophies with United'. The concept of Major Trophies DOES exist. The WHOLE discussion has been about this. I have conceded long ago that United have more HONOURS. But Liverpool lead in MAJOR TROPHIES, by 1.

Now, it's interesting that you cite My Football Facts, because that site is a superb example of what I stated AGES ago about the long standing definition of Major Trophies. If you remember, I presented various publications to show that up until the last decade or so, these were considered to be 'Season Long' trophies- The 3 European, and 3 domestic- lasting more than a week, with more than 10 teams involved. Thus NOT the World Club Cup, Intercontinental Cup, European Super Cup,and most definitely NOT the Charity Shield. Because I defended this position I HAD TO use older sources, and you then criticised me for using older sourses!. MyFootballFacts is run by a fellow Spurs fan. He uses this methodology to measure. Thus

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimeEnglishTrophyWinners1871-72to2008-09.html

This is one of the sources in the so-called 'dispute'* over 'Major Trophies'in the '1992-Present section'. I repeat. There are two ways of measuring Major Trophies. The old 'Season Long' way (as above), or the more recent way of the 'season long' IN ADDITION to the 'International Prestige' trophies- ICC,WCC,ESC. Under both counts, Liverpool lead by 1. I rather naively thought that when I entered this 'teashop' or 'sandbox' (whatever)I was entering a discussion with intellectual fellow football fans, and not simply tribalistic intransigents. I now conlude I was mistaken on this .

• This is a 'dispute' like 'Climate Change' is a 'dispute', or the 'Earth is not flat'. Thus the sources are 4-1 in favour of a Liverpool lead, but it could be 250-1, if I had been allowed to include all the publiched yearbooks and annuals. The '1' is a blog written by a cherry picking lightweight.

Enkayaitch (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And, finally, I give you a clip from a Sky show using Paul Scholes. After about 15 seconds, NOTICE THE USE OF THE PHRASE MAJOR HONOURS,and, as importantly how many. Then, use the Wiki page for Paul Scholes and compare. AND FINALLY ACCEPT MY PREMISE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjM2s0uUSTc Enkayaitch (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you make no sense, and set up a weak argument based totally on convenience. Liverpool do not lead by 1 in major trophies as different accounts show different things. Your yearbooks were full of falacies, most did not even list trophy counts (only 1 did which backed your claim). The others did things such as list what clubs won in what during the season and didnt mention the charity shield and who won it every year, which means nothing. again, you are inferring rubbish from thin air. As for this laugh-inducing claim of what sky write as major honours, that again doesnt show anything. SKY never list a total trophy count for both clubs so everything else is an interpretation, and wikipedia is about facts. But if you want to go down that road, then as I say again and again, different sources count 'major' trophies differently, as there is NO SUCH THING on an official basis. For instance, the Mirror say Sir Alex won 38 MAJOR trophies at Man Utd (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sir-alex-ferguson-reveals-disease-9230637). Now follow your own advise and look up what those MAJOR trophies could include. Likewise, the BBC state Gary Neville, who you were at pains to waffle on about what sky write in his little bar when he is in the studio, has won 20 MAJOR trophies (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/34985168). Again, do the math and count up what trophies this includes as MAJOR. I could go on and on and on, while you dont cite any sources or any credible points for your claims. I dont even know what you want at this point. You arent convincing a single, solitary person. Davefelmer (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh? Enkayaitch (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. BBC have actually stated Major Trophies and included the charity shield. That IS incredible. So that Neville article actually uses the phrase 'Major' to mean 'all'. I can only imagine that the BBC have gradually conflated the two concepts over recent years. I venture the adjective 'major' has been rendered redundant in their case.

The yearbooks I have quoted list the trophies as I have stated. I don't understand your use of the word 'fallacies? 

Every Sky caption under pundits' images which has a caption, uses the phrase 'Major Trophies'. You agree? So you agree that there IS a concept of 'Major Trophies'. You must agree, because you have 'allowed' it as a Wikipedia comment in the 1992-Present section. So, the Sky captions are showing that -WHEN THE TERM 'MAJOR TROPHIES' IS USED-they are ALL TROPHIES BAR THE COMMUNITY SHIELD. This is the modern version of 'major'trophies The old system as shown in My Football Facts used the 3 domestic and 3 European. Your position seems to be shifting to try and include the Community Shield as a MAJOR trophy. This position has been ceded ages ago surely. The concept of 'so-called' major trophies has been accepted. It's just 'what are they'? That BBC article is an aberration. Enkayaitch (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh, no....the bbc dont infer anything that you just made up. they just state the domestic super cup as a major trophy. just as the The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/2152717/sir-alex-ferguson-manchester-uniteds-legendary-former-manager-opens-up-on-lifestyle-changes-and-marriage/), The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323344/Sir-Alex-Ferguson-arrives-home-game-Old-Trafford-27-years-Manchester-United-manager.html), Channel 4 (https://www.channel4.com/news/alex-ferguson-a-glittering-cv-in-british-football), The FA themselves (http://www.thefa.com/news/2013/Nov/23/sir-alex-ferguson-premier-league-title-race-too-close-to-call-231113) and ESPN (http://en.espn.co.uk/espn/sport/story/206985.html) all say, as do thousands and thousands of others that I could source all day long. Fact is everything you say is your delusional, unfactual opinion. Sure, a few sources count 'major' titles the way you want, but many more count them differently. Yes, I never denied there was a concept of them, but as the sources show, everyone that does acknowledge it, counts them differently. Its not that everyone is an aberration, its just you. so keep on making things up with no evidence, by attempting to pretend that something is established in a way its never been, but it'll make no difference. Davefelmer (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Good sourcing! I think though, that the use of the phrase 'major' is being thrown in to sentences embedded in ARTICLES . It has become devalued. There is a clue -in the ESPN article- when 'Ask Steven' ( surely a rival to UEFA authority on this matter) uses the word 'also' for the Comm Shld. He wouldn't have had to if he had just said 'Honours'. But in this internet age, you have now sourced many ARTICLES which do indeed show that 'major' now means 'all'. Sky DO make the distinction, but-incredibly- the BBC seem to have stopped. All I can do is repeat that in all yearbooks and annuals like Playfair, Rothmans, etc the list of honours for clubs did NOT EVEN MENTION the Charity Shield, as indeed UEFA do not. Unfortunately I am a little unskilled in showing a photo here but I'll get to it. So, in fact, you ARE contending that the Charity Shield IS a major trophy. That is going to remain an agree to disagree situation. Now, earlier you used phrases like 'waffling on' when describing my attempts to explain every point I make. You also said I am not convincing a single solitary person. This is quite a statement. Have you done some sort of poll? Would you not agree that sources 34,35, and 37 DO agree with me? Or that the football annuals I was prevented from showing agree with me- to the extent that they don't even MENTION the CS. And, honestly, if you conducted a poll to ask 'Do you consider the Charity Shield a major trophy', would you predict over 50% 'Yes'? And, unlike the FA article which you cite-hardly a definitive list- the UEFA site below itemises a club's honours, and doesn't even mention the CS. http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52682/profile/index.html And to find your club on FIFA, one is directed to UEFA and the above source. Enkayaitch (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm..nope. its not what you think, its what the sources show. 'major' doesnt mean 'all', its just what all these sources see 'major' trophies as, proving my point. Secondly, playfair and rothmans are pretty silly to use as reputable sources, but I have both and neither list TOTAL TROPHY HAULS FOR CLUBS. So please stop lying. There is nowhere in either where it is listed: "Club Honours" or "Trophies" or anything of the sort.

As has been long established, UEFA's website is not reliable at all. They exclude competitions like the Club World Cup and the old Fairs Cup as they were not in their jursidiction, plus they do not list several trophies like United's Cup Winners Cup. And they include Charity Shield equivalents for some clubs but not others. Dont make me laugh by claiming this is some sort of authoritative weapon. As for that ridiculous poll stuff, evidently enough press think the charity shield is a major trophy so thats a fact. I am not trying or not trying to make that claim myself, its what the sources show.

So what exactly is the point of this? Every time you are faced with a mountain of evidence, you try to infer something unfactual from it. You arent making any argument or case to me, as the sources prove my point over your various cries of what should and shouldnt be a trophy. So unless you have an actual opinion for an edit to improve an article somewhere to make, its all rather pointless isnt it? Hope you are having a good day. Davefelmer (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So, according to you, there is no source which is more authoritative than any other. This applies to UEFA, the ruling body for all of European sport. Yes, the ignore the World Club Cup, but they certainly have jurisdiction over the National Super Cups and they don't mention them. They DO mention United'd Cup Winners' Cup.

To you, simply an article like ESPN's where one caption uses 'Major' but later in the text(correctly) drops the adjective, is equally authoritative.
The Playfair Football Annual from 2012-13 is in front of me , and on the Man U page(234) it lists 'Honours' and DOESN'T MENTION the CS!!

You will have to trust me on this,and the same is true in the Rothmans Football Yearbook 1999-2000. This has been the case going back through the decades to before the internet and multiple 'sources' like the ridiculous Talksport source. Your argument HAS changed to propose that, in fact, though the concept of 'Major Trophies' IS valid, you think the Community Shield IS a Major Trophy after all! Even the hastily cobbled together Talksport source acknowledges that it IS NOT A MAJOR TROPHY. The MyFootballFacts certainly acknowledged it is NOT a Major, and its table is the 'classic' method of only considering 'season long' competitions( before you jump in- anything beyond a week);League, FA, EFL, UEFA, CL, ECWC. Are you in fact saying that the concept is so confused we may as well ignore it completely and just count ALL trophies? I have to say I thought that train of thought had been dealt with ages ago and that's why the 1992-Present section has included the 'Major Trophies' caveat. If we go with that, then the question is what is left as a Major. My whole argument all along is EITHER the 6(later 5) 'Season Long' Competitions, OR those same PLUS ALL the International Titles. There is no in-between like the Talksport article -which-rightly- drops the CS- but bizarrely decides to include the Season Long( obviously)Plus the International Titles WITHOUT the Super Cup! Arbitrary is not strong enough a word. And that is still the only source which has United level with Liverpool in 'Majors' ( NOT including those which include Comm Shields).Enkayaitch (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You really are going nowhere with this rubbish "uefa are the authoratative source" crap. Firstly, the site isnt reliable as it shows a blatant bias to their own competitions. They do not include trophies like the CWC or Fairs Cup simply because they arent under their jurisdiction. Secondly, ANYONE can edit it and add to a club's page. Several clubs dont even have honours listed and they link you to a page where you can contribute towards it (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52707/profile/index.html). Thirdly, UEFA do not determine what a national federation deems a trophy. If the FA deem the Community Shield to be a trophy, a "major" trophy, a "mega" trophy or whatever else, then that is their perogative and is at the behest of them. UEFA would have no right to say something isnt an honour that a national federation says is one, just because a random schmuck edited that on a poorly maintained and biased website doesnt mean that it is true or even a reflection on UEFA themselves.

As for this yearbook crap, again, not taking your word for it. secondly, even if so, I dont care whatsoever what a random little yearbook says when SKY, the BBC, the Guardian, the telegraph, all international media and FIFA list it as a trophy. plus the FA confirm it as one themselves, which is really where the asinine question ends.

Yes I already said there is a concept of 'major' trophies but again, it can be inferred differently. I linked you all those sources that count the community shield as a 'major' trophy, so evidently your preferred system isnt the only one. the one listed in the article is another one that shows it counted differently. you just have to accept that. But is that what you've wanted this whole time? Just the removal of the extra source? the fact is that the editors do not agree with its removal so even if i was to oblige you, you would need consensus and when you tried, you didnt get it. because people dont agree with you and your interpretations. Davefelmer (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 'As for the yearbook crap' ?! You do realise that, before the internet and multiple blogged articles, that that was the most authoritative source there was?! The UEFA authoritative source is NOT discredited because you pick out the under developed Ukranian source for Shaktar. The long standing Spanish and English UEFA sites DO NOT COUNT THE COMM SHIELD AS A MAJOR, when they obviously could.Admittedly the Italian information is not provided( I'm amazed). The sources you have linked me to are simply ARTICLES and BLOGS; the term 'major' is bandied about like confetti. In the ESPN article the term is used early on but then dropped later. Where the Comm Shield IS counted it is invariably under the simple heading 'Honours'. But, just to be clear, your premise is that 'The Community Shield IS a MAJOR trophy'. Is that correct? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvN8D0G4c7A Enkayaitch (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Also, where do they NOT include the CWC?! This intrigues me. If they do,the club involved need to write to them and correct it, surely. Also, please refrain from using phrases like 'this Yearbook CRAP'!?? As I said, that was the nearest to an authoritative source there was, pre-Net. It's like saying 'all this history book crap' from the pre-net world. I am intrigued. How old are you? , if that is not too personal? Because, you do realise there was a world pre digital, and pre-net. You know there was an industrial revolution, two world wars, a Holocaust, etc etc because of WRITTEN RECORDS. And, in football terma, the nearest to authoritative records was a Football Yearbook, or Annual-Not an annual of magazines like Shoot or Match, but Playfair, or Rothmans for example. I am far more justified in using the word 'Crap' when describing the Talksport article - which is so arbitrary as to be laughable. And,to be clear, you are NOT taking my word for 'it'??!That, on page 234 of the Rothmans Football Yearbook 1999-2000, the 'Honours' of Man U DO NOT INCLUDE the Comm Shield? Or that on Page 71 of the Playfair Football Annual 2012/13, the same is true. Yet it lists ALL the other trophies United have won. That is, the biggest range of trophies of any English club. See that? I can state that. Because it's true. If there had been less tribalism here, we could have created a truly representative sentence for the 1992-Present section. And, after all this argument, it will all be irrelevant by the end of the year because United will be at least level with Liverpool in Major Trophies. They have the easier semi final EFL draw, and are very likely to win the Europa Cup-thus completing the full set! Ah well. have a good day. Enkayaitch (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yearbooks were the most informative source before the internet for a club's trophies? give me strength, your arguments are so weak and cherry picked its funny. The UEFA source is discredited for not clearly defining what a trophy is to the website. it cherry picks based on its own jurisdiction, doesnt even include info on some clubs and includes COMM SHIELD EQUIVALENTS for other clubs not english ones. there is no standard at all for what it deems a trophy, thus it is unreliable. it is clearly a poorly run website by a group of random low ranked employees all with their own opinions that manifest themselves onto the club pages.

The sportek article isnt arbitrary because they actually explain what is a major trophy and why, and then make a count based on it. plus it is a reputable source. your yearbooks dont carry any weight in calling honours vs the BBC, Sky Sports and Fox News. But if you want a more representative sentence for the 1992-present section, go ahead and present it. Lets see if it makes a positive difference. Davefelmer (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Rrrrriiight. So, again, to be clear.

1. You agree with the concept of Major Trophies, but you think the Charity Shield IS one. 2. You think that there were more authoritative sources-pre web- than Football Yearbooks/Annuals. ( You must name them-I am intrigued).( And individual Club records are biase, so cannot count)

3. You think the Talksport Article is more authoritative than UEFA's website. This is because you have developed a superpower where you can predict whether the data inputter of UEFA's websiteis a 'jobsworth' or a stand up human being.

4. You think something is more authoritative as long as the proposer explains their choice. So talksport's brilliant ' The World Club Cup which is major to be fair' is the height of authoritative data gathering. So, I could say why I think the UEFA Cup is the only Major Trophy because to be fair it takes the most games played to win it and is a European Trophy, and that's good enough.

That's just to be clear remember. Yes or No answers will suffice, then any readers who have made it thus far can judge-you brilliant brilliant man. Enkayaitch (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Not a single thing you said was true. Davefelmer (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)