Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters/Archive 1

Problems with this page

I think there are a number of problems with this page.

1/ It reads like a fanzine. In particular, too many superlatives, often with little to back them up. "Very popular in Nairobi", for instance, is one self-serving example. The source for the claim that Celtic shirts are outselling Man U and Arsenal in Kenya - Celtic FC! 2/ Some of the sources are dubious. The Eurorivals.net source for the claim of being 11th most supported club in the world, for instance, is partly based on just 374 facebook likes! Celtic are now 12th, not 11th, behind Benfica, showing how small that representative source is. Are Eurorivals.net notable enough for a claim like this, in any case? 3/ Also on the subject of sources, the claim that Japan has seven million Celtic fans is dubious to say the least, as anyone who knows anything about the country will know. It comes from a sports marketing company, which I wouldn't have thought is a particularly neutral source. I would put this to the relibale source notice board. 4/ Does a fan also include people who have a "soft spot" for a club. I would say not. The Oasis source (the brothers are well known fanatical Man City supporters) says they have a soft spot for the club, nothing more. 5/ There is a reliable source quoted right at the start which talks about a global fan base of nine million. Later on, we hear it's 15 million. And, of course - seven million of these supposedly come from Japan! Elsewhere, they are the second most supported team in the world - so must be ahead of four out of Real Madrid, Barcleona, Man U, Liverpool and AC Milan (I could go on). In short, a mess. 6/ The source for the fact that Honduras has a significant Celtic fan base is a football agent who brokered a deal that took a Honduran player to Celtic. Not sure that counts as a neutral source! As someone who's spent time in Central America, I can tell you that the idea Celtic have a significant fan base in Honduras is ludicrous. Along with quite vibrant local leagues, The Spanish league is almost certainly number one, with Italy and Argentina, and increasingly, the EPL, somewhere behind. Incidentally, I may have missed it, but can't see sources for Mexico and South Korea.7/ Why is that quote on match attendance figures highlighted? It's not exactly the Gettysburg Address!

All this comes from a quick scan of the page. In general, I would say this page is way too fanzine-like and too self-serving for wikipedia and requires a lot of work or merging into the main Celtic FC page. As a fan of Latin American football, and having seen football first hand in a number of Central and South American countries, I would point out that the idea that locals follow European clubs in the same way as happens in Asia is misconceived - in general support for the vibrant local leagues that many in Europe would find surprisingly well supported and of a high standard (giving, I might add many Scottish teams a run for their money), is where most of the energy goes, alongside some "Lingua Espana" teams. Certainly any idea of people pressing their ears to the radios, desparetely trying to find out whether Celtic have beaten Kilmarnock yet, is wide of the mark. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a post on the RS noticeboard here. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - I've tried to knoock it into shape based on the above comments. I would suggest that any disputed content goes to one of the boards - the reliable sources one would be most relevant for most of this stuff. At the very least, hoepfully it looks less like a fanzine now. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, is the quote about the Seville attendance missing a zero. It's from a book so can't check, but clearly 40,000 rather than 4,000 would be what you would anticipate for a European final attendance, even if it's just UEFA Cup. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've put a citation needed to the european ranking for last season as this referenced Wikipedia and had actually changed (moved up from 13th to 12th) so really needs a more reliable reference. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the article back to a previous version that you agree with Adam. The changes appear to be justified above by Mattun, or at least an attempt at discussing has been made. I am not going to revert because you will probably run to the edit warring noticeboard again but you could perhaps consider what has been said above. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have reverted to a version which you also agree with because it was your version I reverted to. I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to reply to Mattun's ramblings. Between his claiming to be a spokesperson for the Latin American people and seemingly thinking he gets to brand sources as dubious for no apparent reason. He does make a good point about the euro rivals website which is why I removed it. I will also again remove the fan tag as no reason has been given for its addition. As pointed out by the essay its use can be uncivil and I consider it to be in this case because you have not given any reason for it. Adam4267 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag for the fact that the points that Mattun has made refer to problems with the article being written from a fans POV and innapropriate wording throughout. Like i have said i will leave it up to you to solve seeing as you will simply revert any changes i make. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out some of this "innapropriate wording", there must be quite a lot if it is "throughout", presumably the whole article. I do not revert all changes you make. I agreed with the change you made on 25 July which is why I reverted back to that version. I also removed the euro rivals sentence because I agreed with Mattun. I reverted many of your original action because they were completely ridiculous. Overtagging and removing every sentence without a source. You even added said that this page needed more sources despite the fact it already has over 60. You have still not shown any evidence of this supposed fan pov or non-nuetral tone and I think you should before you again add this tag. As what you are currently doing is uncivil ad unhelpful. Adam4267 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

have developed a strong fan base since their foundation Back up reference for this, none. Strong is pov. This could be worded more neutral.

Celtic have huge support again pov wording written like a fan would.

Irish flags can often be seen amongst the Celtic support and it is not uncommon to see fans at Ireland matches wearing Celtic tops. again no ref and there are other reasons as to why celtic fans wear ireland tops and wave irish flags.

Celtic also have a strong following in Northern Ireland. pure opinion, i would argue that it is not strong and plus there is no ref.

However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras,[2] Mexico, Kenya[3] and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic words like most significantly is slanted towards how a fan would write. And not neutrally. Also i would argue that these countries only have celtic supporters because they have players from their own country playing for them e.g. nakamura, izzaguere etc. Plus south korea and mexico are not referenced.

This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. pure original research, no ref, a fans opinion. Cherry picked statements from players who describe celtic as the second most supported team in the world (funnily enough on the day they sign for celtic) is debatable.

A large amount of Celtic fans in the U.S and Canada are located in the eastern parts of the two countries, due to the large Irish diaspora in these areas that whole sentence is unreferenced and is slanted towards a fans opinion.

Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi dont believe the ref says that, plus its what a fan would say. Scottish football grounds ref has been deemed to be dubiously reliable. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Celtic's average attendance for the 2010-11 season was 48,968, the highest in Scottish football and the 13th highest in Europe. However this figure was only 80% of the capacity of Celtic Park. Disappointing for the club as for nearly the whole decade before, the average attendance had been around 95%.[10] Celtic's highest average attendance over the last five seasons was 58,150 in the 2005-06 season. Over the next three seasons Celtic's attendance remained above 57,000. But in the 2009-10 season poor performances on the pitch caused a dip in attendance down to an average of 45,582. Lower than Rangers average attendance in the same season This whole section looks like pure original research.

There are quite a few other questionable refs in the famous fans section, but i wont bore you with any more information as to where your work fails wiki standards. I shall replace the tag now that i have pointed out what i am getting at. Please do not remove until this has been sorted. If not i could simply remove all this unsourced material and clean the article myself. Your choice Monkeymanman (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put some points on the reliable sources noticeboard [[1]]. Feel free to add to it/comment, I just put a few queries up there.

Adam, just a quick point. Drmies recently advised you not to take things too personally and focus on the quality of your edits. I think that still stands. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

incidentally, just to reiterate - I presume the quote is missing a zero, as clearly you would expect 40,000, rather than 4,000 supporters to turn up for a European final. It's from some book, so can't check. Mattun0211 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Icidentally, if I remember rightly, we've already had opinion of the football ground RS? Mattun0211 (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, here it is [2]. "Scottish Football Ground appears to be self-published by Duncan Adams and so falls under WP:SPS and shouldn't be used unless you can establish that Adams is an expert recognised or referenced in reliable 3rd-part sources." Maccy69 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC).Mattun0211 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming into this late but by reading the above this is becoming personal. I suggest you step away from this as none of you want to be in trouble over something like this although I agree some of the points. Some new sources do need to be found to add to the existing. Don't think the current ones need replaced totally and possible the intro needs re written.Warburton1368 (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks Warburton. But we have no idea by who you mean by "you"? anyway, additions to the debate would be most welcome, but could you be specific? It's not much help hearing you say you agree with some of the points and not others! Perhaps you could comment on the points raised on the noticeboard and above, with regard to wiki policies - i.e. we're not really looking for general opnions, but whether this is up to Wiki standards, so should be referenced with wiki guidelines and explanation rather than 'I think they're reliable/unreliable'. No one's going to get into trouble as long as they stick to Wiki policy, so don't worry about that. Mattun0211 (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You was a general term. Not meaning just you as i feel that this has the potential into turning into an edit was and some of the above could be thought of as a personal attack. All users need to take a look at if again objectively. You are correct however that a lot of the source could be perceived as not reliable. However an article of this nature is unlikely to be fully able to get all reliable sources. However if the main points can Be fully referenced properly then I see no reason why the rest can't stay as a backup. Also reading it the intro is to me needing improvement as to me it's fanzine like. Warburton1368 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Warby. That's not the way Wiki works though. Any claim should be backed by a reliable source, especially if they are likely to be challenged. Otherwise it would be Anarchtionary. If there's no reliable source how do we know whether its correct? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Way forward

Cptnono, in his American way ;, has shown us a way forward I think; "There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking" [3]

I would take that to mean that we can give the nod to common sense on some of the points raised, but generally require a mimumum of better sources, and for the more contensious claims, sources that clearly meet WP:V. For instance:

have developed a strong fan base since their foundation probably ok, even if it is a bit POV. But we could change strong to global and try and find a source.

Irish flags can often be seen amongst the Celtic support and it is not uncommon to see fans at Ireland matches wearing Celtic tops probably ok - but shall we see if there's a source for this.

Celtic also have a strong following in Northern Ireland. again, shouldn't be difficult to get a source. In general I would say avoid superlatives. Is there a figure for how many fans in NI?

However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras,[2] Mexico, Kenya[3] and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic This doesn't meet WP:V and shoudl only be included when properly sourced.

This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. ditto

A large amount of Celtic fans in the U.S and Canada are located in the eastern parts of the two countries, due to the large Irish diaspora in these areas Probably ok, if a bit OR, but there must be a source if someone's come up with htis you'd think?

Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi Definetely needs a source that meets WP:V and WP:NPV, i.e. not the club itself. Celtic FC cannot be a relaiable source for the popularity of Celtic FC in Nairobi.

Celtic's average attendance for the 2010-11 season was 48,968, the highest in Scottish football and the 13th highest in Europe. However this figure was only 80% of the capacity of Celtic Park. Disappointing for the club as for nearly the whole decade before, the average attendance had been around 95%.[10] Celtic's highest average attendance over the last five seasons was 58,150 in the 2005-06 season. Over the next three seasons Celtic's attendance remained above 57,000. But in the 2009-10 season poor performances on the pitch caused a dip in attendance down to an average of 45,582. Lower than Rangers average attendance in the same season Apart from anything it doesn;t read very well. Also has some OR - "poor performancr caused a dip", etc. generally needs tidying up and a few sources.

On this basis, I've taken out the elements which i think are failing WP:V beyond reasonable doubt. The rest needs some work.

I haven't got the time to really look at sources, but as Cptnono says they must surely exist. I typed in the name of the club in nairobi and on the first google page came up with this - [4] from the Times. Not sure it's suitable for this page, but could be added elsewhere as it relates to Celtic FC.

Adam, I know we've had our differences, and some of them have been my fault. But I really do think that in your keeness to add to the Celtic material on wikipedia, you're straying into a style that sounds like its promoting the club, rather than a more encyclopedic/wikipedia style. I think you should spend more attention on making sure material is properly sourced. That's the best solution for the Celtic project you're leading.

Mattun0211 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I meant North American BTW Mattun0211 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I couldn't find any source that said there is a significant fan base in Korea. But perhaps the way forward is a section that lists countries with Celtic Fan clubs. Then this [5] could be included. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok Mattun I agree with most of your points but have re-added the things were I think you are wrong. Specifically the Gallagher brothers and the Japan and Kenya things. These all have sources and I don't see why you are disagreeing with them. Apart from that I agree with what most of what you have said. Adam4267 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The probelm with the kenya info is the reliable source is celtic fc, so you wouldn't expect them to be neutral. The problem with the japan piece is the info comes from a sports marketing company, which is dubious as there is a high chance they were doing the work in conjunction with Celtic or something related to the club - should at least be mentioned that this is the source of the info. trouble with Gallagher brotehrs is everyone knows that they're Man City fans, so it looks odd. Mattun0211 (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK, one more time, for Adam. I'll do it in all-caps, so they can't miss it. 1. CELTIC IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT CELTIC'S FAN BASE. CELTIC IS CELTIC, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, AND THEREFORE NOT INDEPENDENT. (DUH.) LOOK IT UP AT WP:RS. 2. A PRESS RELEASE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. LOOK IT UP AT WP:RS. 3. A SINGLE MENTION IN AN AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER ABOUT A FAN BASE, A MENTION THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY IN WHICH COUNTRY THIS FANBASE IS LOCATED (you should read the article), CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT CELTIC HAS A HUGE FAN BASE IN AUSTRALIA (ALSO DUH.). I hope I made this clear. Adam, you should stop edit-warring and start reading the relevant policies. It is obvious that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of what "reliable, published sources" means (from the first sentence of WP:RS), and that you have refused to actually read that policy, despite being urged so repeatedly. You may also profit from an essay, Wikipedia:Independent sources.

  In short, one more time: YouTube videos etc. are not reliable, secondary sources. Blogs and forum boards are not reliable sources. Newsletters and websites are not reliable sources when it comes to statements that portray the subject in a positive light, such as claims about an international fanbase. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - yeesh! It looks like we've got ourselves an old fashioned edit war here. Maybe I can help. I just took a look a the most recent deletion, and reviewed the three sources that seem to be at the heart of the matter:

1. The article about Kenya is published on the Celtic team website. I tried looking to see if it was published elsewhere first, but not only couldn't I find a previous website, but I found another website that cited Celtic as the source. That means this is an unreliable source, and really can't be used to support the claims being made.
2. The Australian claim also isn't being backed up by a reliable source. The source it self may be a fine reference, but when the source is interviewing a someone associated with the team, and they say "we're popular in Australia", that simply can't be quoted for truth as it is here.
3. There may be something to the second site referencing Japan. I'm not an expert on the particular source, but it appears to be not associated with the team, and it quotes some pretty exacting information. That said, I could see myself supporting this one claim, provided it was phrased properly.

I hope everyone gets involved in talking about the editing, and not each other, and not simply editing and ignoring the talk page. Best to all you editors out there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Right. The claim from The Age, "We have got a huge fan base here in Australia," is from manager Neil Lennon, thus not independent. The earlier claim, "a club with such a huge and fanatical supporter base and century-long track record of success on its own turf," seems to be talking about the fan base at home, if anything. The odd one is that Japan quote. Seven million fans in Japan, that would be meaningful (though "roughly two million more than the total population of Scotland" is original research and commentary)--but the article, though it's published on a website associated with Goldsmiths, University of London, clearly identifies itself as a press release. The reason it's found there is that a Goldsmiths alumnus, Hiroki Ogasawara, commented on the club's popularity. If it were published anywhere else than the university's own site (besides the Celtic site, of course), it could be acceptable, in my opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad there has been some progress on this. After having been accused of edit warring for adding tags to the article (believe it or not) i have tried to avoid confrontations. While editing is still hot there are still some areas that require attention. This statement for example, with Celtic having the third highest home attendance in the UK. There does not appear to be any mention of celtic in the ref given and appears to be pure original research like with some of the other refs for attendance figures.. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Where is the proof for that in this source? Drmies (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment lonelybacon. And thank you for taking the time to type in capital letters for me Drmies that was helpful.
1. Self-published sources can be used as long as they do not fall under any of these categories;

   1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
   2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
   3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Maybe the sentence in the article should be re-worded but the source is reliable.
2. The source from The Age states that Celtic have "a huge and fanatical supporter base" why is that not acceptable in the article. And the Neil Lennon quote has not been in the article so I don't know why everyone is brining that up.
3.This source is acceptable Drmies, even if it is a press release. If YOU read WP:RS you will see that it is media reprints of press releases that are questinable (not unreliable, just questionable).
4.Can the pair of you really not figure out how the attendance sources work, come on a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE please. Adam4267 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "the material is not unduly self-serving" - so clearly if a club claimed to be the most popular in a third country, we clearly cannot use that source. If they really are popular in Kenya, there are going to be other sources. Aren't there?

Common sense clearly suggests that the idea that there are more Celtic fans in Japan than there are people in Scotland is a bit suspicious (I would say ludicrous, to be honest). It comes from a marketing company - who are they and why were they doing this. Surely such a huge following would mean there are numerous other sources, not least magazines and other material to service this seven million strong market. Where are they? Is there really just one metnion of this seven million fan base and that's it? I would find that bizarre, as would most Wiki readers. These are the things that give Wiki it's dubious reputation in some quarters.Mattun0211 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The section on Attendance should be shifted back over to the main article on Celtic FC. The section on the Old Firm is already repeated in the main article so should be removed or pared down since it doesn't really relate to the supporters per se. The lead sentence in the Fanbase section should be shifted to the worldwide section. --Blackmane (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point blackmane i agree to some extent. Did you notice the post i left below? I think we should open a new section so we dont lose track. Monkeymanman (talk)

Lonelybeacon's comments

(edit conflict .... late, tired ... yadda, yadda

when editors make comments asking other editors to use common sense because (in your opinion) they don't know how something works, that can easily be interpreted as a breach of WP:CIVILITY. All editors need to come down two notches here. This is not about who has the last word or retaliation in any means.

I will throw in a couple of opinions, and I want to be careful that I couch it as such. Adam is correct about the issues of using a self published reference (I think ... I could be wrong ... that this is referring to the Celtic article about the Kenyan team) that there are exceptions. However, I don't see how that couldn't be seen as self serving (it talks specifically about how wonderful Celtic is in terms of helping other teams, and that in return, they are now more popular. I have no doubt that further sourcing about the team's phlanthropy can be found and really should be played up. However, if this is a question about popularity, I would really hesitate about using any source unless it is truly independent. Again, if I'm wrong about which source you were talking about Adam, I'm sorry about that.

Regarding the Age article (Australia): there is the quote in para. 2: While Scottish giants Glasgow Celtic cannot be deemed losers - a club with such a huge and fanatical supporter base and century-long track record of success on its own turf can scarcely be regarded as one of the game's downtrodden

I can't see this quote as any evidence for Australian support for the team. I am reading this as an scknowledgement that in Scotland there is "a huge and fanatical supporter base" in Scotland .. something an Australian reader might not be aware of unless they follow European football.

The second quote from the Age article is the Neil Lennon quote: We have got a huge fan base here in Australia, we wanted to touch with them, make new friends and promote the game if we can.

There are two problems with this, the first being it is not reliable because while the "print" source (The Age) is neutral, the actual source of the quote is not. The line is very easy to interpret as a "throw away" similar to when a rock star takes stage in >>insert city<< and says "HELLO >>insert city<< home of the best fans in the world!!" (insert crowd noise).

The problem with including information about a following like this is that it almost always tends to be subjective, and IMO, too subjective for inclusion here.

But let me go back to the press release a moment.

I'm not seeing anything that comes across as attached to Celtic in anyway. The opening quotes a number from a marketing firm wich has presumably done this research independent of the team. It also sounds like that same marketing firm is discussing that the fan base has reached a point in Japan that it can be used for effective advertising in an environment that is difficult to advertise in. Then there is the point about the fan club.

I think this source could be used, but it has to be used very carefully. Saying "There are seven million Celtic supporters in Japan" which is what was deleted from the article, cannot in any way be supported from this source. It simply says there are 7 million football fans. You could say that a fan club has been started, and that according to one source Celtic has attracted thousands of fans in Japan because Shunsuke Nakamura is now playing for Celtic. I think anything beyond that is a stretch.

I know there are some die hard fans here, and passions can run high. Remember: the article (and the subject) are in the best light when the article is neutral. If it looks like a hatchet job done by partisans, people easily walk away not knowing what to believe. Keep it very neutral. If it cann't be independently verified, keep it out. Put a note on the talk page encouraging editors to find that source if you can't.

Sorry this is long, but I wanted to make sure I didn't get misunderstood, and I tend to get longwinded when that happens ... I'm just a baseball lovin' Yank whose family is from Ireland and loves the British Isles. I understand things are a little rough in some of the cities over there. Stay safe and stay cool. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's roughly the equivalent of a quiet night in Detroit, so no need to worry;) Above is all perfectly clear and well put. Mattun0211 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(editconflict)Forgive my reply not being as long as yours.

1. IMO it's not unduly self-serving. It praises the work of Kibera Celtic and says that they are responsible for the popularity in Kenya. And that Celtic back them. It then says that the Celtic jersey is now the most popular in Nairobi and that a shopping complex will be built named Celtic park. [6]

2.Neil Lennons quote in the Age was not in this article so I don't see why it has been brought up. The huge and fanatical thing is just a general quote about Celtic fans. Celtic are fairly popular in Australia because of the ex-pat community but that was not mentioned.

3.The quote; "According to sports marketing agency, SportsRevolution, there are currently over seven million Japanese adults who are fans of Celtic football club – that is two million more fans than there are people in Scotland." speaks for itself IMO. Adam4267 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You really need to take a step back and think about this one as it's been explained to you on numerous occasions. If the Dallas Cowboys website says that the Dallas Cowboys are very popular in Upper Volta, then this is self-serving, i.e. it is serving the interests of the publisher. It doesn't matter how much praise they receive in the article.

2. Yes, i thought that had been taken out as well. But as stated, the person saying that isn't neutral.

3. No it does't speak for itself. If it was the case there would be numerous other sources given it is bigger than Scotland. Where are they? Or is this the single source. If so, it's being given too much weight. Our North American cousin has come up with a good compromise. Mattun0211 (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mattun please try and report factually on the sources or at least read them. The Celtic source is full or praise for KIBERA Celtic not Celtic FC. So the example you provided is wrong. A correct equivelant qould be the Dallas cowbays talking about how popular the Volga cowbays are. Although I am not sure how popular rodeo is in eastern europe.
The quote from Neil Lennon was never in this article, so it is false to keep going on about it. But I agree it would not be neutral. Adam4267 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the crucial point you don't understand. It's the source of the source, not the content in the source that is the problem. i.e. the publisher. That is the problem. Could the Dallas Cowboys be regarded as having a neutral opionion on Volga Cowboys - no they couldn't. "Dallas Cowboys very popular in Volgagrad, say Dallas Cowboys". It's self serving. If you step back, think about this and read any related wiki guidelines, this will hopefully become clear. Mattun0211 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read the source Mattun? Your example with these Dallas Cowboys are misrepresenting the source. Which suggest you haven't read it. Adam4267 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try and keep this simple. It's the publisher, not the content. Mattun0211 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used as long as they do not fall under any of these categories;

  1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

You have to show that the source falls under one of these categories. You can't just simply say that Celtic FC cannot comment on themselves. Because that is not Wikipedias policy. Adam4267 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, - unduly self-serving! Right up there at the top! You seem to have a blind spot on this one. Is there someone you could ask to explain this to you? "I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread", according to Mattun0211.net.Mattun0211 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what is meant by self-serving BTW. I've a feeling that may be where the problem lies. Mattun0211 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for clues as to how you could possibly not be getting this. Here's another - "correct equivelant would be the Dallas cowbays talking about how popular the Volga cowbays are". No - you're using this to say that Celtic FC are popular in Kenya, not that Kibera Celtic are popular in Kenya. But it wouldn't be a reliable source for the former either. Go to bed, wake up in the morning and spend a bit of time at WP:RS with a clear head. Mattun0211 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(indent) ... I see the thermometer is starting to edge up a little bit again. There is clearly a communication issue, so I ask all editors to please not use the second person ... do not write anything that is in any possible way going to be construed as an attack ... even if this is not your intent, in a heated situation, people can start feeling persecuted, and that has a tendency to get us away from the article and more at each other.
I'm going to do this out of order, but I'll try to be as clear as I can:
Regarding the Australian/Age article, Adam is correct that (at least in the last edit ... I didn't go back and check subsequent ones, though I suspect they are the same) the Neil Lennon quote was never a part of the referencing, and was not quoted in the Wikipedia article in any way. I may have accidentally implied that this was the case, and if it was, I'm sorry. That part aside, I really need to reiterate that the quote that was being made from The Age in the Wikipedia article (sic) "huge and fanatical supporter base". is really not a reference to the fan base in Australia. I have spent a few minutes trying to see from my perspective how I could interpret that as referring to Australians ... and as an outsider, I am saying that I am not seeing it. From my personal perspective, I can't see how this is supporting the idea of a lot of fans in Australia. To be very crystal clear, I am not saying in any way (and I don't think anyone here really is) that there aren't many Celtic fans in Australia. However the opening of the policy on verificability is also really clear: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I've been on the downside of this policy more than a few times, but this is one of those policies that even in the scope of bold editing has few exceptions.
Going back to the Kenya article ...this may come down to how "unduly self-serving" is defined. I think whenever there is serious doubt in more than one person's mind (as there appears to be in this case), I think it is best to cut it, however if there is really a strong feeling that this is not unduly self-serving, you could move on to something more formal like an WP:RFC, and ask other editors to come in and give their opinions.
Having said that, I did some more hunting, and found this. There's no question on the reliability. It does not confirm the claim being made in this article, but I think it is something that is worthy of being mentioned. I also found this other article. It looks reliable (you folks will know more about this than me), and it appears to confirm that there is some history of Celtic fandom in Kenya. You would need to be careful about wording ....
Then there's this one. This might be the goldmine. It looks like a person independent of either team (a filmmaker) is noting that Celtic FC (Scotland) is very big in Nairobi. The filmmaker in question is a funder of the Kenyan Celtic team's charitable efforts. All said though, I think this is enough to support the claims made, provided that the wording is very carefully made.
Last thing before I go for the evening ... I went back and Adam was correct about the article claiming seven million Celtic fans in Japan (I misread it, I am sorry). I have to admit that this sounds a little high, but after contemplation, I think it has a chance of making some sense. About ten years ago, one of Japan's top baseball players came to the U.S. (Ichiro Suzuki). He ended up playing for one of our lesser followed teams in Seattle. All of sudden the team started getting webhits through the roof. I recall very clearly seeing video from Japan of people waking up three or four hours early for work so they could watch meaningless games from the States that he was playing in. When the opportunity cam for him to get voted into our All-Star game, he not only was the top vote getter, but he shattered the old record by several million votes. I saw many informal surveys that all of a sudden showed huge support for the Seattle team in Japan. In all honesty, they really didn't care about the team, they cared about their player. That being said though, this seems to be a fairly reliable source, and upon contemplation, while there may not be seven million "I'd kill my own mother to get tickets to a game" fans, they are fans in perhaps the loosest definition of the term. I think there is an argument for keeping it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm only going to comment on two things. The Japan issue--yes, this could make some sense, if you bypass the requirement that information is based on reliable secondary sources. The Kenya connection--you got ONE person, a filmmaker who helps fund the particular club, who claims that the Celtic shirt outsells all others. There is no way that this is encyclopedic or reliable. For the rest, I think we're all in agreement here, that is, all but one editor--and that editor suffers from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Celtic have seven million fans in Japan there are going to be masses and masses of reliable secondary sources, as well as fan clubs etc. Where are they?

I'm still not seeing the neutral reliable secondary sources for the claim that Celtic are very popular in Kenya. I've already said that the material could be used elsewhere.

One way forward, rather than making dubious claims about scale of support which apparently can't be reliably sourced, why not have a list of countries with Celtic fan clubs. I've already pointed this out above, with reference to south Korea - there must be plenty of others. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things, firstly the quote from this page was "During Celtic's July 2011 tour of Australia, Melbourne newspaper The Age described Celtic as having a "huge and fanatical supporter base".[15]" to me, that is not referring to the Australian fan base just the fan base in general, which I think is what the newspaper was doing. And for the attendances, you actually have to go onto the correct season and then it will show you the average attendances. It takes several clicks (about three) but it's not exactly rocket science. Also the thing you have to remember with Nakamura is that he wasn't just playing for some second division baseball team. At the time he was at one of the best teams in europe. And he was probably Celtic's best outfield player at the time. And he was the best Japanese player at the time. I think all these factors considered and 7 million (out of 120 million) fans is probably quite conservative. Adam4267 (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On a brighter note I think this article could be nominated for DYK. Thoughts? Adam4267 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that you think that is not surprising--you don't know the rules for DYK nominations, as you don't know the rules for reliable sources or for consensus. You are all alone in claiming that the Kenya material, the Japan material, the Australia material is properly sources and notable, just as you are alone in seeing in this link that Celtic has the third highest attendance in the UK. But, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Off to ANI we go--dispute resolution is useless here, since there is a consensus on at least a few of the issues, and you are going directly against it, edit warring and all. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am finding your comments increasingly tedious and uncivil Drmies. Please try and talk about the artcile and content rather than me. I find your style of editing absolutely disgusting as you constantly insult me and make everything personal, not to mention continuously threatening to block me and calling my edits vandalism. It is incredibly hard to try and work contsructively on improving articles (which you seem to have no interest in doing) when you keep doing this. I think you should seriously re-think your editing style or just stop ediiting here completely. Adam4267 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you: I will seriously give that some thought. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Adam4267 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(indent) I see that an ANI has been initiated on this, and I suspect that something more formal is needed. to take the next step. I would reccomend that perhaps another next step is to initiate a formal RFC. I just read the ANI up ot this point, and there is validity to the WP:COI issue. Adam, as a self-identified fan of the team, even if you don't work for them, you need to exercise a modicum of restraint, and you need to be able to reach certain levels of compromise. If there is doubt over sourcing (there is), then the best remedy is often to take the more conservative approach in regards to inclusion, and continue the search for more sourcing. I am goingto step away at this point unless I am asked to come in and comment on a specific point. I do hope that this works out in the end. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Attendance issues

I have again removed the claim that "The two clubs are also by far the most supported in Scotland, with Celtic having the third highest home attendance in the UK." This is sourced to this page and to this page. First of all, such linking to databases that require input is not encyclopedic. But even if I follow what appear to be suggestions given in the actual reference (for a little audience input, so to speak), I have to apply original research by comparing those numbers:

For the Soccernet link, one can select "2010-11 Barclays Premier League" from the pull-down menu (and note that the text in the article says nothing about which year Celtic supposedly had the third-highest home attendance), and that produces a list in which Celtic doesn't even appear, since they don't play in that league. For the SPL Stats link, one can select 2010/11 and Attendance (Average) in two pull-down menus, which produces an average of 48968 for Celtic--ah, so by comparing those two results, for that one season (but why that one?), we get the desired result.

But this is original research, and the data required to achieve the desired result are not indicated or argued in the text. An encyclopedic article should not ask its readers to start selecting data and comparing the results, and it certainly shouldn't do that for just one season. Is it really too much to ask for some reliable direct source that says something about attendance figures? And even if the numbers were clear and self-evident, it wouldn't support the claim that "the two clubs are by far the most supported in Scotland", since "support" means a lot more than "home attendance." This cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok Drmies I agree with your removal of the attendance bit from the Old Firm section. It doesn't support the top supported teams in Scotland sentence anyway (although that shouldn't be hard to find a source for). And in any event isn't appropriate as Celtic don't play in the UK and a similar claim is made in the more appropriate attendance section. You have to remember I didn't write the Old Firm section so branding it as "my" source was wrong and overly personal. The reason the 2010/11 season is chosen is simply because it is the most recent season. If you go back far enough (pre-2005 I think) Celtic have the second highest attendance in the UK. But to say that would be POV in my opinion. Sometimes stats websites have databases and you have to select the right season. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. Adam4267 (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is any of this from the Yorkshire Evening Post [7] acceptable.

"DARREN O’DEA has had the considerable privilege of playing in front of one of the most passionate fanbases on the planet at a genuine footballing giant in Glasgow Celtic.

The Hoops support have claimed numerous accolades over the years, with their staggering travelling contingent of 80,000 fans who flocked to Seville for the 2003 Uefa Cup final against Porto then ranking as the largest away following in history.

A prestigious Fair Play Award famously followed, with FIFA president Sepp Blatter going onto herald Celts fans as “the greatest in the world” when presenting them with the blue-riband honour at Celtic Park.

While it’s undeniable that Celtic’s support is the stuff of legend," (Moves onto a different topic after this)

Can we please have some decision on the other sources
Japan[8]Yes/No
Kenya [9] Yes/No
The Age[10] Yes/No. Adam4267 (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that I don’t see a problem with stating that celtic have developed supporters in certain areas around the world.

The Australia one I think is a fair enough point to say that they have developed a support there (if we can find a source stating it is because of many ex pats then that would be better).

Japan I don’t think it’s a problem saying that celtic have developed a support there either, but we really need to stress the point as neutrally as possible that it was because celtic signed nakamura, a very famous Japanese internationalist. The fact that he is no longer with celtic will probably (if not definitely) have affected the amount of Japanese people who support celtic.

The Kenya case is difficult because although I would agree that it could be included that celtic have developed a support there for x and y reasons, using it as a source to say that the celtic top is the most popular (fact) might be a bit too far from a source directly published by Celtic football club.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok remember the quote from The Age was not about Celtic's fan base in Australia simply a description of there fan base i general as being "huge and fanatical". Logic would tell us that Nakamura leaving Celtic will have affected the support in Japan, how much it would be hard to know and even harder to source. But the fact he has left does not necessarily mean Japanese people will stop supporting Celtic. There is also a source from Victor Wanyama saying Celtic are popular in Nairobi [11] and one of the guys who funds Kibera Celtic [12]. What about this source from the Motagua GM stating that there is now a fan base in Honduras [13]. And the above Yorkshire source. Adam4267 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Age quote is reliably sourced, although "huge and fanatical" is puff piece language that makes it sound like a fanzine. teh fact that some people thought that this referred to Australia suggests it needs to be clear that it is worldside.

The key to the Japan claim is that the 7 million claim is too dubious, unless more sources can be found. The idea that Nakamura has boosted teh clubs profile sounds like a sensible route - presumably there are sources for this.

At least we're looking at the sources now for the Kenya claim. Victor Wanyama is a Celtic player, so not a neutral source (not mentioned in reference anyway). The Kibera Celtic guys are also connected to Celtic FC, so not neutral sources.

[14] has some info on record away attendances. In terms of estimates of people who turned up, rangers have a claim on that record at 150,000 [15] but I would say official attendance figures are a better guide than rough estimates. Looks like Schalke 04 might have that at 81,000 if you include the video screen! The 1923 FA cup final at Wembley has estimates of 300,000 attendees, according to Wikipedia. With west Ham being a London club, that would maybe have a claim, but hard to prove. Mattun0211 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Huge and fanatcial may be puff language or fanzine like (I've lost track of which term your using now) but it is in the Age. Unless you think that it is a Celtic fanzine I don't see what the problem is. The Japan claim is not dubious it is reliably sourced, sources don't need to be backed up by sources. Victor Wanyama may be a Celtic player but he is also Kenyan, so that could go either way. Please at least bother to read the sources that are provided Mattun. It is an intervieew with Wanyama about his move to Celtic, and his name is the first two words of the article. I think that constitutes a "mention". I'm not sure where you are going with your fourth point but Celtic's record attendance(s) can be found under the records section in the Celtic FC page, if that is helpful to you. Adam4267 (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Ask for outside help for all of these sources, and the wording. I think it would be fair to say Celtic have developed fan bases in Australia and Kenya With the sources given. I also think it would be important to say where the figures for the Japan fans has come from. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very confused Monkeymanman, when I try and make changes to these articles they get reverted or reported, so I am using the talk page. But now you want me to go and get outside help. Do I have to go through WP:RS before I can make any changes. That you or others disagree with Adam4267 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, yes 'Huge and Fanatical' is reliably sourced and can be used. It just doesn't read very well from a wikipedia point of view. It makes the whole page less convincing.

Wanyama is not a neutral source. We wouldn't expect Sami Nasri to be neutral on Paris Arsenal (if they existed) because he's French. It all depends on the wording. If we're to give it a brief mention, that's one thing, although even then I think we should be looking for a neutral reliable source. What we can't say is that they're more popular than Man U or Arsenal, without a neutral, reliable source.

The attendance figures were in relation to the claim for the highest away attendance. Of course, it could be argued that cup finals are not strictly away, but in any case, I was looking to see if this claim could be verified (highest away attendance). It looks to me as if it's up there, but not highest in terms of either estimates of numbers travelled or more official attendance figures, juding by that reliable source (The Guardian).

You're still using language that suggests you think you're being picked upon, making digs at other editors ("I've lost track of which term your using now" etc.) and still going through items that have been hammered to death. Yes, you should make far more use of noticeboards. As a number of editors have pointed out, the claim about 7 million Japanese fans is dubious as it comes from a sports marketing company and doesn't seem to have any other secondary or even primary sources, which you would expect for a fan base bigger than the population of Scotland. But we've been through this about twenty times now. Mattun0211 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we'd put the Honduran thing to bed a long time ago, but in any case, let's try this another way. Can you think of any reasons why someone who's brokering a deal taking a Honduran player to Celtic may not be a neutral reliable source on Celtic's popularity in Honduras?Mattun0211 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But now you want me to go and get outside help. Do I have to go through WP:RS before I can make any changes. That you or others disagree with. What i am trying to tell you Adam is that we are at a stand off on this issue. We all have our views on the sourcing and the wording. I honestly am tired of this debate that has gone on and on about the same issues. We could try and get another opinion to clarify a few things. Thats all i am saying. It may not need to be RS noticeboard but simply some outside views from other neutral editors. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Making changes which I think reflect consensus and noticeboard feedback. As previously discussed, I think we need to be more cautious with some of the claims, particulalry the 7 million fans in Japan piece from the marketing company, which, if true, would mean secondary sources are available to prove this. Sports Revolution are a company that deals with club sponsorship and advertising, and says on its website it has contractural relations with Celtic [16], suggesting its neutrality is dubious, and secondary sources would be needed. I've added in the South Korea fan club, as previously suggested, as well as Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mattun but I don't think your changes reflect noticeboard feedback or consensus. Also I am not sure about a list of CSC's. Maaybe it would be better to say that many countries have CSC's but having one does not necessarily mean that there is a large fanbase in that country Adam4267 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can at least agree that these changes are contensious and need some form of arbitration before they are included, given all of the above. I would suggest this board for arbitration - [17], or we've got Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard although that doesn't get that much traffic. I'm a little surprised you're kicking this one off again, to be honest, as I don't think anyone has said they are ok as they are worded, and a number have said they are not up to wiki standards or have questioned them. To reiterate some of the main points again for about the 20th time - deatails above of course;

1/ The Japan information comes from a marketing company with a contractural relationship with Celtic, so is not neutral.

2/ The Honduran information comes from someone who is brokering a deal to take a Honduran plyer to Celtic, so is not neutral.

3/ The Kibera Celtic information comes from people associated with Kibera Celtic FC, a club associated with Celtic FC, and is published by Celtic FC, so is not neutral (do you see a pattern developing here)?

To reiterate WP:IS says "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." The Kibera source is Celtic FC - clearly not a disinterested party, while the other two cite involved parties. As WP:IS says, "Merely being independent does not guarantee that a source is reliable for a given purpose. Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate". All these sources cite people who have clear links to Celtic and make favourable claims about Celtic. Wikipedia's guidelines on independent sources also calls for non conflict of interest. I trust these conflicts of intererest with the various sources, as explained above, are obvious? If not, I'm more than willing to explain them to you in detail, again.

It's worth being extra careful about neutrality when editing a subject close to your heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattun0211 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As regards fan clubs, one of your own links has a list of fan clubs, can't remember which one. Surely a table of these would be better, which number about 20 countries IIRC, would be better than dubious claims about Honduras etc.?Mattun0211 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section, "Celtic Park's average attendance for the 2010-11 season was 48,968, the highest in Scottish football and the twelfth highest in Europe. This figure is roughly 80% of the stadium's total capacity, down from an average of around 95% a decade earlier" has a reference that doesn't link to any of the above stated facts. Others have pointed this out, I believe. Maybe it just links to the wrong section of the website. Also, no reference for the European claim. Mattun0211 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A middle ground on this could be to explain who and what the source of the figures and information is from i.e. Japan info is from a sports marketing company with a contractual relationship with celtic etc. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had a read on the notice on ANI followed by a read through this page, I thought I'd stick my oar in here. I suggest a post on the dispute resolution noticeboard or third opinion requests. Alternatively, seeking mediation is another option. When I have time I might have read through and offer a neutral opinion. I'm pretty sure everyone here can't accuse me of one thing or another :p.--Blackmane (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane. If you read the above, you'll see we've been down that road before (on more than one occassion), but the person in question isn't keen on it. Mattun0211 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

i think its still mainly a wording issue. Mattun make a proposal on here about how you believe the article could be altered for wording (if at all), editors can review it, and then myself and others can also make proposals of wording (along with sources). From proposals it is normaly much easier to take to noticeboards etc. Give me 24 hours i will make a proposal (mainly to do with supporters groups and volume in specific areas) here which we can discuss hopefully with balckmanes help. Cheers. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. I'd be more than happy to give a neutral opinion on whatever you guys come up with. I have this TP watchlisted so I'll pop back. --Blackmane (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the intro to the fanbase section states During Celtic's July 2011 tour of Australia, Melbourne newspaper The Age described Celtic as having a "huge and fanatical supporter base.. Technically this was said by Nil Lennon the celtic manager. Should this be changed to reflect this or left alone?

Also would it not be better to include the info about australia in the worldwide section. Along the lines of Celtic have supporters clubs in australia and the southern hemisphere (ref from official celtic fc page or Southern Hemisphere Federation of Celtic Supporters Clubs) when touring in 2011 manager neil lennon stated that celtic have a huge and fanatical support base there.(Ref from the age). Monkeymanman (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine by me. I think now that non-NPOV stuff is out it should be a little easier. I think just going through it and jigging it for those kinds of changes will improve things. I agree that linking popularity to foreign players is a good idea - probabaly importnat to put the year as these things can date. I have no idea how to do tables, but the fact that there are 20+ fans clubs aroudn the world seems pretty impressive, so a list or even a table of those would be a good reference point i would have thought. I've a feeling some of the stats need checking with regards to references and all that. Mattun0211 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

New section - improvements

I've just had another read through with a fresh pair of eyes now that the ANI has been put to bed, and I think it still reads pretty badly in places. My focus on this was on a few issues, but now that I look at it in its entirety, I think it still reads very much like a fanzine in places and still has quite a few puff-piece type sentences that sound like a badly constructed press release. Bit busy now, but one to come back to. Mattun0211 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that an article of this type is always going to be a bit fanzine like in a small way as its about the clubs support the only section i see that needs work is the fan base section. Remember we are here to improve the article not totally destroy it. Can you point out the areas you are taking about so we can discuss how to improve it. Given whats happened its the best way to go. In all honesty we should probably get a Wikipedia:RFF or peer review carried out. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. My interest here was with areas that I thought weren't up to basic Wiki standards and that's been resolved now. I would be happy enough with whatever happens now to be honest and was just giving a few ideas. If the page stays as it is that's fine by me. It was late in the day out here in Asia and I gave it a read as I was waiting to go home, partly because I knew a few editors were suggesting improvements. I'm certainly not here to destroy the article. I agree to some extent about the 'fanzine' point but I think you've got to be very careful how its done. A good example I think is the Arsenal F.C. supporters page and there St Totteridge's day for the point in the season when they get enough points to be mathematically certain of finishing above Tottenham - will this year be a leap year I wonder! But in general, while I get the fanzine point I think you've got to be very careful, particulalry when it comes to making claims about your club being the best or greatest etc. It is still wikipedia at the end of the day, not Celtipedia or Arsepedia (for want of a better word!)

My comment was a general one after giving a skim read. Essentially it is sometimimes written in a style that is maybe a bit too promotive of the club in question, which means we're in danger of straying away from some of the core Wiki policies such as WP:NPOV. In general I think it's fine, but we could tweak it here and there if people want. The section I was reading when I made the above comment was actually the North America section,which could be rejigged a bit to sound better (in fact I did this way back but it was reverted). The claim that Celtic are the best supported team in North America comes from one man I've never heard of and is now nearly ten years old. During that time the US domestic league has grown (how many fans does LA Galaxy have I wonder?) and my guess is so has interest in the EPL and teams like Barcleona (sadly, I get the impression quite a few Americans are jumpoing on the Man U bandwagon!), so I think we should be careful in areas like this. Another general comment is that for a page that is so recent, there's a lot of very old dates in here. Also, as someone mentioned above (they put it in an old section - check edit hostory to find it) some of these things are repeated in othe rsections. The Arsenal section has things like favourite chants etc. and a more light-hearted feel, which is perhaps something to bear in mind (and this is the real spirit of the fanzine IMO, not a club marketing brochure). I think there's a tendency sometimes for the Old Firm clubs to take themselves too seriosuly, but that's just my view from afar. Mattun0211 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Warburton, do you have any objection to the change i proposed above? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your change proposed above is good will make the section clearer would benefit the prose. The old firm clubs do take themselves very seriously which is why i am glad i support neither. To be honest i thought you were meaning more wholesale changes but i understand where you are coming from now. The arsenal article is more informal and yes less like a press article. In my opinion the reason for the dates being used are not so much from the recent past is celtics international profile hasnt been as good over the last few years as they were say ten years ago. I think a section about the Songs would be a good and may take the serious tone of the article down a bit but we would need someone a wee bit more familiar with the subject Warburton1368 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure there is a stub (used at the base of celtic related pages) related to Celtic F.C. songs, if that is any help. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted a restructure of that section and removed the majority of the duplicated info as you had previously described warburton. I will see how everyone feels about that before i make any more changes. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All fine by me Mattun0211 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made another edit whereby the intro has been shortened for easier reading, with all information transferred to appropriate areas of the article. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks more neutral. Mattun0211 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)