Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

backroom staff and honours

can anyone fin a link that to 3rd party source ie not ranger website that lists the backroom staff and honours--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Honours can be found on SFL website. Not sure about backroom staff. --90.207.18.244 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ive already added the sfl but i am looking for non primary source and teh sfl is primary i need reliable 3rd party one--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends to which honour they are supporting as to whether its primary any honour that they competed for out with their remit then its secondary. For instance Scottish Cup and SPL titles. Cant think of anywhere for backroom staff although primary should be fine for something like that. As for honours anything for domestic up to 2010-11 can be sourced to Potter, David; Jones, Phil (2011). The Encyclopedia of Scottish Football. Pitch Publishing. p. 293-294. ISBN 1908051108. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) If you dont fancy using that i can link to last years sky yearbook which also cover it or if you want to double up. European can be sourced to Uefa or again a sky yearbook. If you want citebook for a yearbook message me and ill dig one out. Blethering Scot 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

infobox founded parameter again

ok i started a discussion on this on the project wiki football, the replies i got vary from doesnt matter to do it, basically what the consensus seems to be is list all dates relating to the club itself but not the company.

on that note i like to gain consensus to change it to 1872/1873 for now relaunched,rformed or whatevr we can discuss later imm stillr esearch this, here is aanother soruce that says 1873 as offical founding year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15307021, im not saying pu 1873 (formed 1872) as we have sources that say 1872 founded and 1873 so i rpose 1872/1873 and put sources to 1873 ones the 1872 are int he main article.

if you can support 1872/1873 with sources leaving it to the reader to decided we can change

please reply below with support or oppose please

for discussion use section below this

discussion

please bear in mind i am not trying to say the club isnt 140 years old nor am i am trying to say it isd 139 years old i am only trying to say what the soruces say, as i am trying to get this article to minimum GA but i am aiming for FA, look at the current work i have been doing.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) oppose - club was founded in 1872, as claimed by the club itself, and we have records of games that took place in 1872. That is sufficient. We can mention within the article, perhapsh the first 'history' section (which probably should go into more detail about the clubs inception) that 1873 is recognised by some as being the 'official' founded date. Ricky072 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

,the history section does cover it so as such the infobox and the lead should to as there summary of the main article. the club website states it as the official founding date as 1873 and formed in 1872 so not sure where you getting that from ricky.... why are you wanting to ignore the sources that say 1873 do you forget the principle wikipedia policies {{wp:rs]], wp:verifiability and wp:or--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple logic Andrew, the same thing cannot be founded twice, 3 times, 4 times. Just make decision. When was Coca-Cola founded? Hypothetically speaking, it may have been invented in 1920. It may have become a corporation/business in 1922. It may have changed the recipe to the coca-cola we all know now in 1954. The company that owned the drink may have folded and a newco take over in 1987. Ofcourse this is hypothetical, but you see what im getting at here, just be decisive, pick a date that the soft-drink/football club/brand was created. Relevant dates thereafter belongs in another section, outwith the "founded" parameter in the info box. Ricky072 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ok then the date is 1873 because that is the date rangers themself on ther eown website recongise as the founding date--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

since you like precedents look here Port Vale F.C. Newport County A.F.C.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The club played two matches in 1872. The SFA wasn't incorporated until 1873 and so the club wasn't an associate member until 1873. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.18.244 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

mmm the sfa was formed after that ;)

Why is this inacurate, Rangers FC are defunct and a new club had to apply for a license from the SFA then the new club had to apply for membership of the SFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.11.246 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism does not belong under the supporters section

When was this moved? It doesn't make sense to list this important section, with longstanding consensus, as a subsection of the supporters section. It concerns more than the supporters. --John (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

this was move when consensus changed read through the talkk pages its a supporter issue the rest is cover in the other articles--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So signing Mo Johnston was a supporters issue? I don't think so. --John (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

you have gone against consensus if oyu disagree change it, GA and FA articles will fail this because of that section it been reported int eh peer review countless times if you dnt like it , its a supporter issue--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did disagree and I did change it. I do not agree that sectarianism is solely or even mainly a supporters' issue. As there was a longstanding consensus to have the section stand alone, the onus is on you to demonstrate that consensus has changed. Your call. --John (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

mmmm the onus is on you to prove it should be the other way, check the article talk page and archive you ill fin its there, consensus changed you dnt like it doens tmatter now the onus is on you to prove it should be the otehr way. no offence but if oyu check back about 2 or 3 years i help gain the consensus to have it as it own section but it now causing the article to fail GA and FA but i assume your nto carign about that only that it highlights one tihngs in the article very clearly--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

look above the issue was discussed above in the above discussion not hard to find if you cant be bothered to read fine, im not goign to be bothered to argue with you , ther ewill be other who i had to stop from removing it compeletly but hay i dnt do thing in good faith apperently so im out of this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just rechecked and the section is not mainly about supporters, so why would it be a subsection of a section called Supporters? It didn't make sense, which is why I changed it. --John (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

fair enough, ut i dnt liek predecents likea lot of editors in teh above discussion do, but i follow the layout using celtic fc page which has secterainism under it to, surely you shou,d be pressing that to be serperate one to? or what been don ont the celtic page could be done here remove the stuff relating to club and leave it only as supporters and main to secterainism aritcle as that is what been done ont eh celtic fc page, yes i know each articel is it own and i dnt like copying other articles but i use otehr articles ot help me mnake layout better, if your discussion are like this friendly tone i am hapyp to keep discuss it and dnt feel i am being bullied by a admin--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, 'sectarianism' should be a sub-section under supporters. What is the reaosning to oppose this? Ricky072 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i have to agree with john on this one because some of it talking about anti catholic signign and signign mo johnston then it not jsut the suporters--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

in what way is signing Mo Johnston, a catholic, 'sectarian'? Ricky072 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The references show it was related to sectarianism. It was not done by the fans but by the club. --John (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand, the references only show that it was the first 'marquee' catholic signing, although the article also explains many catholic players player for Rangers before then. It also explains Amoruso was the first 'catholic captain'. Now how do these things relate to sectarian issues within the club?? I fully understand the links with the supporters, and supporters groups condeming the signing of Mo johnstone for example, but that is an example of 'sectarianism' within the support... where is the sectariansim within 'the club'? Ricky072 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Retired numbers

I took out this section as it is not clear whether this has actually happened. The sources are from May 2012, but I can't see anything since August stating that Rangers are actually doing this in their Third Division campaign. Are they? If up to date sources can be found and this is to return, it would be headed "Retired number", as only one number was to be retired. --John (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

the onyl reason there using it because the sfl rules state no squad number and numebr 1-16 used unless rangers are goign to be stupid and not field 5 subs they are forced to use it, the number 12 shirt is retired and withing the scottish sup where a squad numbers are allowed it wont be used i will try find a mroe recent source but i cant see why whena not was point that due to sfl rules it tmeporarily used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I can understand your post, Rangers are not going to use the squad number 12 in their Scottish Cup campaign. If you can find a reliable source to that effect, I am fine with it going back into the article. It wouldn't need a section of its own though. --John (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

if i can find a source that reliable for that i wi;l add it back otherwise it remains out, i agree it doesn't need it own section i just left it as it was when i started work on the article to ring it up to GA/FAAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually the third division clubs still use the SFL rules when it comes to the Scottish Cup so unsure they will do anything different. For instance Dundee played in the League cup and would be permitted to use fixed squad numbers however they used 1-16 before there official numbers were confirmed. Could you not just say previously retired numbers and source.Blethering Scot 16:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We could, but at that point it becomes non-notable. If it was merely something somebody said in May that has never happened on the ground, we wouldn't need to mention that. --John (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

it was retired for the final 2 matches of the spl and it confirmed in the daily record source i can find others to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, but I stand by this being not worthy of inclusion if it only happened twice, especially if there are no recent sources for it. --John (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i have no plans to reintroduce it unless i find a recent source/sources and and source that shows squad number for the final matches apart from the one i have currentlyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Supporters claims

Some of these claims need better sourcing. The Rangers website is not a good source for the number of supporters' clubs, for example. If it is not possible to find valid third-party sources for this stuff it will have to come out. --John (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot simply assert "The Rangers website is not a good source" without justification. Why not? It is reasonable to regard it as the most reliable, comprehensive source available on the matter. Do you have an alternative resource?Gefetane (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

its a primary source so has to be backed up with reliable 3rd party sources i am working on this seems john cant look at the article history and see the work i done yesterday in fixing references and impriving them to see i am slowly working on it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. We need proper secondary sources, and if such cannot be found, this will have to be removed. --John (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think common sense needs to be used here. Loads of clubs with big followings Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Celtic, Juventus (every one I looked at) make similar factual claims "There are X no. of supporters clubs" based purely on sources from the club itself - who else would collate such information?!

Are we really saying Rangers must be treated as a different case? On what basis? Or is this an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and we should be striving to edit all the other crap asap? Who wants to make a start editting Man United's page tonight? Or is this simply an "its not allowed because its Rangers" argument?Gefetane (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation and per WP:V and WP:RS proper sources must be provided for us to state this. If you believe it is a more generalised problem, a note at the football project may be in order. --John (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider it is a problem at all John, evidently you do, so I'm wondering why you have not acted upon this principle with other similar articles? Maybe you have and your arguments were defeated, as the content remains on these other articles.

Thanks for bringing up WP:V. Perhaps you can explain its relevance as clearly in this case the content IS VERIFIABLE by anyone wishing to click on the link to the Rangers FC Supporters Clubs page. As the policy proscribes, the content in question is "determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of [wikipedia] editors."

What you have so far neglected is that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." WP:V You need to explain why the source provided is not likely to be a reliable source for the specific content it is a reference for. You have not done this.

Once again, you quote [WP:RS]], but without any justification to this specific instance. As stated in the policy, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."

I would argue that the Rangers FC Supporters Club section is a reliable source for the number of clubs. The purpose of the page is as a reference section for supporters wishing to contact a club in that area. The fact this is a page to serve a customer base makes any suggestion of unreliability, fabrication of evidence, misinformation, implausible.Gefetane (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I note the edit that makes clear the source is the club website and think this is a reasonable addition.Gefetane (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

John is wrong in this regard. Policy does not say that content sourced to Primary sources should be removed. It merely suggest that they should be 'used with care' and should not be 'interpretive', they should be 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts'. I believe facts about support club numbers happily fall under this definition. Naturally, a secondary source would be preferred, but there is nothing wrong with the primary source here and it is certainly no reason for removing good content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with EO, the Manchester United F.C. article which is a featured article uses this primary source to demonstrate how many registered supporters clubs they have around the world.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do try to keep up, this was compromised on last night. We could not state that "Rangers have x supporters clubs" using their own site as a reference, but it is ok to state that "According to their website, Rangers have x supporters clubs". This is ok and it is what the MUFC article does. See the difference? --John (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The MUFC does not say anything like what you say it does. Perhaps you should read it? And if you wish people to "keep up" perhaps you'd should indicate your acceptance of the compromise here, where you first raised the issue? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I don't know where I got that from. In any case, that is what they should say to conform with our core policies. I think I will also take this to project talk as it does indeed seem to be a widespread problem. --John (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

as i havent hit this bit for source imrpoivement i cant comment if there 3rd party ones but i will quote the man utd page "The club states that its worldwide fan base includes more than 200 officially recognised branches of the Manchester United Supporters Club (MUSC), in at least 24 countries." which was changed by john within the last hour ;) im goign to check other pages as i am curious now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ive jsut checked 4 other FA article and they all say have dnt say the club statesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew, but that was incomprehensible. --John (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Sources....

"Football: A Sociology of the Global Game." this is one source cited in the 'sectariansim' section, and the quote pulled from this book: " "Historically Rangers have maintained a staunch ... anti-Catholic tradition which includes a ban on signing Catholic players." This is a direct contradiction of the article we have right now, which list several catholic players to have played for Rangers both pre-war and post-war. This is a direct contradictio nand somewhat confusing to the reader, on 1 hand we have the article listing off numerous atholic players to have played for the club throughout their history, yet other sources, mainly books, where-by the authors unequivocally state Rangers had a "ban on singning Catholic players". In this case i think the books cited must be questionned. What evdience does the author provide? Or is the author simply drawing his own conclusions or offering his own perception? How does that evidence compare against the citations of Catholic players playing for Rangers? This sentence is also unsourced: "whilst discrimination against employees who married Catholics has also been described.". Does anyone have sources to back-up discrimintaion of employees who married catholics? I once read Alex Fergusons book (about 10 years ago) and if i remember correctly i think he may have mentioned somethign about this having married catholic, but i cannot remember if it was abuse from those inside the club, or simply just some fans of the club. Either way i think this statement should be backed-up by citation or removed. Ricky072 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I gather Ferguson has made clear that the "he married a catholic" reason often offered for his leaving Rangers is a false. If that example was quoted I would oppose it on that basis, but as for the generic claim, not so sure. If sources reflect a disagreement, this disagreement should be reflect or the claim taken out altogether.Gefetane (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

although i converted it to cite i never added the quite it as there but as a messy ref link i mrely converted it to cite for FA i have no idea if that quote is correct or not someone would need ot chec the book itself--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ricky rereading your comment we dnt ingore a source because we think it is biased or based on lies, if the sources says it wikipedia merely writes it as such, the onus is on other editors to provide sources that say that is wrong, such liek with the club dead or not we put the club is described as being the same club and a new club, it doesnt matter if it gives negetiv impact we have to leave it there it propperly sourced--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Andrew, that is the protocol for conflicting sources, such as 1 source stating "same club" and nother stating "new club". In my view we have another contradiction here. We have within the article a lsit of Catholic players to have played for Rangers pre-war & post-war, yet we have another source state that the club had a signing ban on Catholics. So surely we must side with 1 or the other.... either Rangers had a signing ban on Catholics, or they did not. Another opinion which seems to creep up when researching this issue, suggests that it was not made public which players were Catholic to appease elements within the Rangers support. But again, even this view-point would contradict there was ever a 'signing ban'. Ricky072 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

until the mid 70's they did havea signing ban on catholic players it was changes to teh law that meant they couldnt hold those views and changing society. rangers public admitted that they did not ant to knowily sign catholics, and that was the way they got round at times signign some playrs, mo johnston was the first knowingly signed catholic or spencer i cant remember which, its beena club problesm adn which stems from the supporters, if you can find a counter source then you can amend the text--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The onus you, and others who state "until the mid 70's they did havea signing ban on catholic players". I've spent a couple of hours researching this and i cant find any evidence of this. Do you have any? Ricky072 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I questioned this when it was added and included a relevant tag on the section stating this. However it has since been lost in the confusion over a period of time and deemed to have consensus.

Since Johnston's signing, an influx of overseas footballers has contributed to Catholic players becoming common place at Rangers. When the market in foreign footballers opened up in the 1990s, the old prohibition on signing Catholics became irksome for Rangers This is a direct quotation from a book titled Celtic: a Biography in Nine Lives.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Good information monkeymanman, haing spent the last hour researching this particular point, i've since been directed to, suprise surpise, many celtic fc blogs, all of whom have been kean to play up on this issue. No sources though have supplied any evidence to this being an official policy. 1 of the celtic-related blogs actually quote sandy Jardine as describe the lack of Catholic working staff & players as being "an unwritten rule". To go back to the quote you placed above ..."the old prohibition on signing Catholics", unless someone can provide solid evidence of this "prohibition" then this should be removed. Perhaps if we have a reliable source for hat Sandy Jardin quoute it woudl e more appropriate to put something like "the lack of Catholic players and staff at Rangers between years 19xx and 19xx has been described by some an "an unwritten rule"." which could then lead on to the signing of Mo Johnstone. Ricky072 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the initial sentence which was NPOV regarding the influx of foreign players leading to catholic players being common place. The next sentence is POV speculating about what was apparently "irksome" for the club, was added at a later stage, in my view quite unnecessarily. I have removed it.Gefetane (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another issue to raise, under the same section is with regards to the 'famine song'. The song was ruled 'as racist' by a court. 1. Is it not innaccurate to place this incident under a heading that deals with 'sectarian' when the song relates soley to ones race/ethnic orgin, rather than religeon? Reading the judges comments upon ruling the song he stated [to paraphrase] 'that the song targetted those of Irish descent who immagrated to Scotland during the food famine in rieland in the 1800's'. How does this relate to 'sectarianism' or catholicism in any way? And 2. is 1 chant which led to 1 rather small court case even relevant? I'm sure an Arsenal player made an anti-jewish tweet to a Tottenham fan last week and was charged by the FA, would such an incdent make it on the Arsenal Wiki entry under 'secariansim'? Ricky072 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The early success of Celtic, a club with a distinct Irish and Catholic identity, was crucial in the subsequent adoption by Rangers of a Protestant, Unionist identity" was reinstated because, without it, there is no link between "there was anti-Irish/anti-catholic feeling in Scotland" and then the jump to "Rangers didn't sign Catholics".

The point of WHY Rangers didn't sign catholics, namely as a reaction to the perceived "catholic club", is a crucial one not to be missed in my opinion. Otherwise, no real point in having the initial sentence. It becomes a general comment on Scottish society of no direct relevance to Rangers. Gefetane (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC) That sentence is incorrect however, Rangers were founded nearly 20 years before Celtic and the clubs identity was not an 'adopted' in reaction to Celtics. I'll try to provide relevant sourcs for this highly POV sentence however. Ricky072 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the consensus among scholars is that Rangers so-called "anti-catholic" identity only came about as a reaction to what was perceived as a successful "catholic club". Rangers were just another club, no more a protestant/unionist team than any other, they were founded with no sectarian baggage whatsoever, in contrast to the Marist Origins of Celtic. Online sources regarding some of this stuff might be difficult to find though. Gefetane (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited source contains the passage "the view of Rangers as a response, as a sporting and social defence mechanism, to the rise of Celtic, permeates academic and journalistic accounts of the Old Firm's origins." That seems to hint towards a consensus. Gefetane (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I did extensive studies in my education days, and Scottish history from around 1840 until the war years being a period i studied extensively. You are correct to an extent, but Rangers always had protestant roots in their early days, at a time in which there was considerable tension in Glasgow. Particularly in the govan area, in and around the shipyards. Protestantism wasn't something that came to the forefront until the rivalry with Celtic was created, but it still existed, and wasn't something 'adopted' 'in reaction'. Unionism & republicansim is also something which has gradually came a identifier to the rivalry over the years, and evolved with the times and with changes within society, probably more so now than ever, when more focus was on the relgious aspects in the early days. I've came across Celtic fans before whom have pushed this POV that Rangers simply became the 'anti-identity' to the catholic/irish identity of thier rivals. This simply isn't correct as Rangers always had strong Scottish presbyterian and unionist links, Glasogw is often described as being the 2nd city of the monarch. A fairer representation would be to adjustt he sentence to read along the lines of 'the rise of Celtic and the subsequent old firm rivalry braught a focal point" or "braught to the forefront", the relgioues and political tension in central scotland between the protestant & catholic communites. Ricky072 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Rangers were founded from a protestant background is in question, its more the aspect of excluding catholics from roles within the club that is being portrayed here as a "response". In other words, Moses McNeill and his chums didn't set out for the club to be non-catholic, it became that way as a response to its rival. I don't see this genesis story as being particularly partisan to either side. Either the club was formed on a sectarian basis, or it wasn't, and the point being made within these sources is: it wasn't. Gefetane (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• While this sort of detailed discussion is interesting, I think it's important to keep hold of the basics. It has been stable here since 2006 that Rangers had a policy of not signing players who were openly Catholic; it is sourced to Graeme Souness, who can be regarded as an expert on the subject. Any detailed changes in emphasis need to be discussed and thoroughly agreed here. Failing that, we need to keep the longstanding consensus version. --John (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

falkirk fc suspend annoucer

not sure if this might be worthy a noe on this pge of te copany page here is the link i think not notable but rather get otehr opinions

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/186158-falkirk-fc-stadium-announcer-suspended-after-rangers-sevco-comment/

--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting story. I dont think that it would be needed on this article or the company article, perhaps there could be an aftermath section on the administration/liquidation article, which mentions that and things like it though. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem relevant otherwise we'd be posting loads of little incidents. BadSynergy (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Glasgow Rangers Home colours...

Hi, There is a slight problem with your picture of Glasgow Rangers Football Clubs Home colours. The colour of their socks is wrong. It should be a red top and black bottom. I have attached a link to the re-coloured picture with the correct Rangers Home Strip Colours.

http://www.benburbfc.co.uk/assets/images/RangersHomeColours.png

Kind regards, James (Idletester)-(webmaster@benburbfc.co.uk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idletester (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the socks have been changed this season from the traditional black/red tops as part of the commemorative kit thing to do with 1972 ECWC triumph.Gefetane (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nearly a good catch there Idlester, but there's been a rare change this season to red socks with white trim. Cheers 206.248.205.66 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced: "whilst discrimination against employees who married Catholics has also been described."

I already removed this as being unsourced, but spiritofstgeorge is hell bent on edit warring on my every change. Does anyone have a source to support the above sentence? I mentioned previously I read Sir Alex Fergusons book around 10 years ago and i'm sure at some point he mentions getting a rough time for this, but i can;t rmember exactly what was said, or if it was from fans or from the club itself. The current sources cited after this sentence quote lines from books, with none of those quotation relating to anyone being discriminated against for marrying a catholic. Unless anyone can provide a reasonable source to back this claim it should be removed. Ricky072 (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, such claims should be backed up by reliable sources or removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Founded date

I see the SFL website says Rangers was founded in 1872, im sure that originally said 1873. So that rather complicates matters a bit. Need to go through the sources in regards the "founding" date to clarify what should be put. Are we definitely right in saying formed 1872, founded 1873. or do other sources view it as being founded in 1872 too? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

there own website says all fans known the offical foudnign year was 1873 as that when they first had accoutn bla bla, but acklowedge the team was formed in 1872, if someone wants to use the rangers website as as source then we cant change what it says, if sfl has it as 1872 now then it causes problems as both rangers and sfl are primary soure,s we need 3rd party to say one way or another--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scottish sun has 1873 in their infobox about the club. BadSynergy (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

im not 100% sure but i think sun isnt reliable so wouldnt give much mroe over the primary source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC says the club was founded in 1872, but the first agm was in 1873. So i think we should stick with 1872 as the founding year. Rangers, the SFL and the BBC all say so. BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

if you want to use the bbc one read it, it says 1873--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

STV also says 1872 BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

as long as it sourceds to 3rd party reliable sources then it can be 1872 perosnally i cant see why7 fans care because that how the club see the founding year, but wikipedia is about sources so if reliable sources say 1872 put that but if you also find sources tha are reliable sayign 1873 you need to put 1872/1873 with referneces, but the relauinched biut will remain--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Premier League also say it. So i think we should definitely put Founded 1872 in the infobox. Whilst personally i dont think the relaunched is needed in the infobox, it being enough to say it in the intro (consider we do not mention the date of incorporation), i would be ok with 1872 ([relaunched] 2012) linking to the article on administration/liquidation. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ive got no obnections to that but sources it to the stv but if another source is posted sayin 1873 we will have to go 1872/1873 with the source leaving ti to the reader to decided--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

agree with british watcher, the info box asks which date Rangers were 'founded'. The date of a new co's incorporation is irrelevant in this particular section. Ricky072 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Other articles where a club has entered the liquidation process and the been reformed by a new company include the year when it was reformed as well as the year it was founded. No one has tried to explain why Rangers should be treated differently. And threatening me with a block for reverting an unexplained deletion of relevant, sourced material is hardly the way to build consensus - it is just attempted bullying. Please note: I will not be bullied into silence by editors who are determined that they will delete sourced material that they happen to not like. Get over it - Rangers was reformed in 2012 - the sources confirm this and the article needs to fully reflect this. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The following selection of clubs were liquidated and relaunched as newcos, yet only have one "founded" date in the infobox: Napoli, Middlesbrough F.C., Luton Town F.C., Charlton Athletic F.C., Leeds United A.F.C..

If you are attempting to portray some kind of consistency on wikipedia for liquidated/newco clubs in regards the "relaunched" date being shown in the infobox under "founded", this is patently false. Whether based on a failure of research, or deliberate misrepresentation of the precedents, please reconsider this line of justification you are erroneously presenting.Gefetane (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Founding date should be May 2012 when Sevco where founded, yourve got to be honest here and remember Rangers FC where liquidated,the club that plays at Ibrox where founded in May 2012, theres no getting away from that,despite the absolute terrible lies and myth pertained by Rangers Supporting admins who are NOT withholding the honesty and intgrity of which Wikipedia was founded, if Jimmy Wales knew the score hed most certainly ban those admins,but in saying that they who break the rules know theyre lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.184.158 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC) According to UEFA Rangers are dead and the newco aint Rangers,read article 2 - NOW STOP THE LIES AND SHOW WIKI THE INTEGRITY IT DESERVES! http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.81.74 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism and anti-Irish racism

Ricky072 has raised a good point - he deleted reference to the Famine Song as it was racist. I reverted his edit as the first section made reference to 'anti-Irish sentiment'. However, perhaps the solution to satisfy Ricky072's point is to change the section heading to 'Sectarianism and anti-Irish racism'. Any thoughts? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename the section just to fit in one sentence about a terrace chant? No. I don't think so. In the Scottish context, sectarianism is a term that includes anti-irishness as well as anti-catholicism, the two are of course inter-related. Gefetane (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think thats correct Gefetane, heres Wikipedias own take on Sectariansim: "perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement." Except in the case of Rangers where we want it to simply be an umbrella term? The lyrics of the Famine song don't relate to religeon or class. Described by the ruling judge as "racist" or could be described as xenophobic. It seems clear to me that this particular incident does not belong under 'sectarianism'. As for cretaing an entrie new sub-section for a relatively small incident that recieved little media coverage (with the court case involving 1 single fan) i don't believe there is any need for it's inclusion. To create a subsection along the lines of "issue with racism" would open the dor to create such a sub-section on Wiki Club page everytime 1, single fan is convicted or makes news headlines for an isolated incident. It would almost be akin to creating a "issues with racism" on the Celtic FC page and citing sources documenting the racist abuse endured by Mark Walters when he played at Celtic. Ricky072 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether Famine Song is racist or not isn't a reason we wouldn't include, we don't censor on wikipedia and to me that is what this is reading like. As long as it doesn't fail foul of any points at WP:BLP if mentions a living person then it should likely be included. Its a notable topic unfortunately with long lasting notability not just temporary.Blethering Scot 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just realised im maybe not reading the comment correctly are we talking mention of it all together or one incident with a named fan. There should be mention but im not sure which context we are referring to. The former and latter would lead to diff conclusions and i don't see a diff to look at.Blethering Scot 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My issue is with it's accuracy filed under the sub-section 'sectarianism' when it isn't sectarian. If Rangers fan is found guilty of 'racist chanting' or perhaps 'monkey chants' when a black playe is in the opposing team, would we file this incident under 'sectariansim'? I certainly don't want to be accused of censorship, but the way the 'sectarianism' section read to me before the recent spate of edits was almost as if it were an umbrella sub-section set up by certain editors to be used as a news archive to document almost any negative headline involving Rangers fans. I think we can simplify this isue by asking a very basic yes/no question; Does a football chant, that targets/ridicules descendants & immigrants of the Irish Famine or those who affiliate themselves with the irish Famine, which was deemed 'racist' by a high court judge, belong under the sub-section of 'sectarianism'? While some editors may believe it's a 'close enough fit' or 'along the same lines' the answer is a clear no, if we deal only in factual accuracy. I think that spiritofstgeorge, who has reverted my almost every edit, has even conceeded this point by asking permission to change the title of the subsection to "sectarianism and anti-irish racism" to encapture the reference to the famine song.Ricky072 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So your solution is to remove any reference to The Famine Song. Coincidentally this has just happened to come about at the same time you are trying to remove any reference to Rangers' sectarian signing policy? Adam4267 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam, there is a difference between a reluctance, or an 'unwritten rule' as many sources describe, and an actual policy being in place. I've taken the time to read through the sources and do my own research on the matter (unfortunalty many of the sources seem to track back to the same book with much of the content being the authors POV rather than any kind of first-hand interviews). When we look at the evidence and even the content sourced within the article, it tells us tht Catholics had played for Rangers pre-war and post-war. The other evidence includes quotes from the likes of Sandy Jardine who was at the club in the 60's who is quoted saying he doesn't remember there being any catholic employees, and it was somewhat of an 'unwritten rule'. I very much challenge Wikipedia editors to find solid sources if they want to state unequivocally that there was a "policy in place". Right now there is a subtle bias across the pages of the Old Firm, perhaps due to the number of editors affiliated with 1 of the teams, that there is almost a cencorship within the Celtic articles and a focus on placing a negative spin of the Rangers one (a spin that got out of control with the 'past tense' incident). In regard to the Famine song, yes, i believe it should be removed. When updating and expaning the sectarian section on the Celtic page to read hat some fans chant in support of the Provisional IRA, 1 editor removed it as they only sang about being a "Provo" and there was no evidence to suggest they actually meant 'Provisional IRA'...... Somehow i think they same editor would look at the evidence and think quotes regarding the Catholics at Rangers and decided it was overwhelming evidence there was officialy a non-catholic signing policy. In the section of the history of RFC we have 1 relatively minor incident of racism by 1 fan. If there was a sub-section such as "issues with racism" then it would be relevant. But there is not. So ask yourself, should we create a subsection for racism on every wikipedia club page, everytime a fan is convicted of a racist offence at football? Or is it just Rangers you like to see isolated incidents documented on the page? Ricky072 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ricky it is all based on greame souness who said it was unwritten rule and he was prevented form doing it but it was aboloished in the 90's. you cant just say it the author pov, it probally is, but we dnt question teh sources in that way, we write wha thte sources say if we can finda source that says that wasnt the case then we can change it to it is said there was unwritten rule but this has been dismissed as well. find the source to dismiss it and we can talk abotu cahnging itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

i'm ok with how it currently is, although i think it could be improved. There are quotes from both Souness and Jardine describing it as 'an unwritten rule'. I think anyone of anti-rangers persuassion will look to make the link or the jump from 'unwritten rule' and try to present it as a 'formal policy'. It's important the article doesn't make that jump without relevant evidence. In my opinion, it is sufficient to simply state under the secarian section something like: "it has been reported" or "describe by prominent Rangers figures" ... "that there was a reluctance to employee Catholics as an 'unwritten rule'" with citations back to Souness or Jardine where we have up-to-standard sources for those quotes. Again i'm not looking to censor anything, i simply believe there is a balance to be struck that is somewhat off at the moment. Ricky072 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This has gone slightly off topic - Ricky072 has raised an objection to important information on the rather technical point that the famine song being sung against Celtic fans etc is racist rather than sectarian in nature. I happen to think this distinction is spurious in practice but am happy to have the section heading changed to 'Sectarianism and Anti-Irish racism' if that makes him happier. Widening the wording to 'Sectarianism and Anti-Irish racism' would not be establishing a precedent as other clubs do not have a problem with fans displaying anti-Irish racism. However, my honest expectation is that he would reject that for the simple reason that his agenda is to remove the reference to the famine song rather than to correct how it is presented. Come on then Ricky072 - prove me wrong. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could racism not be the heading with sectarianism as the sub-heading. Its not as if the Irish are the only ones that have been targeted by Rangers fans. Adam4267 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

i think you all have good points, so he is my proposal taking from spirirts and adam idea, and goign on what ricky is saying this is wha ti propouse. in teh supporters sections create a new section called Racism this can cover the famine song and also racist abuse by rangers fans to non white people in opposing teams and there own team.

if you support this please respond Support otherwise please respond with Oppose

this means teh racist stuff is covered but its not adding undue weight to sectertainism which is important and shouldbt be tied down with other stuff and ther eno point changing the title to suit it as it ntoa club thing, the secterainism section inovlves the clubs and supoprts, where as the racist stuff is supporters only.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is simply, sectarianism and anti-catholic/protestant behaviour is a running theme with Rangers/Cletic and with substantial media coverage. Racism is not. To create an aditonal subsection for an isolated incident will give me enough precedent to create a new sub-section on the Celtic FC pag entitled "Racism against Black players" and cite the treatment of Mark Walters at Celtic Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYpmF1j288 Ricky072 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No it won't. You still seem to be struggling to grasp how wikipedia works. There is no such thing as a precedent on wikipedia. Every article is different and you can't just say because it is one article it can be in another. Also I think you'll find the majority of clubs in Britain's fans would have racialy abused players 20 years ago. Whereas Rangers are one of the few clubs in Britain where group racism still exists to this day. Nazi salutes - billy boys - famine song - black players. These aren't isolated incidents either where one person has done something wrong. These are a groups of fans acting in a racist manner. The fact you are attempting to threaten me by saying you'll add something nasty to a Celtic article just shows how POV you are. This isn't a tit-fot-tat Old Firm discussion. And I really don't care if you do that. Adam4267 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ricky i am giving oyu this one warning, please keep on topic about this article stop bringing up predecents, and stop trying to force a pov onto the celtic article. address this with only to do with sources, if you think the celtic articles needs more do it because of that not so you can agree to have it here. if you cant stick to rules of wikipeida i will have to report you and ask for atopic ban your trying to subdue as much as possible and also pusha pov regarding celticAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

i proposing it under the supporters section not secterainism sectionsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

you response, adma, was nothing short of laughable " the only clu in the world where racism still exists" nazi salutes? i'm a neutral editor astounded by the anti-rangers pro-celtic bias that exists here on Wikipedia. I'm a scholar who has studied history and modern society of Scotland and i can tell you there is a very 1-sided spin within these articles. So let me get this straight, there should be a new subsection entitled "racism" to account for the famine song, a 1-off, isolated incident documented 4 years ago - but you oppose any other club having a racist sub-section to document isolted, one-off incidents of other clbus? I know how Wikipedia works hanks, perhaps you dont undertsnad much about anything actually. The racist abuse of Mark Walters is well documented by reliable sources, it is major incident as it is spoken of 20 years later. Fans showed up to the game in monkey costumes. It was a staggering show of racism against a black player unprecedented in this country. So tell me, why should it not be included on the Celtic FC page? Ricky072 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have reading difficulties? Several times in the past few days you have made comments on something which have been just completely wrong.
  
• You said that I said the only club in the world where racism still exists when I actually said the only club in Britain
  
• a staggering show of racism against a black player unprecedented in this country. Mark Walters himself said he recieved worse racism at Tynecastle - he also recieved racism at Ibrox. I'm sure the likes of John Barnes would also have something to say about your statement. Seriously. At least if you're going to attept to respond to something make sure you have read it first. Adam4267 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We should not have a separate subsection on 'racism' as racism in its widest sense is not the issue. What we are considering here is a particular example of racism - anti-Irish racism - which is actually very closely related to the anti-catholic sectarianism that is already covered in the article (since most Irish are catholics and most of the catholics in west central scotland have some irish ancestry.) I prospose that since anti-catholic sectarianism and anti-Irish racism are so closely related, the subheading should be changed to 'Sectariansm and anti-Irish racism'. Please state whether editors agree or disagree with this proposal.Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

that ghoes against the source a scottish court they say its racism anti irish racism is opriginal researcg unless you have a reliable source and then ill suppport itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ok so you said "only club in britain where racism still exists" then adam, guess what, you;re still uinbelievably ignorant. Wikipedia benefits from neutral editors without an agenda, ergo, you're not beneficial to these articles. Ricky072 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Secterainism section

This is what i am propousing for this section, the level 2 heading one covers clubs having a secterain issue, but also supoprter issue. i think we should move the bit in this level 2 heading about the supporters issue with secterainism, to the supporter section and make it level 3 heading and retain the stuff abouyt the club within the levle 2 heading.

if you support this please reply with support r oppose

if you dnt understand wha ti mean i will post a example here of wha ti mean--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford, I've made an alternative suggestion at the end of the section about 'Sectariansm and anti-Irish racism.' Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the term 'anti-Irish racism' correct? Is it possible for people, principally of the same race i.e. Caucasian, to be racist towards each other? Race is defined on basis of physical characteristics, such as skin colour, facial form or eye shape. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'anti-irish racism' the correct term would be 'xenophobia against irish peoples' as stated above you cannot be racist towards the same race (Caucasian), however you can be xenophobic.--90.207.18.244 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

until iget a osurce for it no, i have move supporter secteraim issues to eth supporters section then that heading can be changed to included xenophobia if the famine song is readdedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21

32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming a section just to include one chant, that was sung by a minority of supporters a few years ago, is something I will strongly oppose. "Sectarianism" is not restricted to strictly religious matters, abuse aimed at subdivisions of a community, namely those with Irish heritage, is covered by the term. Gefetane (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The words of the 'famine song' go; "The famine is over, why don't you go home". Rangers fans and defence lawyers argued it was merely a jibe at the celtic fans constantly reminding them of their irish roots. The song is 'anti-irish racism' because it's actually aimed at the irish. It's aimed at Scottish Celtic fans who embrace their Irish heritage. I wouldn't describe "Scottish Celtic fans who embrace their Irish Heritage" as a 'race'. I'm surprised so much is made of this 1 isolated incident/chant. There are many examples of sectarian chanting/songs Rangers fans sing, namely songs where suppoters have their own 'add ons' that are undoubtebly sectarian and anti-catholic. The above chant was an isolated incident 4 years ago, it is not sectarian and has always been controversial wether or not it's even racist or should be illegal at all judging from the stance by certain lawyers and supporters groups. I don't really understand the clamour on here to try to manipulate the subsectiosn to for this chants inclusion. I made the point before, if we can justify manipulating an Wiki article to include 1 distasteful chant/song, then we could be here all day editing many different Wiki articles Ricky072 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

relaunched reformed club finally found out what it refering to

ok i have finally found out what relaunch club and reformed club is referring to thanks to the bbc and stv.

when there is reference to relaunched club, this is referring to the club relaunching within sfl div3 after there spl membership was terminated due to the company liquidation i think this should be clarify within the main body.

when referring to reformed club, this is referring to the club be reformed within a new company structure again i think this should be clarify within the article itself.

so i was completely wrong on this one and as such i dnt think founding date is affect so there is no need to mention 2012 at all in founding. the 1873 bit is something i still disagree on but that's a different dispute.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not agree that Rangers are a "reformed" club. Even though oldco is heading for liquidation, the club was not broken up to be 'reformed', it transferred intact from oldco to newco - assets, business contracts, staff (through a TUPE). We know this term has been employed in some media sources, but so have other terms, and we know from previous discussions that media sources often describe the same facts using different terminology, and as such I'd argue their value is with the facts they describe rather than the terminology they choose, first hand, to employ. Gefetane (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

reformed is just a way fo saying it was transferred, wha ti am saying about putting into the article is to make it clear what the reform tha tis meantioned in the media is referring to with teh refernece to show what is meanign then your removing ambigity of the term--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Gefatane, terms such as "relaunched" and "reformed" suggest some kind of break, or termination. You could describe Hibs as reformed or relaunched having broken for 1 year. You could describe Napoli as reformed or relaunched having broken for 2 years. This term isn't accurate of Rangers or Leeds however. There was never any 'break'. It was a smooth transition of business and assets which took around 2 days to complete if we read the sources quoting Duff&Phelps. The licence took a little longer but as we can see, Rangers never missed 1 single competitive match, nor dropped out of any league. If 1 company buys the business and assets from another, and the day-to-day operations continue as normal, employees transfer over under TUPE and no shops shut down, you wouldn't describe that business as 'relaunched', infact many of that business customers may never even realise an ownership change took place. I think simple "Administration and Liquidation" is adequete enough title, it fully captures and describes what happens. The old co went into amdinistration, and is undergoing the process of liquidation. Liquidation is the process whereby the business and assets are sold to a newco. Ricky072 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i think you both are misudnerstnading me let me showa EXAMPLE

currently

"HM Revenue and Customs decided to vote against a proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement[63] and two days later, on 14 June 2012, their formal rejection of the proposed CVA meant that the company would enter the liquidation process.[64]

Immediately following this, the companies assets were sold off to Sevco 5088 Ltd then immediately transferred to Sevco Scotland LTD, owned by a consortium led by Charles Green and the club was reformed within the new company[66][67], which was later renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd after The Rangers Football Club plc was renamed to RFC 2012 plc.[68] An application for admittance to the Scottish Premier League was rejected on a 10–1 vote.[69] Thereafter, an application to the Scottish Football League was successful with Rangers securing associate membership and a place in the Third Division for the 2012–13 season.[70][71][72] Agreement was reached on the transfer of SFA membership, with the new company accepting a number of conditions relating to the old company.[73] The club also awaits the conclusion of an investigation of alleged rule breaking by use of dual contracts by Rangers over the period 2001 to 2010.[74] Former Rangers owner David Murray has denied any cheating took place during his stewardship.[75] As a result of Rangers' "assets, business and history" being sold to a new company when RFC 2012 plc (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) entered the liquidation process, the extent to which the relaunched Rangers can be regarded as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1872 has been interpreted differently.[76] The Rangers Football Club has been described by some in the mainstream media as a "new club",[77][78] whilst Chief Executive Charles Green has maintained "this is still Rangers",[79][80] with the SPL chairman Neil Doncaster saying "it is an existing club, even though it's a new company".[81][82]"

i would say change it to something liek this

"HM Revenue and Customs decided to vote against a proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement[63] and two days later, on 14 June 2012, their formal rejection of the proposed CVA meant that the company would enter the liquidation process so there SPL and SFA membership where terminated due to the company RFC 2012 Plc entering liquidation.[64]

Immediately following this, the companies assets were sold off to Sevco 5088 Ltd then immediately transferred to Sevco Scotland LTD and reforemd within the new company strutucre(add refernce), owned by a consortium led by Charles Green and the club was reformed within the new company[66][67], which was later renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd after The Rangers Football Club plc was renamed to RFC 2012 plc.[68] An application for admittance to the Scottish Premier League was rejected on a 10–1 vote.[69] Thereafter, an application to the Scottish Football League was successful with Rangers securing associate membership and a place, so where relaunched into the Third Division for the 2012–13 season.)(source here)[70][71][72] Agreement was reached on the transfer of SFA membership, with the new company accepting a number of conditions relating to the old company.[73] The club also awaits the conclusion of an investigation of alleged rule breaking by use of dual contracts by Rangers over the period 2001 to 2010.[74] Former Rangers owner David Murray has denied any cheating took place during his stewardship.[75]"

then the term relauncehd club can be removed because it not descirbed as relaunched only ther erelaunched into the third division after haivng the psl membersihp terminated for hte previous company liqudiationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes i agree now Andrew, i think the term "relaunched in division 3" would be appropriate, because we are using the term only in a footballing sense. E.g SPL membership was 'terminated' (broken, killed, given to another team, etc....' and then the clubs footballing career, or footballing licence, was then 'relaunched, reincarinted, a new dawn' into the SFL division 3. I think this makes sense from a football term - but i dont think 'Relaunched' is a term to be used in a 'business' sense. From this poitn of view i'd reccomend renamign the subsection to "adminstration and liquidation" which is appropriate to what happened to the business, and any use of the term 'relaunched' can be applied when talking about the clubs move to SFL 3. Ricky072 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

yes and now i support that change i will stick teh addiotanl references in after someone edits itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the idea that 'adminstration and liquidation' is a suitable title since the obvious question would be 'so if liquidated, how come the club is still playing'. The idea of relaunch was originally a compromise suggestion, but reformed within a new company structure is more accurate within a business sense so 'adminstration, liquidation and refom' may be a better title. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i got no problem with that tiel reform isnt sayings it a enw club, relaunched club didnt either but the sources arent refering to that so we cant either the do say reformed so i support reform or refoormed might be better english, dnt forget it was me that said relaunched club but i was wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

spiritofstgeorge said "Totally disagree with the idea that 'adminstration and liquidation' is a suitable title since the obvious question would be 'so if liquidated, how come the club is still playing". This is wrong, the company was 'liquidated', the and 'the club' was purchased by the newco, that is why it is still playing. I keep explaining to you what liquidation actually means, there is a common misconception that 'liquidation' means 'terminated' or 'dissolved' or 'killed off'. It does not mean that. 'liquidation' is simply the procedure of the sale of business & assets. "Adminstration & Liquidation" could be renamed "Adminstration & sale of business & assets" or "adminsitration & sale of the club" may be more appropriate if you still do not understand the definition of liquidation. Ricky072 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ive got no problem with tat either, relaunched or reformed club i will not support now tha the sources say defintely, i dnt oppose the word liqudiation and relaunch, liqdioation and reform, administration and the sale of the club, administration sale of the bussiness and assetsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So you think "adminsitration & sale of the club" is a poosibility do you? Do your attempts to rewrite/sanitise history know no bounds? The reality is that the club would have died had it not been reformed within a new company structure - yet you do not want reformed mentioned! This is becoming worse than a joke! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i did change it but i have also reverted it i didnt think it be mnded since reformed is still in the paragraphAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeorge said: "The reality is that the club would have died" and i'm the joke? if you believe the club had dieded then no participatey on the pagey wee baby. concencus has already been agreed that the club is made up of teh business and assets. Its within rules of football FA's that the club, assets, businesses can be moved from 1 company structure to another. Happened with Leeds, Luton, etc.... if you can;t grasp that, you never will. Or maybe you do and it just doesnt suit your agenda. Ricky072 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Questionable citation....

this sentence under 'sectarianism' reads; "Particularly from the 1970s, Rangers came under increasing media pressure to change their stance,[121] despite several of the club's directors continuing to publicly defend the position.[116]".

When inspecting citation 116 to see if there was a legitimate source for the claim that "several" of the "club's directors publicly defended" this, once more i met with the citation for the book "fear and loating in world football". The pages sourced are pages 25 and 26. Luckily we can read this pages on google books here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CJxIbXQfE1IC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The quote given by who ever created this citation is as follows: "Primrose with associated with the most virulent anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment, and was openly allied with the orange order.". Upon further reading we can see the book states that Primrose was a figure invovled with Rangers since 1888 (1 year before Celtic formal inception). It also states he was openly invovled with the 'Orange Order'. At no time, does this book (at least in the cited pages) give any evidence, nor quotes, of even 1 director at Rangers (nevermind "several") publicly "defending" any kind of position on a 'policy' of not signing catholics. The sentence also opens "particularly from the 1970s". What is needed here is citation that cite 1. Media pressure on Rangers to employ more Catholics, and 2. Directors of the club making open statements from the mentioned time period (1970's onwards), that defend any kind of position of not employing catholics.

Right now this reads as if someone has dug up a quote, in a book, of a director at Raners 120 years ago, having an open association with the orange order, and makign the jump that this someone is "several directors" "publicly defending" the club position when they came under media scrutiny in the 1970s for not employing Catholics as players or in prominent roles. Unless a proper citation can be given to back up this sentence, it should be removed. Ricky072 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

that might be my fault i was tidiying up the refenreces and forgot to make sure to copy the other pages ill dig out the revisiont hat has the page numbers and add it, then you can review it again if it doesnt meantion then we might be able to remove itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

just checked it was only page 25,26 before i trimemd the refernce stuff down, unless a source can be foudn remove it wikipedia primary policiy unjsources material may be challenge and removed, so if oyu cant find one remove it and then for it to be readed someoen has to provide the sourceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Having done some research i can't find any sources at all to support the statement in question and have removed it. If anyone can find a legitmate source it can be readded. Ricky072 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012

Under section 8 "Ownership and finances" under the "David Murray tenure" sub-heading there is some deliberate misinformation with regard to the alleged use of EBTs for the purpose of tax avoidance. In addition the entire section is badly written. I therefore request someone with appropriate access please action the following change. Note that consensus should not be required here, considering that the current entry is both factually incorrect and potentially libellous.

Please change this:

During the late 1990s Murray embarked on big spending to try and win the European title on players like gasgoinge, laudrup etc. After advocaat took over Murray then started spending big some of money on the likes of Tore andre Flo Rodald de boar etc. During this time EBT's where used to pay players and due to the tax avoidance scheme could cost the previous company 49 Million to potential 90Million with interests and penalties.

To this:

During the late 1990s Murray sanctioned big spending in an attempt to win the European Cup. High-profile players such as Paul Gascoigne and Brian Laudrup joined the team during this time. After Dick Advocaat became manager, Murray again sanctioned some large transfer spending on players such as Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer. ViniH (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ill edit it as it was me that wrote it and my english is poor, but the bit about the tax avoidance willr emain this isnt disputed it is well publisiced and is one the centre reasosn for the lqiudiation page, ou can edit this yourself but ill change it for youAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as done. Andrewcrawford, the page is semi-protected and the user has only 5 edits so he couldn't have done it himself. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i thoguht they had done enough edits, so i apogolise for the wrong assumptionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to apologise; it was just a note :) A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

changing the word form reformed to relaunched

the sources spefically sayas reformed within a new company adn relaunched into division 3 we cant intchange theseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse by fans name change

Calling a section "abuse by fans" just seems very inappropriate. The section describes sectarian chanting so why not just call it... "sectarian chanting"? In order to avoid a clash with the very next section being "sectarianism", I've rearranged the order slightly which means there is no clash and no reason not to have the subtitle "sectarian chanting". Gefetane (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ive not got aproblem with that, but one part of that section does cover racial abuse by rangers fans on black players including players at the club but i am happy to leave it at that, im not the best for names of section just try tio find acomprise for everyone--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Move "adminsitration & liquidation" subsection under 'ownership and finances' subsection

it seems 'messy' to me that the clubs 'history' section seems to document certain 'era's, mainly under managers and for examlpe, 9-in-a-row, the histroy section is very 'football' based and mentions almost little-to-nothing about ownership, finances, business practice, until it gets to the administration/liquidation section. Then when we scroll down further we have another section for ownership & finance. This almost documents rangers 'ownership' history, for example Murrays takeover and tenure. This section then goes into detail about Craig Whytes take over, the administration and liquidation... again.

It would make sense to me to move and combine these sections. I would move the 'administration and liquidation' from history, and placing this sub-section inbetween "murray tenure" and "sevco". That makes chronologically documenting the series of events of the Rangers ownership. Ricky072 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

im not sure about this, not because it be oppose which it probally would but more because the hsitory meantioned incorptration ina small way, but this is a major event int eh clubs history, although it to do with the ownership to this is document what has happened and why the scenario is happenignAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ricky. Believe it or not, Rangers are a football team. When there already is a separate section on ownership and finances, surely Admin/liquidation should go in there and leave the main history to what Rangers is actually about, football. Gefetane (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree entirely - the administration and liquidation episode is one of the more significant events in a footballing sense. Remember, Rangers was deducted 10 points for the first and had to start afresh in division 3 due to the second! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No surprise there that Spiritofstgeorge disagrees with me, i wonde rif he read my poitn first? Anyonway he does raise a good point, the administration and liquidation did have footballign sanctions. I would reccomend putting this under the mccoist era. For example, the mccoist era ends on being knocked out of the cups, but he still managed Rangers during this time. So how about expanding the McCoist section to state the administration seen Rangers deducted 10 points and eventually lose the league to rivals Celtic. PErhaps mention the players were forced to take a pay cut and cousin signing fell through. Explain that in the close season the business was liquidated and McCoist and 'most' players transfered over. Footballing sanctions and repercussions for liquidating forced the club to start in division 3. When mention the terms "administration" and "liquidation" these can link to further down the page on the 'ownership & finance' section which cover sin more detail the administration & liquidation. further to this, we also have a seperate article for these events. This sems to me the most logical construction of the article. Ricky072 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

propose the changes you want here ricky and then i will either support or oppose im not 100% sure what your planing on changing belowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

History

McCoist era

put what you want to change here

ok i suggest:

Ally McCoist was announced as the new Rangers manager beginning in June 2011.[52] McCoist's first competitive match in charge was against Hearts, ending in a 1–1 draw.[53] Rangers were drawn against Swedish side Malmö FF in the Champions League third round qualifying match which they lost 2–1 on aggregate.[54] Rangers were then knocked out of Europe in the Europa League qualifying match against Slovenian side Maribor 3–2 on aggregate.[55] In the first Old Firm match of the 2011–12 season and McCoist's first in charge of the club Rangers won 4–2 at Ibrox. Good league form seen Rangers maintain top spot in the SPL and were unbeaten after 11 games.[56] They were knocked out of the League Cup by Falkirk[57] and the Scottish Cup by Dundee Utd at Ibrox.[58] Rangers financial problems and dispute with HMRC came to a head on the 14th of February 2012 when the business was placed into administration. Rangers were deducted 10 points as per the rules of the SPL meaning they now trailed league leaders celtic by 14 points, but remained in 2nd place ahead of Motherwell. The impending re-signing of Daniel Cousin fell through, and in cost-cutting measures some players took up to a 75% wage cut, others left the club by mutual consent without any severance package, including young winger Gregg Wylde. Rangers first game in adminstration was played in front of a sell out crowd at ibrox, however Rangers lost the game 1-0, and poor form continued with defeats to Hearts and Dundee United. Having been knocked out of every cup and european competition, and trailing Celtic with a huge margin Rangers focus for the remained of the season was to secure 2nd place ahead of callengers Motherwell. In a vital fixture between the two Rangers came back from 1-0 down to secure a 2-1 victory after a late goal from Lee McCulloch to virtually secure 2nd place. The last significant game for Rangers was the Old Firm at Ibrox where a win for Celtic would see their rivals win the league on there own ground, emulating Rangers achievement in 1999 where Dick Advocaats side won the SPL title at Celtic Park. Rangers won the match 3-2 however avoiding such fate and finished the season in 2nd place behind their biter rivals. In the close season, a CVA could not be reached to bring Rangers out of administration, the business and assets was subsequently purchased by Charles Greens consortium, Sevco Scotland. McCoist and the majority of the players transferred over to the 'newco' although some of the clubs top players, including Steve Davis and Alan McGregor did not. Although denied the transfer of SPL membership, the 'newco' were awarded position in SFL division 3. After several weeks of negotiation with the SFA and SPL, Rangers SFA membership was eventually trasnferred to the 'newco'. 1 of the stipulations of the transfer of membership was that the club accepted a transfer embargo, due to start in September 2012, giving McCoist a window to sign new players such as Ian Black, Dean Shiels and Kevin Kyle. Rangers new start in division 3 got under way with a 1-1 draw away to Peterhead, followed by a 5-1 victory over East Stirlingshire in front of a crowd of 49,118 at Ibrox, and victories in the Ramsdens cup knocking out Brechin then Falkirk.

obviously a little rough and needs citations, but i think from afootballign point of view, it encaptures McCoist era and tells the story of administration/liquidation more from a 'footballing' angle. I propose that under the ownershi/finances section we go into more detail regarding the admin/liquidation events from a business perspective. Ricky072 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership and Finances

i think simply slot in the section about administration and liquidation in between 'murray tenure' and 'sevco scotland'. That way the article relating to rangers ownership and finances tells the story effeicently. Murray tenure, big signings, ebt scheme, pressure from lloyds bank, sale to craig whyte.... then we move on to administration & liquidation, then carry on to sevoc scotland/charles green. Ricky072 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the most logical setup of the article.

• The detail regarding ownership changes and the financial matters during the whole recent saga need not be changed, merely relocated to the appropriate section: Ownership and finances.
• As spiritofstgeorge says, the repercussions relevant to football: the points deduction, the Euro ban, the players leaving, the league drop, should be summed up THEN the history reverts to football history describing the highlights of this season in an appropriate manner. Gefetane (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the most logical soultion. I think a very brief summary (so that the same information is not repeated) within the McCoist era, is most appropriate. Adminstration & liquidation is somethign that has happened with the McCoist era, and as ive put it above, had footballing repercusions including points deductions, players leaving, transfer emabrgos, etc... Then when the reader progresses down the article to "ownership and finances" it's only logical they should find a more detailed documentation of thes eproceedings. Ricky072 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. This section should be detailed within the Finances. Remember that there is already a supporting article therefore the section should be trimmed down and the link included at the top. Monkeymanman (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

can you please put what you rouhgly propused for this section the exact wordig i need to know what yoru proposing befire i can support or oppose Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 06:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you want a proposal from me Andrew? Or are you asking Ricky?Monkeymanman (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

it was ricky i want to propuse what he wanted to change befor ehe did it, but since ther enot been objection he is lucky because there wasnta consensus at that pointAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Records

Records section says Sandy Archibald, 513 appearances as record league appearance. Sky yearbooks state John Greig with 496 can anyone find a source to verify.Blethering Scot 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC) found a source which woudl suport what you say, because grieg is one the top player for apperances http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/player_records_overall.phpAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

this page suggest sandy is the record holder, http://everything.explained.at/Rangers_F.C._records/ not sure if it is reliable...Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cant see it passing as a reliable source, whereas Sky yearbook is. It may be incorrect but i would trust the book more without another source.Blethering Scot 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

just bought the 2012-13 one and it says the same. Eithier it's not been cheked year on year or the other info is wrong. Blethering Scot 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

change it to grieg but hide teh sandy one and if i find a source it can be added, or we can puta note saying unoffically that it sandy archibald with teh unreliable soucer shouldnt causea problem then.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would hide/remove it. Unreliable source would certainly not help us. I can't prove it wrong but I can't prove it correct eithier. I suggest removing with no harm re adding when proven right. There may be another explanation or a way of working out from piecing sources. I'll try and do that at some point but there is another issue that needs my attention. Blethering Scot 20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

i think i have found a source probally for all of the records i wont know until i go on my laptop, once i know ill let kjnowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My guess is Sandy Archibaldw article may be all appearances.

found 4 sources for sandy and found sources for most of the other ones, there also other records, i will make sure all records are there then paste teh records over to the recrods and stats page and then we can strip out less important records from hereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you post the source for Archibald here first. Ive got concerns given the time of the stats that they may not actually be league only a lot of the past were not, that and reliability of source.Blethering Scot 13:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

its in the article football manager 2011 its in 2012 as well and will be in 2013 i was checkign on ther eforum, but it defientely in 2011 as i have that oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Away and third kits

Now that the away kit and third kit details have been released could someone with more knowledge on creating kits on Wikipedia than me make them up for the info box. I tried there for a while but wasn't getting anywhere. Away Kit can be seen here: http://www.footballkitnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/New-Rangers-Away-Kit-12-13.jpg. Third kit can be seen here: http://www.rangers.co.uk/images//Press/2012_08_24/240812_kit_black_03.jpg --Iainturnerisgod (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I know someone on commons who does these. I'll deal with. Blethering Scot 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

much appreciated, would take me hours --Iainturnerisgod (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem ive asked. The away kit i could do from existing temps but the third probably not. Usually there done quickly if they are around.Blethering Scot 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They look great! only slight error i can notice is that the away kit socks have blue tops. --Iainturnerisgod (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also if you (or anyone else) have any idea how to make a top with thin hoops that would be ideal for the historical kits section. The 1879 - 1883 kit was actually thin white hoops on a blue background as shown here http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Scottish_Football_League/Rangers/images/rangers_1879-1883-i.gif I couldn't work out how to make the hoops smaller. The current representation isnt very accurate Iainturnerisgod (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of commons:Category:Football kit body/horizontal/hoops brought forth this, which while an improvement, isn't perfect. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ian without creating iamge for them it hard to make them jsut using the basic stuff you have from the template if someone is willing to create them i am happy to update themAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, i have created three images and uploaded them, they are identical in colour to the source image posted above, I'll post the links to the images here and if you could upload that would be great, just leave the socks and shorts white. Cheers. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_rangers_historic1.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_left_arm_rangers_historic1.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_right_arm_rangers_historic1.png Iainturnerisgod (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)