Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

References to Celtic do not constitute a detraction from Rangers status/achievement

I have been trying to insert edits on 2 points that I believe are valid and provide appropriate context for information already published.

The first was in relation to Rangers achievement of reaching the last 16 of the Campions League this season. The information was originally presented as such;

"Rangers are also the first side from Scotland to reach the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League"

This at its most literal level is accurate, but at the same time misleading. The impression given to the reader is that no Scottish club side has ever achieved more in Europes premier club competition. The fact that the competition changed format and was renamed from the European Cup to the Chamions League is imaterial. As such, I then changed it to:

"While rivals Celtic have previously won the European Cup, Rangers are the first side from Scotland to reach the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League under the current format of Europe's premier club competition."

I feel this was a fair edit that informed the reader of the history of Scottish club achievement in the competition, while not detracting from the fact that Rangers achievement was indeed significant in the context of the new format, and in terms of previous Old Firm performances in the CL format. I suspect the fact that Celtic were mentioned was the main reason that some people took offence to the edit - that it was Celtic, rather than any other Scottish club, should not matter.

As any reference to reaching the last 16 is currently removed, I will not make too big a deal of this, but my edits should certainly not be seen as an attempt to detract from Rangers, but to provide proper context.

However, the second edit that I have just reinstated is in relation to the stadium. This is a minor point, but I think raises the same issues as the previous point. The article origionally read;

"Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411, making it the third largest football stadium in Scotland."

The fact that the size of the stadium is mentioned in relative terms begs the question "What stadiums are bigger?". Therefore, I edited it to:

"Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411, making it the third largest football stadium in Scotland behind Hampden Park (52,500) and Celtic Park (60,830)."

I do not see what the problem seems to be with this edit, but, again, suspect that offence has been taken from the reference to Celtic. For the information to be presented in such a way is IMO perfectly valid and required. This, again, is not an attempt to detract in any way from Rangers, it merely provides supplementary information in relation to a relative reference the original author invited. However, if the information had merely been " Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411." then there would have been no need to provide any further context to the statement.

If there are perhaps other issues that I have not considered then please let me know, but I suspect I am right. For such sensitivities to exist around minor points is quite worrying for the integrity of the information in the article. Gourlg9a 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Guinnog 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In the early part of the article it states that Ibrox is one of only 12 UEFA 5-star stadiums. However, 29 are listed in the UEFA 5-star page. I propose altering this to fit. Paddyman1989 01:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin, could you please remove the paranoid and vile comment made about SFA bias towards Rangers, and also remove the offending innacurate nickname made about Rangers from the "Trophies won" section. (212.137.27.164 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Eh? I can't see what sections you are referring to... And why aren't you editing them yourself? Gourlg9a 13:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask please

I note that my contribution as to Sectarian behaviour at Rangers was removed as it "does not belong in the article". May I ask, why do you think that verifieable material from reputable agencies concerning sectarianism at Rangers doesn't belong in the 'Sectarianism' sub category in the Rangers article? --TheMadTim 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

When the section on sectarianism was added, it was agreed to try and keep the sections on both sides of the Old Firm in relative synch to avoid partisan additions such as those that you are attempting. If you want to go through and add a similar lengthy section of all sectarianism at Celtic F.C. and keep the two articles balanced, but having close to a quarter of the article text dominated by the single subject of sectarianism is ridiculous. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

GraemeL, are you familiar with the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith? It states that you should assume that all entries are made in good faith. Why then, are you accusing me of making 'partisan additions'? On what basis exactly?

I do also have to ask where you get the idea that it takes up 'nearly a quarter of the article'? (And please do stop using such pejorative language such as 'huge addition', 'lengthy', 'dominated' and 'rediculous') I've just done a word count. With my contribution, there are 4369 words, or 25734 characters (including spaces). Without my contribution, there are 3932 words, or 23108 characters (including spaces). This works out to 11% of the article. May I ask how you came to your figure of nearly 25% please?

You have also asked me to make additional entries to the Celtic FC article. Aside from the logical problem of not being able to edit two articles simultaneously (thereby running the risk of having you delete one of the additions, while the other one is being worked on). What makes you think that I have not attempted to find reliable, reputable material for this purpose?

In short, the basis for you removing this article is that you have taken it upon yourself to view my additions as 'partisan' (for whatever reason), and that you (incorrectly) feel that it takes up excessive space. In light of what I have said here, I hope you will agree that you have been mistaken in your assumptions, and will now revert the article yourself. --TheMadTim 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the proponent of the original compromise to have a similar entry on both OF pages. I'm sure you didn't mean to seem partisan. Nonetheless the compromise has worked well and I would be sorry to see it disrupted by an unbalancing addition. What about doing the Celtic one first? Don't forget too you can always discuss proposed changes in advance here and try to get consensus that way. HTH Guinnog 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having the courtesy to reply. I obviously understand the reasons behind the decision, and I have to presume it's been taken with the consensus of the community. It's not a policy which I neccessarily agree with, but if it is the will of the community then so be it. Thanks for the explanation dude, I think myself and the wiki community will have to agree to disagree on that one. =] --TheMadTim 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Le Guen in Managers Section

Why are people removing Paul Le Guen from the management section? Wikipedia is about knowledge. This section is about Rangers management. This is an important piece of information on the team's management and yet some people are removing this. Cdmstewart 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Famous fans section

Why has it been removed? GulDukat73 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

because it is a load of rubbish Palx 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

nice work Paddyohale,ricksen is a useless wanker and rangers are rubbish but i'll just keep these opinions to myself. (SPL Champions 2005/2006=Celtic)

Yeah,. you do that, and while you're at it remember that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. Plenty of time to think about it when you're next blocked - looked at your talk page recently? Paddyohale 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoah! someone got up on the wrong side of the bed eh? it was a joke and btw i like the sarcasm! :p p.s. you from London? Yuck! NPOV? My policy is way better it is called FU.

Wow, you can read. As it happens, are you from Scotland? Or is it Birmingham these days? Stop trying to cause trouble or you will be blocked/banned again. Paddyohale 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read? your the one from London. People may think Brummies speak bad but at least we dont put Pukka into every sentence. I'm not causing trouble, Paddyasshole. Anyway ive had enough cos people probably have had enough of this spam from you.

So basically it was removed because a bitter Celtic fan seen it and got annoyed? GulDukat73 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, i havent got a clue why the section was removed. probably coz they couldnt find any! this mini argument had nothing to do with the removal of the section it was due to my persistent vandalism of the page. Im not bitter really im quite sweet!

Well why don't you show us how sweet you really are and leave us all alone? GulDukat73 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not gonna vandalize this page any more coz i'll leave it to every1 else to see how shit rangers really are. oh and for the benefit of u GulDukat73, can some1 please tell him why the section was removed.

Sectarianism

Why on earth is the first thing apart from the introduction and a link, a page about sectarianism? Is that really what people want to read about first? Crazy! 82.152.196.159 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, but with good reason, it is the first thing most football fans in the world think of when they hear of either of the old firm, if they have heard of them at all. I hope fervently that this will not always be the case. Maybe the current EUFA trouble will bring it to a head. Fans of both OF teams need to have a really good look at themselves; the world has moved on, and sectarianism is no longer wanted, in Scotland or elsewhere. Guinnog 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my idiot bro vandalising the page. He wont be doing it again. Sectarianism may not be wanted but it will always be there, I wish we could just concentrate on the football. Iroquois Xavier 09:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the part which says "Many Celtic supporters accuse Rangers of having the bigger sectarian problem" needs to be counter-balanced with something like "Rangers fans reject this" or equivelant. As it is, there is a danger that the way it's written could be seen to support this. OK, putting my hands up now - I'm a Rangers fan, but I do think that the way this section is written could be seen to give undue credence to what is just a perception from outside the club. By shifting the emphasis slightly we could move the article closer to NPOV and hopefully avoid another horrible edit war. Now, from where I am standing, both Old Firm clubs have had sectarian elements in their support in the past (and unfortunately still have at present). However, I don't think it is helpful to place blame squarely at the door of one club. What I suggest is either a removal of the accusation or mention of a rebuttal.

On a more general note, the leadership of both teams are now working together to stamp out the curse of bigotry. I believe that this deserves more of a mention in the article. Yes, they have been shamefully slow to act, but I maintain that they should be praised for taking positive action.

Adding United Kingdom to the ground address.

On the Hearts entry discussion I want to put United Kingdom after Scotland on the ground address. If it's an address it should have UK at the end? The post office even tells us this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowbound (talk • contribs) . (Personal attack removed)

His point, as you well know (he made it often enough) but choose to ignore, was that the article does not list the club's postal address but the name and location of the ground. He also makes the point that no other Scottish club has had "UK" appended (Rangers included, if you care to look), another point which you apparently choose to ignore, or at least fail to comment on. Finally, I think that your use of abusive language against someone who merely has the temerity to disagree with you does yourself and Wikipedia no credit whatsoever.

Rangers FC

Rangers FC are the greatest club side in Scotland. Our closest rivals Celtic (Sceptic)have come nowhere close to our record. We have won the league 51 times to their 40. You have to say Rangers have throughout history have the best record. We are the greatest...

This man speaketh truth GulDukat73 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He speaketh comments intended to rile Celtic supporters. He also speaketh not entirely accurately, as the records show. Finally, in the manner of a memento mori, please remember the lesson of Third Lanark.

Nuttyskin 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fanfan's nationality

I changed José-Karl Pierre-Fanfan's nationality in the squad listing to Martinique as he has represented their national team. For those who don't know, Martinique is officially part of France (as opposed to a colony), and so they aren't a FIFA member, but they do have a legit national team which is a member of CONCACAF. Anyway, using either "Martinique" or "MTQ" in the template means it's still the French flag that is displayed, albeit captioned as Martinique. Now while I realise that is technically correct, I think it would be more useful to display the unofficial flag of Martinique, which you can get by entering "Mart" but leaves you with a rather cryptic caption: Not immediately informative, therefore, for anyone looking at the squad and thinking, "What the heck is that flag next to Fanfan's name? I thought he was French." Any comments or solutions?? -- Jellyman 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Under Alex McLeish section

Should this section not have a separate page, or be moved to the History of Rangers page? Archibald99 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree since he is no longer the manager the under Alex McLeish section should move to the history of rangers page

Good Idea. How about condensing the section to provide a recap of his 5 year tenure, and copying the full section to the History of Rangers F.C. page in its enitrety? We are the people. 69.158.64.187 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've made the first attempt. The rest is up to you to add/subtract/fix/copyedit/whatever. We are the people. 206.130.170.11 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

League Cup Years / Seasons

Currently, the articles on Celtic and Rangers both claim they won the League Cup in 1970, 1975, 1983 and 1998. What's the score? In the Scottish League Cup article, the years listed for the finals don't match the years listed by club below. I know some seasons' finals were played in the first half of the season, but surely there should be a consistent scheme. I can't think of anything better than listing seasons in full everywhere - ie 1998/99 etc. Hippo43 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. see http://www.cis.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123829648999&pagename=CISv2/Page/tplCISv2PageStandard&c=Page Hippo43 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

New Away Kit

Could someone upload a picture of the new away kit for the infobox? Or post instructions for how to do so? Archibald99 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated Jack Corps 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Rangers Team

This looks unprofessional compared to the one our friends on the celtic page have made could someone please change it.

Transfers 2006/07

To the best of my knowledge, Marvin Andrews was not offered a new contract after it expired in June 2006, and is therefore "unattached". So I don't think "released" is technically correct. Same goes for Waterreus. N'Diyae was in a similar situation when he was signed by Gers after a successful trial. Bob Malcolm and Olivier Bernard are still signed to the team until June 2007, but have been told that they don't figure into PLG's plans, and were encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. Since then, Bernard has been on trial with Sheffield United, though no decision has been made to sign him so he is still property of Rangers, but would likely get released from his contract by mutual consent (and some nominal buy-out fee going to the player from it). My notes indicate that the fee for signing Rory Loy might have been closer to £25k, I'm trying to search for confirmation. We are the people.

Most successful club

We need a citation here - this is obviously difficult to prove. I see Linfield's article says the same thing about them.Hippo43 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

5-Star Stadia

There appears to be some confusion to whether Celtic Park is a UEFA 5-star stadium or not. Based on this article from UEFA [1], i added it was (also, the UEFA5Star template suggests likewise).This article from 2003 reports that Celtic were upgrading, as does this one [2] but i can find no confirmation that this has been completed and the rating awarded. Mind you, no less an authority than Sepp Blatter himself called it "five-star, definitely" [3] ;). Seriously, though, can anyone confirm there are now 3 5-star stadia in Glasgow? Rockpocket 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I think this belongs in the Celtic Park article, here goes. The last good reference I can find about this is Celtic's 2004 annual report [www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf], which says that the club is working towards 5-star status. [It isn't mentioned in the 2005 report] I emailed Celtic yesterday to ask what the situation was now, and am waiting for a reply. As far as I can tell, it isn't yet 5-star.Hippo43 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree this is more relevent to the Celtic article, but it is here that the fact is disputed. I tend to think it isn't 5-star yet either, but per WP:V, verifiability is the benchmark, not truth. Since UEFA itself calls it 5-star, i think it should stay until we can get official confirmation one way or the other. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, and it has been argued over for a long time in the Celtic Park talk page, but I think it is just about clear enough that Celtic Park currently isn't 5-star - Celtic's 2003 and 2004 annual report state that the club is working towards 5-star status and both were published after the UEFA article [1 March 2002]. That seems official enough to me.

The policy you mentioned states ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Celtic's own annual reports, which are freely available, seem like a reliable source. I think we have to go with that in the absence of some kind of definitive list from UEFA, though I don't know why they don't just publish a list of 5-star stadiums on their site. PhilLeotardo 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the timing of the Celtic reports. My google searches reveal other sources which suggest CP is 5-star also, though. Its obviously pretty unclear exactly what the situation is, and if it gets resolved it should probably be addressed in the UEFA5Star template also, for the sake of consistancy. Until we can get solid confirmation from UEFA or Celtic Park one way or the other, i would suggest that the sentence be reworded to remove reference to the other rated grounds in Glasgow (after all, that is only of secondary importance to Ibrox itself). However, i expect those that see this as an issue of oneupmanship will protest. Rockpocket 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. There are lots of sites around, many referenced in Talk:Celtic_Park which suggest both views, but none of them seem good enough. I can't find anything after the Celtic 2004 report which suggests, reliably, that it is a 5-star stadium. The 2005 report from Celtic [4] says that improvements were made to Celtic Park but does not mention 5-star status. It seems inconceivable that Celtic would say they are working on it if it was already 5-star. (Though perhaps I am showing too much faith in Celtic's management.)

My impression is that it became 'conventional wisdom' a few years ago that Celtic Park was a 5-star stadium and that nobody in the media has bothered to really check since.

Again, if UEFA could publish an up-to-date list online this could all be clear. I have just emailed UEFA to ask for clarification on this, and am nearly wetting myself with anticipation...Hippo43

Now we all are... ;) Rockpocket 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not 5 (or 4) rated because it doesn't meet the criteria of UEFA. IIRC the CCTV system is not up to standard and the dressing rooms are too small to name two reasons. But we shall see what Celtic themselves have to say about it.Archibald99 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also there is not sufficient access for ambulances etc. to the pitch area.Archibald99 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

UEFA do not have a 4 star stadia category. The official classification stepped down from a 5 star is 3 star. (verified by UEFA.com webiste)

Sectarianism

I realise that most people think that the section is necessary, but really, nine paragraphs for Rangers compared with three for Celtic is being a trifle imbalanced. The article's fairly long as it is; I would support paring the section down to three or four well-written and concise paragraphs. 69.17.67.11 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

nine paragraphs for Rangers compared with three for Celtic is being a trifle imbalanced

No, sadly it isn't. There's more to say about Rangers' connection to sectarianism than Celtic's. This is not to say Celtic fans (and so-called fans) don't have their own share of the blame to carry, but as far as I'm aware there isn't an organised Catholic body dedicated to the eradication of Protestantism in Scotland.

Nuttyskin 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

as far as I'm aware there isn't an organised Catholic body dedicated to the eradication of Protestantism in Scotland.

Try this. And don't talk such rubbish next time. Ta. Archibald99 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the pap about Boruc being cautioned for "blessing himself" as this was not the case. Irresponsible reporting and media speculation led to this, when in fact Boruc was cautioned for giving the two-finger salute and the wanker sign to the home fans at Ibrox. You wonder why there is the sectarian divide in Scotland? You can start with the media for perpetuating it, and other authorities for jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation based on half-truths. We are the people. 64.228.145.149 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Archibald99 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Honours

Maybe I've missed something, but why is there no longer any mention of the fact that Rangers have won more domestic league championships/trophies than any other team, in the introduction? It's only mentioned way down near the bottom of the article. I'm not a Rangers fan, and I'm aware of the controversy over whether this makes them the world's "most succesful team", but isn't it taking NPOV to a bit of an extreme not to mention this record in the introduction? Camillus (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer Speculation

I would have though we are skirting the very limits of notability in mentioning transfer speculation for a ManU reserve in the article? Just because a newspaper speculates, and thus can be cited, it doesn't mean that it is appropriate for an ancyclopaedia. Rockpocket 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the article cited is from the Daily Retard, the Snotsman or the Scottish Scum? Would that speculation still be the gospel? Just because an online newssource states that a player is interested in joining Rangers or that PLG is "interested" in a particular player, it does not mean that a transfer is imminent: it is still speculation and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Only when the player's registration has been transferred to the new club's FA does the transfer become "official". Often difficult and protracted negotiations preceed any transfers which involve a fee to release the player from his current contract (to the player, selling team, previous team sell-ons and agents), but also agreeing personal terms (i.e. a new contract) with the player, and often as a safeguard, the player passing a medical. Long story short: the Rangers FC main page shouldn't be used to report transfer speculation, only completed transfers. Speaking of which, if you look here, you'll see that Marvin Andrews is not contractually bound to the club is actually considered unattached. We are the people. 206.130.170.11 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed

The article fails good article criteria (see WP:GAC)

Specifically:

• There does not appear to be a single source or citation in the entire article. There are a few ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  in the article but also there are many other things that should be sourced. These include the Club Records, Greatest Team and Honours sections.
• There are several images that have tagging problems. Go through the images and make sure they have source information and if they are Fair Use, a FU Rationale.
• The history section have a short summary of the club's history as well as the link to the main article. It fails 3a) "Broad in it's coverage" at the moment.

Alexj2002 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Crest

Please can sombody up-load a new crest as the last one was removed Kingjamie 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)