Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 3

More info ?
Do you think there is any space for this information? I was thinking about adding it to either this page or the history of Celtic page.....opinions??? Mark 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

3 TREBLES - (1967, 1969, 2001)

9 DOUBLES - (1907, 1908, 1914, 1954, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1988, 2007)

4 LEAGUE~L-CUP DOUBLES - (1966, 1968, 1970, 1998, 2006)

1 CUP~L-CUP DOUBLES - (1975)

and the managers....

Willie Maley   =   1897 - 1940 (19 leagues, 15 cups, 43 years) Jimmy McStay   =   1940 - 1945 (0 trophies, 5 wartime years)

James McGrory  =   1945 - 1965 (1 league, 3 cups, 2 league cups, 20 years)

Jock Stein     =   1965 - 1978 (1 european cup, 10 leagues, 7 cups, 6 league cups, 13 years) Billy McNeill  =   1978 - 1983 (3 leagues, 1 cup, 1 league cup, 5 years)

David Hay      =   1983 - 1987 (1 league, 1 cup, 4 years) Billy McNeill  =   1987 - 1991 (1 league, 2 cups, 4 years)

Liam Brady     =   1991 - 1992 (0 trophies, 1 year)

Lou Macari     =   1992 - 1994 (0 trophies, 2 years)

Tommy Burns    =   1994 - 1997 (1 cup, 3 years)

Wim Jansen     =   1997 - 1998 (1 league, 1 league cup, 1 year)

Jozef Venglos  =   1998 - 1999 (0 trophies, 1 year)

John Barnes    =   1999 - 2000 (1 league cup, 1 year) Kenny Dalglish =   2000*

Martin O'Neill =   2000 - 2005 (3 leagues, 2 cups, 1 league cup, 5 years)

Gordon Strachan =  2005 -      (2 leagues, 1 cup, 1 league cup, 2 years)

It is a bit long though isn't it? I would make it into a box of some sort.

I think that it should be emphasised that the League and Scottish Cup were suspended due to WWII when Jimmy McStay was manager - outsides would assume that he was not a good manager having not won anything during his 5 years.

Lisbon Lions, Featured Article
Will it be a featured article on the 25th? It should be. How can I nominate it? 63.113.199.109 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tims as a nickname?
Before you all jump down my throat....

There is a similar argument on the Rangers talk page about adding huns to their info. I think Tims should be added because, like it or not, it IS a very common nickname for the club and it's supporters. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.113.199.109 (talk • contribs)


 * Although not derogatory, it is unofficial. Which generally means it should not be included.  Archibald99   22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've said it before - maybe the info box should be changed to official nicknames with a mention of the other unofficial nickname somewhere else on the article ???? Seems a shame to dismiss potentially useful information. 63.113.199.109 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Tic is not official either....63.113.199.109 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1957 when Celtic won the Scottish League Cup "Hampden In The Sun" refers to them as The Tim Malloys


 * It seems to me that Rangers fans think Tims is an insult to Celtic fans despite them not having a problem with it. Often referring to themselves as Tims. It's a nickname and while it may not be official, neither is the Tic and Tims is much more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.50.156 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames are by definition, not official, so a nichname not being official is not a very good reason for not including it. If someone cannot provide a good reason for excluding it then I will include it. Can someone tell me where 'the tic' comes from? It sounds a lot more derogatary than 'the Tims' to me. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By "official" it means names that the club may use, even on an unofficial basis. They would never use "Tims" because it is a sectarian nickname for "Catholics".  It's association with Celtic is therefore only through outdated religious divisions that the club itself is keen to leave behind.  "The Tic", on the otherhand, is simply a syncope of Celtic.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tims was originaly meant as a derogatary term; but was then adopted by Celtic Fans as a badge of Honour. I am a Celtic fan whomb considers himself a Tim and I know for a fact that a no of Independant Celtic organisations use it. Can you find an example of the club actualy condeming the phrase Tim. If not I will put it back in. (I take your point about 'the tic' now that you bring my attention to it, thank you for pointing this out to me.) Fry2000
 * Hmmm, I have a better idea. Rather than me finding a phrase where Celtic F.C. condemns the phrase, you find one where they use it.  That's usually how things work here. :-) Otherwise anyone could add anything they liked on the grounds that Celtic have never said not to use it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sarcastic. I never stated that they use it. They don't use 'the Tic' either, should that be deleted? Fry2000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being sarcastic. I was stating Wikipedia policy.  If you want to add it then you need to cite it, particularly if other editors are questioning it.  It's not the responsibility of other editors to find cites that either support or contradict your edit if you can't supply any yourself. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Catholics being refered to as "Tims". "Tims" is an unofficial nickname for Celtic FC not a person from a particular religion. "The Tim Malloys" is an old nickname for Celtic FC which was probably rhyming slang for "The Bhoys". In the song "Hampden In The Sun" which celebrates Celtic beatinG Rangers 7-1 in the League Cup Final of 1957, there is a line that goes "at time up the "Tim Malloys" had won the League Cup

Jim Torbett
Now, I know this is likely to be controversial with some of you, but I'm thinking I'd like to include some mention of the Celtic Boys Club sexual abuse scandal in this article. I hope my credentials (I have made 137 edits to this article, a lot of them reverting mindless sectarian vandalism) will convince you that I am not taking a POV here. It just seems extraordinary that neither this article nor the History of Celtic F.C. one even mentions the affair at all. Including a brief mention will, I believe, make the article more encyclopedic and might even reduce the number of "BJK" edits I am reverting. --Guinnog 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly happy to give you the opportunity to see what you propose, but wouldn't it make more sense to expand the info about the scandal in the Celtic Boys Club article, and then link to that, with a brief mention, from the main article? Rockpock  e  t  01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable; I only wonder if there is much more to say about it than we already have. Let me think about it. --Guinnog 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of source material here (pdf). Rockpock  e  t  04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim Torbett is the place for it. Any attempt to add this type of entry is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia style. For example, Ted Bundy worked for the Republican Party. Check their entry to see if he is mentioned. Of course not. The suggestion of adding Torbett to this article has no precedent or basis. Where do we go next ? Add Findlay to the Rangers article? Change every company article that any offender was ever employed by? Where would it end ? That being said as some of the victims were members of the Boys Club which was fundamental to the event, there exists a basis for mention there. Pal X  12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree about it's inclusion. It wouldn't be a particularly large section if it was included in the main Celtic F.C. article, and it'd have to made sure that it didn't become that. But it is a fairly large event in the club's history, and for it not to have a mention anywhere already is somewhat strange. Archibald99 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be fairly large in the eyes of the inhabitants of Castle Greyskull (hey, how is the weather out in Mordor?), but sadly it has no place on this page. As a comparator, should the Rangers FC article contain details of the actions of Donald Findlay, the former vice-chairman who was caught on video tape signing sectarian songs? Or maybe of Andy Goram, who wore a black armband in memory of the death of a terrorist, and was named in the Guardians 20 most shocking moments in sport article? Paul Gascoignes wife beating was very big news too. Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer posing for photographs with convicted sectarian murderer Michael Stone, Duncan Ferguson being jailed for 3 months for head butting an opponent, Bob Malcolm forgetting that his name isn't 'Fuck The Pope', the 1972 European Ban for rioting in Barcelona? Oh, and Archibald, it's not that strange when you consider that he was never actually an employee of the club. --Cloveoil 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Cloveoil - this belongs in the Jim Torbett article & the Celtic Boys Club article. The Celtic FC article doesn't even mention Celtic Boys Club as a feeder club. Archibald99, it's not a fairly large event in Celtic's history - though it's certainly a fairly large event in Celtic Boys' Club's history. Hippo43 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I inserted a mention into the History of Celtic F.C. article. It was a significant event in the club's history, after all, and is certainly still very much a live issue. It will do more harm to appear to suppress mention of this very unfortunate event, in my opinion. --Guinnog 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed it per the reasons given above.--Vintagekits 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect to the contributors above, I didn't see any reasons in terms of Wiki policy not to include it. I think I would approve of the inclusion of some of the Rangers scandals described by Cloveoil into the Rangers history article; we could even reference this discussion. Vk, I was bold and inserted my proposal, you reverted it. Would you mind explaining why, in terms of wiki policy? --Guinnog 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have explained it to you, infact I have done it twice now.--Vintagekits 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you say that in the real world it has more or less significance to the history of Celtic F.C. than the Cadete affair? Please give reasons. Thanks.--Guinnog 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not having heard any good reason not to, I've restored the info about Torbett, along with a fairly major copyedit of the History article. --Guinnog 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First British / Northern European Club to win the European Cup
I've reinstated "first British club" as this seems important in the history of British football. I've also reinstated it at History_of_Celtic_F.C. and Lisbon_Lions.

As far as I can tell, from the discussion here - Talk:History_of_Celtic_F.C. - Vintagekits' objection to this is that "in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British"

Excuse me Vintagekits, but my husband and all his family are Scottish, and Celtic fans and Catholics and they certainly do not depise everything British! Your generalisations are way off the mark! I think you've got some issues mate! Trouble between Scotland and England dates back over 500 years-get over it! Scottish people ARE British, and Celtic FC, along with clubs like Liverpool FC and Cardiff FC, are all BRITISH clubs, whether you like it or not! Because they reside in the country called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

This is a ridiculous generalisation. Vintagekits cannot speak for all Celtic fans, or a majority, and to ascribe his own political views to hundreds of thousands of Celtic fans is bonkers. IMO, many Celtic fans are very proud of the fact that Celtic won the European Cup before any club from the generally stronger English league - quite an achievement for a club from Scotland.

Like it or not, Celtic are a British club - being from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland makes Celtic British, irrespective of what Vintagekits thinks. As all of the Lisbon Lions were born in Scotland, presumably they travelled to Lisbon on British passports, whatever their own politics, and presumably most of the thousands of Celtic fans in Milan travelled on British passports, whatever their politics.

I support Barcelona. I'm not Spanish or Catalan and I would correct anyone calling me Spanish or Catalan, but Barelona are still a Spanish club. And a Catalan club. Celtic are a Scottish club, AND a British club AND a Northern European club. Being the first [and in Scotland's case, only] club from each of these 3 places is significant and should be included in the article.

Celtic's own website states "Celtic thus become the first British (and non-Latin) club to win Europe's most coveted trophy." So clearly the club thinks it's important enough to mention in its official history page.

However, the bottom line is that this isn't just about what Celtic FC or Celtic fans think - this is an encyclopedia, and to leave this fact out is just ridiculous. Even if Vintagekits was right, that "Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British", Celtic would still be the first British club to have won the European cup.Hippo43 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is no reason why it cannot be described as the first British team. Especially if the Celtic FC are doing so. Astrotrain 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reliable sources, not the opinion of editors, are the benchmark. Rockpock  e  t  18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Let's for a minute ignore the fact that many, perhaps the vast majority of, Celtic supporters would object to the term "British", "first northern European" covers British and it covers Scottish, and illustrates the club's actual achievement, rather than the parochial "we got there before any of the English did". Seems like the debate is actually more about the inclusion of a politically controversial term/we got there before the English, than an objective desription of actual achievement. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't censor Wikipedia to suit Celtic supporters. In anycase, only a minority would object to the term "British". The Club themselves use British as a description. Astrotrain 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling the main reason to use "first British club" is to boast to the English that Celtic won it first. I have no objection to using the term "British" - it lies in United Kingdom territory and therefore is a British club - but surely in this case "first northern European club" is better, as it denotes the actual achievement. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we are ignoring it, why is it a core point of disagreement? It makes no difference who objects to the term. The simple fact is that "British" is an accurate discriptor beause it is a discrete, objective entity. It is also reliably, and regularly reported as such  . Personally I would ditch "Northern European" because its pretty subjective (where does North Europe meet SOuth Europe?), but that is also reliably sourced and thus can stay in per policy.  Rockpock  e  t  19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice try. Neither Spain, Portugal nor Italy are ever considered part of northern Europe, so the question of France's (or other ambiguous country's) inclusion in northern Europe is irrelevant; "first Scottish club", "first British club", "first club in the British Isles", "first club in the British Isles or Russia", etc, etc, are all accurate, but they all give less information than "first northern European club"; ideally, "first club outside Italy or Iberia" could be used, as that gives the most information. The reality is that some people do not like the term "British", and I'm not of the opinion that people should be offended when no reason exists to offend them; there's simply no point of using the term "first British club", unless 1) you wanna boast to the English that Celtic or the Scots got there first 2)a) you wanna offend people who dislike the term or 2)b) you wanna insist of the term because of your pro-British sentiments or 3) you wanna hide the information that Celtic were the first club outside Italy and Iberia to win the trophy. None of these reasons seem to me to be appropriate motivations in a wiki article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ... or, and excuse me if this is a radical suggestion, that we use reliable sources as threshold for inclusion. Thats good enough for me. Rockpock  e  t  19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * we can say British and Northern European then, or British and non-Latin (like Celtic FC do themselves). Astrotrain 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem with it is that it is an unessessary stated to state both Northern Eurporean. Why dont we say remove redundant statement. Why dont we say they where Celtic first club from Northern Europe, North Western Europe, United Kingdom, Britain, Scotland, Glasgow and the East End to win the big un? Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl and that if it Rangers fans and Scottish monarchists that are trying to put the term in, which is pretty annoying in the first place it is a redudant statement.--Vintagekits 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Calgacus - some people may be offended but they have no inherent right to not be offended, particularly by a straightforward factual statement. I might, for example, be offended by the fact that Margaret Thatcher won 3 general elections, but it's still true and should be in an encyclopedia.

Offended or not, Celtic were the first British club to win the European cup. This is a piece of information that exists in numerous sources - a simple Google search [] reveals lots of mentions, such as this one from the BBC - . That suggests that numerous authors have seen this as significant.

That and being the first club from outwith Spain/Portugal/Italy are 2 separate achievements, 2 separate pieces of information, and are both noted by the club's website - see link above. Winning it before any club from England is a great achievement. If I wrote that so-and-so was the first British actor to win an Oscar, would that be boasting about winning it before anyone else??Hippo43 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget about the "offend" bit (even though it was me that brought that up - it was just my opinion that Astrotrain is just trying to stir up trouble because of the current investigation into his behaviour. The really reason for having just Northern European or even non-Latin is because British is a redundant statement and Northern European is a greater achievement.--Vintagekits 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, you are being ridiculous - I am a Celtic fan - Scottish by birth, Irish ancestry and a [British] republican, but that makes no difference here - clearly the objection you have is that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl". This is a ludicrous motive for trying to remove a historical fact. Per the reasons in my last edit, it is not a redundant statement.Hippo43 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a redundant statement - Neil Armstrong was the first person ever on the moon - whould there be any need to add that he was the first American or the first person from Ohio?? If you cannot realise that you are being used as a pawn here then your need to take a step back--Vintagekits 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being used as a pawn - I have no knowledge of, or interest in, any of Astrotrain's business. Are Celtic FC and the BBC, and the authors of virtually every history of Celtic FC also pushing a British monarchist agenda?? I put this in myself because it is true, and significant. Your view of what is significant or not is clearly coloured by your admission that the "term British actually makes my skin crawl". Britain [the UK] is a country, although it might not be your favourite country. It seems to me that only you and Calgacus are interested in removing this. I will keep reinserting it and encourage others to do the same.Hippo43 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * People are offended by such things, that's just the way the world is. There is no point generating needless offence; "first northern European club" covers British and Scottish, and that's that as far as I can see. It'd be different if other northern European clubs had won it but no club from Britain or Ireland had won it, and then Celtic went and won it. But that's not what happened. If "British" is inserted instead of "northern European", Vintagekits or anyone else is entitled to revert it. What is the point of generating needless offence, may I ask? BTW, I personally am not in the slightest bit bothered by useful usage of the term "British", just so you know. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hippo43, I am not having a dig at you - I am just being honest about my feelings about calling Celtic a British club, other editors may not be as honest - anywaymy real problem is not that I am offended by the term - a a wiki editor I try and put that to the side when editing, however, my problem with the statement is that it is a redundant statement as pointed out by my Neil Armstrong example.--Vintagekits 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hippo43, I reverted your edit because you cited this discussion, which is ongoing and has not reached any consensus. I suggest, in good faith, that you hold off renewing that revert war until a better understanding exists. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets all take a moment to sit down and have a cup of tea (dare I say it, a very British thing to do;)). What isn't going to help this situation is to question the motives of other editors, so lets just assume that there are not "motives" or agendas here other than to make this article as good as we can. Can I also ask that we completely drop the whole "British is offensive to certain people" aspect of the debate? There is no basis in policy whatsoever for this justification and it simply will not hold up per WP:NOT. It is a matter of record (cf. the sources above) that Celtic were the first British team to win, so arguing that we should leave it out due to personal distaste of the Union is against everything this project stands for.
 * So what we are left with is whether British is redundant to Northern European and which (neither or both) are more appropriate for the description of Celtic's European achievement. Clearly at a fundamental level, British is redundant to Northern European as I don't think ayone will argue the the UK is not in Northern Europe. However, there are plenty of arbitrary grouping one could use and expanding the geographic area to the largest possible doesn't automatically provide the most pertinant information. Especially when the scope of that grouping is not discrete. So the question is more about which grouping provides the most pertinant information for our readers? Personally, as I have stated elsewhere, I believe objective groupings are more informative than subjective ones, and would use Britain over Northern Europe if forced to choose. Others will disagree. If no consensus can be reached then the obvious compromise is to use both, which I would support. Lets here some opinions, but keep in it the scope of policy because speculating on the motives of others or arguing censorship so not to offend people are worthless. Rockpock  e  t  20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already said what I have to say on this matter; I don't see how one could possibly argue with me on this point or why they would unless they had one of the motivations I mentioned above (i.e. boasting, pro-britishness, etc). Pointing to websites which say "first British club" is useless - we know Celtic were the first British club, we don't need to cite websites to prove it. How about:
 * In 1967, Celtic won the European Cup, which had previously been won only by Italian or Iberian clubs. Celtic were hence the first Scottish and first British side to become European champions. Celtic won every competition that they entered that season: the Scottish League, the Scottish Cup, the Scottish League Cup, the European Cup and the Glasgow Cup.
 * ? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments above? If not, let me be clear: my motivation is the make the article as good as possible - as I assume is everyone elses - and the reasoning is based upon the use of an objective, rather than subjective grouping. Therefore its very easy to see how others can argue your point without having one of the motivations you describe. Please make yourself familiar with WP:NPA before speculating on the personal agendas of others. That said, I am perfectly happy with your latest proposal and would support it as a compromise. Rockpock  e  t  22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rockpock e  t, I respect you as an editor and I will make a cohesive argument to outline my take on this later, and thank you for your input. regards--Vintagekits 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, read the above comments. But don't see how a discussion about Subjectivity and the View from Nowhere relates to the 1967 European championship. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view." Great Britain is an objective geographic and political entity; Northern Europe is subjective entity ("the term is of subjective nature with its meaning usually determined by the geo-political outlook of the speaker"). Simple, innit. Rockpock  e  t  22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you've just stated that Great Britain is objective and northern Europe is not. How is that exactly? Glasgow lies in the north of Europe, and that's that. It also lies in on the island of Great Britain. What's the difference? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The subjectivity is not necessarily about whether Glasgow is included in Northern Europe, but what else is, or is not included. If we say "Celtic was the first British team to win" the reader can delineate the precise parameters of that statement (i.e. they can deduce exactly which teams did not win the Cup before Celtic according to our statement, because Britain is an objective entity). If we say "Celtic was the first Northern European team to win" the reader cannot do that because its not clear what a Northern European team is (as we have established, the term is subjective). There is no point stating something in an encyclopaedia if the meaning of the statement is ambiguous. This is why your suggestion "...which had previously been won only by Italian or Iberian clubs" is a much better option, as it is precise, objective and unambiguous.  Rockpock  e  t  00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still busy and have not had a chance to put together my arguement yet, however, I would say that Northern Europe is not subjective or we could could the term non Southern European team - the wikilink clears an ambiguity up as does mentioning the countries that had won it later in the sentance. regards--Vintagekits 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) If you follow the links you provided you will see that "there is no clear definition of the term Southern Europe" and "the term Northern Europe is of subjective nature", so quite how do you come to the conclusion that it is "not subjective" or that "the wikilink clears an ambiguity up"? Rockpock  e  t  01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about Vienna or Lyons. Glasgow is unambiguously in northern Europe. Where northern and southern Europe blur isn't relevant. (Is Orkney in Great Britain, is Skye, is Mann, are the Channel Isles, what about northern Ireland, etc, etc). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again I refer you to my comments above. Glasgow isn't the issue, places like Monaco, Munich, Paris, Amsterdam, Bordeaux, Vienna or Lyons are. You appear to be missing the point: If you want value from a statement about Celtic being the first of a group, you have to know the parameters of that group. If you can't unambiguously define the group (and Northern Europe clearly doesn't according to our own article) then there statement is diminished in value because the reader will not be able to discerne whether or not a French, Dutch or Austrian side won the Cup before them. That is why we should avoid subjective terms. Rockpock  e  t  02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your idea that one is "subjective" and the other isn't is simply preposterous; I refer you to my above comments. Both concepts blur at the edges (apparently your definition of "subjective"), and such blurs are irrelevant to Celtic, as Glasgow is neither doubtfully physically located in Great Britain nor doubtfully located in northern Europe. BTW, I suggest you should submit your ideas about subjectivity and objectivity to a philosophy journal, as their exoticness may be of interest. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My "ideas" are taken from our articles on the subject and the references therein. I have provided numerous illustrative links and quotes. If you have a problem with those descriptions I suggest you take it up there, instead of here. In reply you appear to have your own interpretation, which is fine of course, except it doesn't count for much without sources. You appear unwilling or unable to reflect on the reasoning that I have now explained twice, thus I don't see much point in continuing this debate. If you wish to go ahead with your proposal about using "clubs not from Iberia and Italy" then you have my support. Otherwise lets wait to see if consensus forms around the reasoning discussed here. If not, we can either compromise or open a request for comment. Good-day. Rockpock  e  t  03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your reasoning doesn't have the strength you think it has. I mean, ignoring everything else you said, you seem to think we're talking about some difficult to verify, obscure piece of information; why else appeal to "sources", when Celtic's European victory in 1967 and previous winners are well known? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "your idea that one [Northern Europe] is "subjective" and the other [Great Britain] isn't is simply preposterous", I provided the links that said exactly that. So how is it "preposterous" exactly? Rockpock  e  t  03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, if you think you did that, then you had the correct idea before when you declared you were giving up. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat it if it helps:
 * "Great Britain is an objective geographic and political entity; Northern Europe is subjective entity ("...the term is of subjective nature with its meaning usually determined by the geo-political outlook of the speaker".
 * Oh dear, indeed. Rockpock  e  t  03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear indeedie, you've already tried this. See above comments. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It should state that Celtic was the first British and Northern European team to win the European Cup. Pretty much any time ive read articles in the press or footballing literature regarding the win this is how it is described. Any political discomfort certain Celtic fans might feel about the use of the term "British" is totally irrelevant. siarach 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree- I've added this back and referenced to Celtic FC- - "Milestones in the history of Celtic FC" Astrotrain 10:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad I started this discussion... Hippo43 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Vintagekits, but my husband and all his family are Scottish, and Celtic fans and Catholics and they certainly do not depise everything British! Your generalisations are way off the mark! I think you've got some issues mate! Trouble between Scotland and England dates back over 500 years-get over it! Scottish people ARE British, and Celtic FC, along with clubs like Liverpool FC and Cardiff FC, are all BRITISH clubs, whether you like it or not! Because they reside in the country called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. (unsigned comment)
 * You are excused Tammi, my argument is that it was not necessary to state that Celtic were the first British team to win the EC is because it is a redundant statement. If they were the first non-latin or Northern European team to win the cup then it is redundant to state that they were also the first British, Scottish and Glaswegian team to win it because that goes without saying - for example Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon so is it necessary to state that he was also the first American, Ohian (person from Ohio?), Wapakonetan, university professor or alumni of the University of Southern California??--Vintagekits 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

VK, I don't believe that Neil Armstrong is a comparable example to Celtic in this case. Walking on the moon is not a regular competition with a definite winner every time, unlike the European Cup, and Armstrong was the first man ever, unlike Celtic (not the first club ever). If the World Moon-walking Cup was held every year, and first won by Armstrong in 1969, it would be legitimate for us to write, say, "In 1977 Penelope Keith became the first British and first European Astronaut to win the World Moon-walking Cup, which had previously been the preserve of American and Chinese spacemen".

IMO, something like England winning the Rugby World Cup in 2003 is a closer comparison - first northern hemisphere team to win it? England. First European team? England. First of the 'Home Unions'? England. For me, 3 separate pieces of info.

I don't really buy your statement that you want this removed because it is redundant - your earlier comments that "in general Celtic fans would never consider themselves as British or the club as a British club and despise everything British" and "that term British actually makes my skin crawl" make it clear that your objection is more personal. I respect your opinion on those points, and the honesty with which you made them, but they aren't good enough reasons for leaving this fact out. Hippo43 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Hippo43! Keep it as first BRITISH club!TammiMagee 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these arguments about Celtic being the first British/Northern European club to win the European Cup are pointless. The fact is, Celtic were competing as the reigning champions and representatives of the Scottish Football League. As there is no such thing as British or Northern European league, then adding these pieces of information are irrelevant. It should only read that they are the first Scottish club, nothing else. While Glasgow may be located in Britian and the northern part of Europe, in footballing terms it is meaningless.Largo1965 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - if any other description is to be used other than Northern European, then it should Scottish as there were representing the Scottish league.--Vintagekits 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Name
celtic Fc's real name is 'Celtic Football Club'. The 'the' was dropped, because only 2 use the 'the' and that is: The Arsenal Football Club The Rangers Football Club

Please fix this

First can you provide a reference, please?

Is this a joke? Look here -, here - and here -. Hippo43 11:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic were originally called The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited. I think this changed when Fergus McCann took over and formed Celtic PLC.

Match stats
In German Wikipedia one user asked if it's possible to bring in the statistics (Victory, draw, loss) for ALL Celtic fixtures. Do you think if this is meaningful and does someone here has the opportunity to take researches on this case? Thanks in advance. -Lemmy- 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We should add in the link for the Celtic website giving the results in their history.http://www.celticfc.net/home/fixturesResults/firstTeam.aspx

Notable former players
Why there's no room for Craig Bellamy in this section? He was added once and quickly removed, I don't understand why. Bellamy is still remembered as a wonderful player by the majority of Celtic support

Should be in alfubettikal order, should'nt they ? The new way is stoopid. Thats my o'pinion for the day!

Does anyone mind me addin these guys to the notable players Ulrik Laursen, Marc Rieper, Enrico Annoni, Regi Blinker, Bobby Petta, Vidar Riseth, Dmitri Kharine, Momo Sylla —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but Blinker, Kharine and especially Sylla were hardly "notable players".


 * Please read the discussion here first. I don't think the majority of these players meet the criteria discussed. If you disagree with these criteria, or have a case why you think these players should be included, then by all means lets hear it. But please don't just include any ex-Celtic player by default, especially not one that played less than ten games for the club (like Dmitri Kharine.) Rockpock  e  t  19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all the players mentioned above should be added with the exceptions of Marc Rieper and Dmitri Kharine.Ulrik Laursen was a solid player for us,solid enough to be played in the cup final in Seville.Enrico Annoni should be added as he is Celtics only decent Italian signing next to Paolo Di Canio and Annoni played quite a bit for us(37).Regi Blinker and Bobby Petta should be added as they are both from Holland which is something rare in the SPL,the only other team to have former players from Holland is Rangers.Petta played almost 100 times for us and Blinker was a Dutch international.Vidar Riseth should be added as he played for his country almost 50 times and played at a World Cup.He also played a good number of games for us.This im sure you'll agree is notable.Momo sylla should be added as he played with us for 4 years scoring 7 times,was part of the Seville squad and is an international for his country.Also is there any problems with Roy Keane being added.I think we can add these guys without letting any old former player in and still be able to main a sense of strictness needed to make the page work.What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)
 * I think you should read the discussion we had on this which Rockpocket referred you to above. Please sign on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ).--Guinnog 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive read it and gave you the reasons why they should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)


 * Being a "solid player" doesn't inherently make one unusually notable with regards to Celtic; neither does being "Celtics only decent Italian signing next to Paolo Di Canio", being "from Holland", being an internationl or having "played at a World Cup". Being part of a notable squad (such as the Lisbon Lions or Seville team) is perhaps a better claim and is one we could discuss further to see if there is consensus for that. I don't see how any other claim you make is extraordinary enough to merit inclusion. As for Keane, quite how is he notable with regards to Celtic? He played how many times for the club? Rockpock  e  t  22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well how strict are you being.Its stupid being that strict and only letting prolific extraordinary players or Lisbon Lions in.Not every single player in there has to be essential to Celtic history.Compare Rangers former players to our page,Ours looks bare compared to theres.And you know how many times Keane played for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)


 * That could be put down to the fact that no set criteria have been drawn up for the section.  Archibald99   22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that one article should mimic the imperfections of another never carries much weight here on Wikipedia. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a Celtic fansite. And please, please sign on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). --Guinnog 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well comparing theirs to ours,theirs having no set criteria and ours with a very strict ones,the Rangers page is lookin much better.Dose anyone think the criteria should be loosened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamD1 (talk • contribs)


 * No. I might suggest the Rangers ones should be tightened though. --Guinnog 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying we should mimic any page but im saying we can offer better than what were already showing.It is an encyclopedia and I think the players im offering are notable.You cant deny the are.Just because they never helped Celtic to a Major cup or a european trophy.Now is anyone up for changin the criteria to a looser one? User:LiamD1
 * Seeing we just recently put a fair bit of work into deciding these criteria as the list was getting too long, not really. However, please have your say. Why do you think Roy Keane was notable as a Celtic player? --Guinnog 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a competition to see who can list the most players. And whats with the "them and us" language? No-one owns "their" page any more than "we" (whoever "we" and "they" are) own this one. There already is a category listing all Celtic players: Category:Celtic F.C. players, there is no value in having a similar indiscriminate list here. If we are going to have a notable player list, then it must selective, and the more selective the better, IMO. Now, if you have some guidelines for how you think we should decide who is listed and who is not, then lets hear them so we can discuss it. Proposing they "should be loosened" isn't particularly helpful unless you can tell us to what extent. Rockpock  e  t  01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying we should let every or any half decent player be added but i think players that have made an impact,were involved in anythin major e.g seville and also players notable to football itself like Ian Wright,Craig Bellamy and Roy Keane should be added.(86.147.52.64 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)).


 * I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen any official policy on the matter of "players notable to football itself" within Notable players sections. Possibly something to be brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.  Archibald99   19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

can someone please explain to inclusion of Harald Brattbakk, the only thing that I can remember from him is the 4 goals he scored against Kilmnarnock, this to me does not warrant "notable player" D. BULL 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea.We could have 2 sections for former players.The first section would have past players with no criteria but obviously not every player from the player list would be added.This section would have all celtic players who are notable but not as notable as the ones in the next section.The next section has the prolific players for celtic like the lisbon lions ,the seville squad,Dalglish,Bonner Mcstay and Larsson and any other players who were truly notable.We could give it an appropriate name like The Hall of Fame or something.What do you all think?(LiamD1 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)).


 * I don't recall the reasoning behind Brattback's inclusion. It might be been because of his league winning goal against St Johnstone. Pretty weak claim, IMO. Regarding the proposal of multiple sections: It makes no sense. You say: "The first section would have past players with no criteria but obviously not every player from the player list would be added". That is logically incompatible. If there are no criteria, then every player would be added. If every player would not be added, then there must be some criteria to determine which ones are. You talk about "prolific" players and those that are "notable but not as notable as the ones in the next section". Those terms are meaningless unless there are some guidelines for what they mean. If you can come up with some guidelines then lets hear them. Otherwise it pretty much comes down to arbitrary levels of notability in your opinion. Rockpock  e  t  18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK.You know what I mean by prolific,like Celtic Legends.They would be added to that section.The other section would have players that are notable but not as notable as the ones in the Legend section.For guidelines for the notable player section I would say ones nowhere near as strict as the ones we already have.Mohammed Salim and Gil Heron were added because it was unusual for a scottish club to buy an Indian or a Jamaican player so for the same reason people the likes of Juninho,Du Wei,Eyal Berkovic and Fernando de Ornelas should be added as it isnt often a Brazilian,Chinese,Israeli or Venezuelan plays for Celtic.Basically the notable players list should have players that are worth noting for what ever reason whether it be they are from a foreign country or scored a winning goal etc.We should save the strict stuff for the legends section, if we make one.(LiamD1 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)).


 * It was very unusual, and hence notable, to sign such players as Salim and Heron at that time they were signed. They were firsts. Its no big deal that a Celtic player is foreign these days and thus it doesn't make them particularly notable. All the players you list barely played a handful of games for the club, therefore its hard to see how they could be considered with noting (and Juninho wasn't even the first Brazilian!). If you are intent on some kind of structured list, why don't you create List of former Celtic F.C. players? I'm not convinced it would last too long (seeing as it would essentially duplicate the category), but if it was structured to give additional information then it could be useful. Rockpock  e  t  19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See Categories, lists, and series boxes to learn about the pros and cons of such a move. Rockpock  e  t  19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what am sayin,the players a just mentioned arent particularly notable but they are notable to a certain extent,and i think if people come onto celtics page they should know celtic had players like that and they should be clearly noted on the page instead of having to click to lists etc, that is why i proposed a legends section so the other legendary notable players are kept seperate but at the smae time both can be listed.I honestly think it would work.(LiamD1 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't think there would be much support for such a proposal, especially without any guidelines for how we should distinguish those that are notable from those that "arent particularly notable but they are notable to a certain extent" from those that are in either of these groups. But lets invite further comment and see if there is any consensus for such change. Rockpock  e  t  20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a rough out line of what i think would work.Being notable to football in general.Being from an unusual country to scottish football.Playing in a world cup etc or playing a lot of games for us.Try and think of the notable players section as the ones worth noting outwith the player list and it could be for any reason,but the legend section would be reserved for celic best ever players and players that deserve to be noted out with both the player list and the notable player section.(LiamD1 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I'd say if that information could usefully be collated (in a form that would substantially add to Category:Celtic F.C. players), it could be useful list article. It would certainly be too long to include in the main Celtic F.C. article. --Guinnog 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean list every player but just list more in the notable section and the legendary players in another section.So that that way theres the list of players,the notable ones,and the absolute legendary celtic players.(LiamD1 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Its probably worth noting that we already have another section listing the 11 most "legendary" Celtic players (as voted by the fans). Rockpock  e  t  21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats the best team.Im talking about a section for the legends or a hall of fame or something with the lisbon lions,seville ,mcstay burns,boyd etc with an appropriate name.That way the other notable players get to be noted without such strict criteria and the legends get a sepearte section with the strict criteria eg a certain amount of games,left the club such a number of years ago etc.That section would be totally different from the greatest team section.If you look at other teams their notable player section isnt made up from only their best past players ,but past players in general and their pages looks quite good.Is anyone up for that,making another section with strict criteria and loosening the criteria on the current one to allow more players in.(LiamD1 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Notable players: alternative proposal
I would instead propose that we adopt the format used at Liverpool F.C. (note it uses text instead of a list, which is always preferable in an article, directs to an enhanced List of Liverpool F.C. players which is itself a featured list, and maintains similar criteria as we are using at the moment.) Rockpock  e  t  22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be perfectly aplicable to the legends section and another section could be used for simply notable players where we could list all of celtics past foreign players and other scottish ones.That way we could just list the notable ones and dedicate a list and text to the legends.A format we could use to list just the notables could be the one Rangers and AC Milan have adopted.(LiamD1 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Rockpocket, I like it. --Guinnog 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Rockpocket's idea, but it can still just as easily be swamped by not-very-notable players. I think having 2 separate lists would be daft, sorry LiamD1 - this needs to be tightened up, not expanded.

As for the likes of Roy Keane - he seems notable to me as he is a notable player in football itself, if not for Celtic. If Celtic had signed, say, Pele or Diego Maradona for a few games, they would surely merit being included.

Either way, this needs to be sorted with some kind of criteria. IMO including Ulrik Laursen over Marc Rieper would be ridiculous - Rieper was an integral part of a championship-winning team and an excellent player, Laursen a useful but unspectacular squad player who was about 4th choice for his position.Hippo43 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if we include players due to their inherent notability (i.e. "famous players"), irrespective of whether that notability is in any way related to their association with the club, then we are going to have even more problems with keeping this under control, and we are going to fall foul of Western bias. For example, if we are including Keane, I can't see any argument for not adding Ian Wright and Junihio by the same rationale. But then what about players like Berkovic (is he not as famous in Israel as Keane is in Ireland and the UK?) or Hedman (fit wife - famous in Sweden), or Kharine (for all we know he is a household name in the Ukrainian heartlands), or Olivier Tébily (a superstar in Côte d'Ivoire, due to being Didier Drogba's cousin), or Viduka (big - literally - in Oz). Obviously i'm being somewhat facetious here, but it is something to consider. Rockpock  e  t  18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I might be being a bit UK-centric, but I think Keane's stature in the world game over his career is fairly significant [not something that I'd say about the others, except Juninho], and not just that he is famous in these parts.Hippo43 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I mean.All the players rocketpocket just listed aswell as others I think deserve to be noted on the celtic page outwith the player list.But no-one can come up with a way.Does anyone agree that players like that should be noted?(LiamD1 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Can I ask why players like Paulo Di Canio and Jorge Cadete have been added with Cadete having 47 appearences and Di Canio havin 37 yet you wont let Mark Viduka and Enrico Annoni in who have roughly the same amount of appearences.And why havent Momo Sylla and Ulrik Laursen been added, they were part of the team that were taken to Seville.(86.147.50.72 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)}


 * At the end of the day, Seville isn't that notable. Not even a winning team, and if every club's notable players section included all players who had been part of teams who had lost in a final (UEFA Cup at that), it would be a very large section.  Archibald99   23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Cadete and Di Canio's position among the Three Amigos makes them notable enough for inclusion. The impact thet had in the short time they played and left Celtic marked a watershed in the evolution of the club into a well managed PLC. I don't think the others you mention had the same level of notoriety, though Viduka may have a decent claim. Rockpock  e  t  01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree i think Viduka should be added.Could we add him?I also think we should add Eyal Berkovic as he was quite controversial and made an impact for the amount of time that he stayed.(LiamD1 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

What about Eyal Berkovic, he made an impact and was controversial.What do you think?(LiamD1 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Here's an idea. Why not improve the article on Eyal Berkovic, rather than trying to add him to this list? He was definitely not notable for Celtic, in my opinion.--Guinnog 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Berkovic dosent need to be altered its good as it is.Berkovic is notable as he was contorversial and didnt get along with the Celtic fans who under rated him and his attitude is notorious.I think he worth noting,anyone else think so?(LiamD1 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

I would like to suggest Marc Rieper be added to the notable players list. He was one of Celtic best defenders since Paul Elliot and I know he didn't play that many games but others like Mick McCarthy didn't play many more than Rieper and they are in the list.

I agree.Someone mentioned adding him earlier on.Also Joe Kennaway should be added as he has over 200 appearences for us.(LiamD1 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Guinnog how is it vandalism. I added a player who meets the criteria your always rabblin on about and 3 people on this talk page wanted to see Marc Rieper added so tell me, how is it vandalism(LiamD1 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

What about Marc Rieper,3 people on this page want him added(LiamD1 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC))


 * By my count two people mentioned him, and User:Hippo43 didn't actually state that he "wanted him added".  Archibald99   22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then 2,2 people want him added and what about Kennaway,he mets the criteria.(LiamD1 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Rockpocket added Kennaway last night.  Archibald99   13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well when I went on earlier on he wasnt added.Now About Rieper,he was an amazing player for Celtic and was a crucial part of the team that stopped Rangers winning the SPL 10 years in a row and its not just me who wants him added and im sure Hippo34 would probably want him to be included.Echoing what someone said earlier on players the likes of Mick McCarthy have been added yet Reaper hasn't.(LiamD1 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

I think Roy Keane, Ian Wright, Enrico Annoni, Dion Dublin, Craig Bellamy and Eyal Berkovic should be added to the notable former player bit. If Mohammed Salim can be added when he played 4 matches, he is only in because he is black, whats that all about? why can't a well known player like Roy Keane who won the League and League Cup, he also captained(wore the armband) us about 3 times, not be? Dion Dublin also played 13 games scoring 2 goals and won the League and League Cup scoring in the League Cup final. Ian Wright was the same as Dublin he is also well known, so is notable. Craig Bellamy won the Scottish Cup with us and again is also a notable player, who played for us. Berkovic played for us for 2 years, and was quality no matter if people dont like him, he scored a lot was skillful and a good player I cant believe he's not there why not? his record is just like Di Canio's and he's there!

Keane and Bellamy should definetly be added, when we look back in history both of them will stick out as world class signings, possibly the only world-class players ever signed by the club. The Rangers notable former player section looks much better because they have all players like Frank De Boer there even though he only played about 12 games in 5 months, he is a notable player and I agree.

Every other team has the big players in there Notable former player except us WHY? why dont we just put them in too, its better! that team Garforth Town have Socrates who only played 1 match. Rangers have Bo-Andersen, Frank De Boer, Antti Niemi, Lionel Charbonnier, Henning Berg, Oleg Salenko and Russel Latapy, none of them played more than 23 matches for them.

Everyone thinks they should be there except that guy GUINNOG, is he a manager or something? .(bazess 90:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC))
 * No, he just hates Celtic - I also disagree with his judgement on this subject!

Colours & badge
I'm thinking of adding a section on the club's colours & badge - similar to what Liverpool's article has - Liverpool_F.C.

If I've got time I'll get onto it - let me know what you think.Hippo43 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea if it can be well sourced. Rockpock  e  t  17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking stuff like the original colours, 100 years of the hoops, other clubs who have chosen Celtic's colours, history of the badge (centenary season etc), shirt sponsorship issues - that kind of thing. Maybe even a mention of the hoopless hoops Celtic wore a few seasons back. Any more suggestions?Hippo43 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The original crest was a red cross according to my source. Also the 1988 crest would be nice, good idea! I can't find a copy of the centenary crest anywhere.......:( 63.113.199.109 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the original crest was a celtic cross which was used in the centenary year in my opinion. An upload of these badges would be nice! -Lemmy- 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kitclassics.co.uk could be useful, don't know how accurate it is though......Toffs as well might work. 63.113.199.109 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)This is a particularly good website for past kits if the idea is still on the go - well referenced from a variety of football historians, although its particular forte is its coverage of the smaller teams who have changed kit more frequently, as opposed to behemoths like Celtic. As for "other clubs who have chosen Celtic's colours", I'm sure plenty of Hibbies would tell you its not just their players Celtic nicked - Hibs were "the first to wear the hoops". Caledonian Place 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the hoops were originally stripes, many many years ago, just for info.

Indeed they were. If you look at the QPR website you will see that they also wore green and white hoops before Celtic did. Check out http://www.celticfc.net/home/about/HoopsGallery.aspx for former Celtic strips.80.194.98.194 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)No.1 Celt

Reserve & youth squad
I wonder how we can best handle this. The field of redlinks looks ugly at present, and youth and reserve players are inherently non-notable; the ones who do have articles should not. I suggest unlinking them and deleting the few articles which exist. Thoughts? --Guinnog 10:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why dont we just make articles for them?(LiamD1 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC))


 * As Guinnog says, there is a good chance they would not pass the notability criteria.  Archibald99   23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just make an exception and do a few lines for each.(LiamD1 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I think they should be kept because they will (eventually) make Wikipedia unparalled as far as footballing archives are concerned. I like the idea of being able to find, for example, during the 2001-2002 season that Celtic had a reserve player named Mike Mouse who didn't quite make the grade.


 * I understand that my reasons may be a wee bit selfish and I do agree that the red links look ugly.


 * Maybe we could make them all stubs and expand them if neccessary OR provide no link with just an official list of reserve players per season??? Someone who has a Celtic View subscription would be ideal for this.... 63.113.199.109 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we should keep the player names but if we're not going to be able to make the pages we should just get rid of the links... It's as simple as that ! If this goes ahead contact me on my Talk Page Celticfan383 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Other clubs have Reserves & Youth on a different page, this might be a good idea and would shorten a lengthy page. 217.255.242.143 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nickname
Is the nickname "Tic" correct? There has been a lot of vandalism today so not sure if this has slipped through. Thunderwing 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is.  Archibald99   21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks- hadn't heard that one myself, so wanted to check! Thunderwing 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you put in "The Celts" as one of the nicknames too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.98.194 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Put in "The Tic" as a nickname as well. There is a programme on Celtic TV called "Tic Talk".

2004-05 season
Hi,everyone! The article Celtic F.C. season 2004-05 still needs some attention... Regards -Lemmy- 09:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Future Arrivals
Could we do a section on future arrivals like Liverpool and Bolton have done.This one would be for Scott Mcdonald and Greg Dalby(LiamD1 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Good idea. Someone had overzealously placed McDonald in the current squad, they even assigned him a shirt number! For lack of a better place I put him at the tail end of the current squad.... 63.113.199.109 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. 63.113.199.109 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But if Alan Thompson stays at Leeds, which is likely, then Scott McDonald surely will take the number 8. Celticfan383 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Template
I think we should maybe design our template like Rangers' so that when looking at the Old Firm article, and others, it will look quite good. Express your Opinions here! Celticfan383 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I made Template:Celtic F.C. at the same time as Template:Rangers F.C., both are on the Old Firm article.  WATP   15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed it so it is like the Rangers one. AndTheCrowdGoesWild 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Only Team to Win the European Cup with home-grown talent"
"Celtic ... the only club ever to win the trophy with a team composed entirely of home-grown talent" This is not accurate since Steaua Bucharest also did so in 1986. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_European_Cup_Final


 * Well either that article or this one is incorrect.  WATP   15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those were the days! Steve Archibald was in the losing Barcelona side. Were all the Steaua players from Bucharest or nearby? I think this is the substance of the "home-grown" claim. Perhaps it needs to be better-worded. --Guinnog 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The players came from all over Romania, Steaua as the Army club being able to "conscript" the pick of the country's talent, provided the secret service (Dinamo) didn't get there first. However, I still think "home-grown" is far too ambiguous a term to use, given that what it actually means is that "all were born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park". Whats wrong with just stating that?


 * Also, as I've argued on an archived talkpage that "home grown" implies that the players all came through the Celtic youth system, which only 9 of the 11 Lisbon Lions did, with Simpson and Wallace being purchased, while Auld was re-signed from Birmingham. These new UEFA regulations for European competition define home grown as "one who has been registered for a minimum of three seasons with the club between the age of 15 and 21."


 * Incidently, Miodrag Belodedici an ethnic Serb born in Socol right on the Yugoslavia/Romania border, also played for Red Star Belgrade when they won in 1991, so it could be argued that Red Star won it with "home grown" players too. Caledonian Place 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Miodrag Belodedici won 55 caps with Romania so he wouldn't be counted as home grown players winning European Cup for Red Star Belgrade. So it is probably just Celtic and Steaua.


 * I think it should be highlighted that all player came from with 30 miles of Celtic Park and not just that they were home grown.

Juninho
I noticed that Juninho is the only World Cup Winner to play for Celtic.I think this is enough to add him to the notable players list.Anyone agree.(LiamD1 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

No

Internationalists
Would anyone have objections to doing a section on players who have represented their country as Rangers and lots of other pages have done.(LiamD1 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I think that is a good idea. For example Pierre Van Hooijdonk won X no. of caps while at Celtic.

Championship infobox
I removed the following from the article:

I find it rather recentist and unencyclopedic. If it is a project thing, let me know where I can make this argument centrally. Please feel free to put it back if you disagree with me that as an encyclopedia we need to have it. --Guinnog 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players
This is a part of the page I think still needs work and isnt achieveing its full potential.Other pages like Ajax,Coventry F.C and Feyenoord notable players sections all look incredible.This is because they dont have a set criteria that stops players with a fair degree of notability from making it into the section.It must be soo frustrating for fans of clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United who have a great selction of notable former players yet they arent being added or they simply dont have a section for them.The term 'Notable' is taken far too seriously on this page and I'm fed up,and I'm sure a lot of other people are with the bare,lifeless list the notable players section has become.Notable dose not mean an elite of a teams greastest and prolific players,notable means worth taking down or something memorable,so im not asking to go to the lightest possible meaning of notable for this section and It wouldn't be good for this page if the editors keep using the hardest possible meaning either,we have to meet in the middle.The notable player section has the potential to be amazing as there are players you wont find anywere else e.g Mohammed Salim.The key to making a notable player page look good is the amount of foreign players there are and Celtic definetly arent short of them,yet they cant be added due to the criteria.I propose that we do away with the criteria and simply handle each player seperatley,of course we wont go through every single player thats on Celtic player list but its the debatable ones we have to focus on e.g Eyal Berkovic,Momo Sylla,Olivier Tebily,Roy Keane etc.I think by the end ,infact I'm sure we would be left with a amazing looking notable player section that could be the envy of other pages.I noticed a few comments on this have went unreplied so I would appreciate it if I got youre thoughts on this.What do you think?(LiamD1 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The purpose of this section is not to "look incredible" by increasing "the amount of foreign players" listed. Its to provide quick links to those players that are were notable for Celtic through their history. This has been proposed before, (mainly by you) and there is simply no support for it. Instead of trying to add recent players that played a handful of times for the team, why don't you create articles for those genuinely notable Celtic players of the past that are not yet represented, e.g. (John McPhail, Duncan MacKay and James Kelly (footballer) were all former Celtic captains) and add those instead? Rockpock  e  t  22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Youre right the purpose isn't to look incredible but at the moment the section looks bare and represents Celtic F.C badly.The players that havent made it,namely the ones I mentioned are undoubtly notable to Celtic F.C and obviously the ones you mentioned arent as notable as they dont even have a page on wikipedia.Just because a player only played a handful of games dosent mean they arent notable and the ones I have mentioned have played lots more than simply a handful of games.This is probably one of the only pages that has such a strict,needless criteria for theyre notable player sections,even Rangers F.C have a better section than this one.A player does not have to be a lengendary player or have a 100 plus appearences to get added.We have to consider a change for the better of the page.What do you think?(LiamD1 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I think you don't know a whole lot about Celtic if you think Momo Sylla is more notable to Celtic than James Kelly. The reason they don't have articles is because Wikipedia is plagued by recentism. It seems people would rather list the latest Italian player linked with the Old Firm to articles than spend the time researching the players that made this club what it is today. Have a read of the John McPhail article I have just written and tell me: does spending your entire 14 year career with a club perhaps not make you more notable than Eyal Berkovic and his 32 mercenary games? Or does the fact that Berkovic is Israeli and therefore has a cool new flag next to his name make him more notable? There are plenty of incredible players out there without articles, I have listed just a few. We should be spending our time writing about those, and then we can ensure the clubs truly notable players are well represented. Why don't you write about John's brother, Billy McPhail. He scored a hat-trick at Hampden in the Sun and there are loads of sources available about him on the web. Thats what I think. Rockpock  e  t  07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you make sense in saying that there are players who aren't credited on Wikipedia for their services to Celtic and I agree that they do deserve to be noted ,but I would of thought that the list could accomadate both the legendary player and the more recent players that arent as legendary.I can see what you mean with Eyal Berkovic being an mercenary footballer but I just thought his addition could be put down to the significance of him and the Dalglish/Barnes management and theyre demise but another element in wanting him to be added was ,as you said the fact he was Israeli and the page would of looked better with him in it ,but I think that has to be taken into account when lookin at the page overall.So I think that we should make articles for these Celtic players forgotten by wikipedia and add them to the list but I also think we should work on adding a few of the debatable ones aswell that way the page will be full of notable players and will also look good.What do you think?(LiamD1 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC))
 * 🇮🇪 Mick McCarthy
 * 🇮🇪 Chris Morris
 * 🇮🇪 Charlie Gallagher
 * 🇮🇪 Roy Keane
 * 🇮🇪 Tommy Coyne
 * 🇮🇪 Tony Cascarino - all notable - period! There are the usual editors who wish to keep Irish topics and Irish associations and connections off wiki but they are all notable players for Celtic.--Vintagekits 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, see Talk:Celtic F.C. above. --John 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Vintagekits and say that Mick Mcarthy is notable.He the quintessential Irish Celtic player and is definetly worth noting, I think the same could be said for Roy Keane it dosent matter how many games hes played hes a legend amongst the Celtic fans.I'm beggining to wonder about this criteria,it only really seems to be three people that bother with itJohn, Rockpock e  t  and WATP.More and more people are beginning to add players or trying to get them added and only 3 people are constantly reverting or stopping them.I think its time for a change.(LiamD1 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

As a general point of perspective, when I first visited this page I used the notable players section to learn more about the history of the club. I was always disappointed when I went to a page that was about a player who only played for a season or two and contributed little to Celtic F.C. lore. However, showing the famous players that decided to play for Celtic is definitely interesting also (but demonstratively less) worthy. If neither side will budge (and continue to bring this issue up), then the only way to resolve it is to split into two sub-sections, important players and other notable players. We could apply pretty strict standards to the important player section and deal with the other notable player section on an individual basis. But if people insist on one section, I will come down firmly on Rocketpocket's side: listing important players if far more encyclopedic than a bunch of foreign players who played for a season or two, which I consider to be mere interesting trivia. Captkrob 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course another option is to have a separate article List of notable Celtic F.C. Players, which could allow for 1-2 sentence explanations of why they were notable. Then there is the category, which lacks only prominence and the flags. Captkrob 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The category seems to me to be enough. An article without criteria would descend into listcruft. --John 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I proposed this idea a while back but it was rubbished.After Captkrob said he looked into learning the history of the club through the notable players section it seems clearer now,there should be 2 sections,one for the Important players and one for the merely notable ones.A link to another page listing the true greats of the club the McNeils,the McPhails,the Johnstones ,Dalglishes,Larssons ,Aulds the list goes on.In this section there would be 1-2 sentences explaining there notability aswell as a link to their page and on the main Celtic page we could list the notable ones.We could of course do vice versa and have the important ones on the main pages and have a link to the notable ones on another page.(LiamD1 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)}
 * What EXACTLY is the criteria that we are working to with regards notability on this page - please do not just provide a link to the historic discussion because I have read it. Does anyone know what the criteria is - if know does then I am going to suggest a new criteria.--Vintagekits 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(from Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 2)
 * Around 100+ first team appearances gets you in.
 * Ex-players only, but no limit on when they last played (If When the mighty Paul Telfer scores a hat-trick in the Champions League Final this season, he should be included after leaving this coming summer ;)
 * Irrespective of number of games, if they were a significant "first" for Celtic they could be included (e.g., Gil Heron)
 * However, trivial firsts should be discounted (e.g. Shaun Maloney - as the first Malaysian born Scot under 4 feet tall to don the Hoops)
 * Irrespective of number of games, if they were unique, unusual, or newsworthy (beyond the norm) in relation to Celtic they could be included (e.g., Mo Johnston and Alfie Conn, Jr. for obvious reasons)

--John 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.--Vintagekits 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. The form of words adopted was Rockpocket's and I think gives us a nice balance of flexibility and consistency. --John 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, at the time, my suggestion was uncontested. This need not be set in stone, and if there is significant opposition to this, then by all means lets have another dicussion on it. However, I firmly believe that we have to ensure that there is discrete selectivity for such a list on the main page. If were to create a subpage, like List of Liverpool F.C. players, then I would have no objection to a more relaxed set of standards for inclusion. Rockpock  e  t  19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A ha! A PRECEDENT. I figured other team pages have encountered similar issues.  I say we adopt the list page idea using the Liverpool template (Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U, and other player list pages are actually featured lists, so little potential for listcruft). Captkrob 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were to adopt this template would we still make a section for the notable players other than the mportant ones listed in the proposed new section?To be honest I dont think that the template Liverpool uses is of any use to this page,I always think when I see a page without a visible notable players section that they look incomplete.(LiamD1 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC))


 * If we were to spin the list off to its own subpage, I would argue for an even more selective group mentioned in the main page, perhaps in prose (see Liverpool F.C., for an example). I personally like the Liverpool template, as it provides for more text in the main article and moves lists to their own article. A comprehensive encyclopaedia article should be a good read, not just a bunch of lists. Rockpock  e  t  00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A list full of scottish players wouldnt really be a good read.If you were going to be that selective the list would be comprised almost entirely of scottish players.The Liverpool player section isn't anything to be held high in my opinion, it looks dull and unfinished,maybe even boring.(217.44.101.49 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

I just noticed there may be a consensus for Momo Sylla.He played 79 games thats a lot more than some players on the list and about the same as some more obvious notable players e,g Stan Varga and Morten Wieghorst.Anyone one have objections to him being added.(LiamD1 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I am perplexed by the assumption that "exotic" lists with lots of flags is somehow inherently valuable. Who cares if Celtic's most notable players are all Scottish, if that was the case then that is what we should reflect. The Liverpool list is featured, so the community clearly do not consider it to be "dull and unfinished." Since featured articles are the project's "best work", it is a good template to use.
 * I notice someone has been bold and created a List of Celtic F.C. players. I suggest we should start migrating people from the main article to there, once is is (near) complete we can rework the notable players section in the main article. There appears to be a similar criterion for inclusion noted in the new list, however, seeing as the entire purpose of the article is to list players, I think we cold be a little more liberal on who we consider notable. It might be worth moving further discussion on notability of players to Talk:List of Celtic F.C. players  Rockpock  e  t  17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this.How on earth is the huddle not notable it symbolises Celtic for God sake.This is stupid how can the man that gave us it not be notable.I honestly cant believe that ,the huddle is not inherently notable.Call yourself a Celtic fan.Tony Mowbray should be added.(81.157.152.6 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Whether he is added or not (and I'm ambivalent), it should be to List of Celtic F.C. players, not here. Rockpock  e  t  22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 81, but Mowbray's supposed invention of the huddle does not automatically make him a super-notable Celtic player. Rockpocket is right about where he could be included (I would say should as AFAIK there are no criteria in a list article). Incidentally being a Celtic fan is not a prerequisite to edit this page. --John 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is no need to remove them.Other players like Paul Telfer and Stephen Pearson are there yet they aren't removed.Theres obviously some attention needed for this article I proposed a alternative method on the talk page for the other notable players section,dose anyone think we should apply it?(LiamD1 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC))


 * It would appear not. Tell you what, let's merge the whole section into the new list article; it will end silly arguments like this for good. Any objections? --John 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a complete merge should be the goal here. Rockpock  e  t  06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Merge the lot into List of Celtic F.C. players and sort it all out there on the talk page. Pal X  11:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to geography in the lead setion
As well all know that Celtic Celtic were the first northern European team to win the big yin. Why is it nessecary to also say that they were also the first Glaswegian, Scottish, British, United Kingdom or British Isles team to win the cup also. These additonal statements are redundant as "first northern European team encompasses them all. To add anything else is stupid.--Vintagekits 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Celtic F.C. above, and archives going back to August 2006. --John 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No you please provide some rationale to back that up - its seems nonsense and that you only wantot pick and choose what you want to have on the article to push your own POV - your POV and anti-Celtic campaign has become very evident over the past few months.--Vintagekits 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you think a consensus established by Hippo43, Rockpocket and myself (all users in good standing) "seems nonsense". Perhaps you should think about what we are trying to do here; write an encyclopedia or a Celtic fanzine? I'm sorry too that you think I am pushing a particular POV; I assure you that I am not, merely trying to keep it encyclopedic. However, I accept I am having great difficulty in assuming good faith in the face of your problematic behaviour. Maybe it is best if we don't interact pending the closure of your sock/meatpuppetry case. --John 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who do you think you are? you are a disgrace of an admin and should be stripped of it. I have no illegal socks or meatpuppets and I cant wait ot ram that in your face after your witchunt is over. There is no rational or consensus to have your, what one editor has emailed me to call "the sneaky ramblings of a bigotted bitter bluffer", POV. If you want to contribute to wiki why dont you go over and enjoy and improve The Bhoys of Seville! Go In Rightous Understanding of Yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a long discussion on this issue (linked above), and the rationale established then holds now. If you have something further to add to that debate then please do so, but this astonishing lack of good faith and repeated incivility, coupled with some conspiracy theory about anti-Irish sentiment, is leaving you skating on very thin ice. Irrespective of the sock/meatpuppet issue, that sort of personal attack above is unnacceptable (and hiding it behind a "what one editor has emailed me" is no excuse). If you can't communicate with John in a civil manner, I suggest you refrain from disussing him, or with him, at all. Any repeat of that sort of outrageous slur will earn you a(nother) block. My advice to you is to tone down the rhetoric and have a careful read of WP:CIVIL. If you don't, I fear your time here will be extremely limited, because you are wearing thin the patience of everyone I have discussed your behaviour with. Rockpock  e  t  20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am treated civilly I will act civilly, if the to of ye are going to continue yer illogical nonesense then it is going to be difficult.--Vintagekits 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A brief review of this thread makes it patently clear who is being civil and who is not. If you chose to be difficult, then you are the only one that will be inconvenienced. As was discussed extensively before and is very clear in the article, Northern Europe does not have a discrete, widely understood geopolitical boundary, unlike Britain. Therefore the reader cannot be sure what is included and what is not included by the term "northern European" alone, but they can by the term British. Rockpock  e  t  00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * British is more confusing as it actually refers to the whole UK not just Britain. Therefore drop the Britain and link Northern European page a if anyone if still confused they can click on the link.--Vintagekits 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and the link explains that there are various different interpretation of the term. Rockpock  e  t  00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone with even the smallest modicum of intelligence can see it includes Scotland! But then again.--Vintagekits 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion is in the archives. I'm not re-hashing it again here with you. If you can generate a consensus to change it then do so, until then the version that was stable for many months after extensive discussion remains the consensus. Rockpock  e  t  00:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until your friend checkuser wit chunt is over and before I tare strips off this one. I'm in the habit of forgetting treatment like this easily!--Vintagekits 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean, It would help if you could use standard english when communicating with others on the the english Wikipedia. Thanks. Rockpock  e  t  01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You stick ta da Quains Inglish an I'll kape wit de Valera's.--Vintagekits 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation I can see that you all have a point, John and Rockpocket taking the upper hand. Vintagekits, you are just being racist now which tops the cake with numerous layers of icing in my opinion, if you stuck to your theory you may have been believeable --GOD 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Support
The article states that Celtic are one of the biggest clubs in Britain. I agree but it should state that Celtic are one of the biggest clubs in the world. Celtic have supporters clubs through out the world (see link) http://www.nafcsc.com/ If you watch world cup games or European games you can be sure you will see a Celtic top in the crowd. Danny Dyers recent TV programme on Bravo "Real Football Factories International" covered games through out the world and yes in more than one country there was a Celtic top present in these programmes Croatia is the first on i think of. Also when Celtic play any sort of game on mainland Europe, friendly or competative, there are many Celic supporters from all over Europe such as Germany, scandanavia, Switzerland, the Balkans, etc. Every year for maybe the last 10 years Celtic holds its annual North American convention in Las Vegas attracting cica 10,000 at a time. Also Celtic matches are shown live in places such as Poland and Japan. So as you can see celtic have a huge world wide appeal. 80.194.98.194 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)No.1 celt

I agree with you.Its weird that a club so renowned for its fans dosen't have a section about them,infact I'm going to make one.It will include things like numbers,countries with CSC's,famous fans,praise for the fans and details about some of the fans most famous outings.Any other ideas.(LiamD1 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Recent Seasons
Propose move to respective articles with linked direction. Not relevant to entry Celtic F.C.. Would appreciate democratic approach. Discuss. Note editor's unconvinced understanding of what is felt to be interpretation of consensus by others will be viable or even reasonably acceptable in any event. See tenuous POV liberal application by some of what loosely constitutes 'consensus' on Old Firm and Sectarianism in archive. Pal X 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the recent seasons article already have much of the text that is summarized here. The two or three recent seasons summary appears to be be pretty standard across football club articles. I have no preference whether they stay or go, though I do have concerns that the more text we remove, the more the article is turning into a number of tables and lists. This is an encyclopaedia, our articles should be able to be read, not just scanned for information. Rockpock  e  t  06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points. I agree. leave them alone. request withdrawn Pal X  07:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless previous seasons are just listed as position finished in league (maybe games played, points, games won, etc); out come of Scottish Cup, League Cup and European competition. This may be easier to create and doesn't need a lot of in depth investigating.

Celtic FC would be a good "good article"
...because of the colours of the GA icon. Whereas Rangers F.C. as a good article would just look ironic...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how is this relevant to the article? Mattythewhite 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation for admission of sectarianism
"Both Celtic and Rangers admit that a proportion of their supporters have been, and continue to be, guilty of perpetuating sectarian beliefs and cultural intolerance" [citation needed]

Does someone that volunteers to go to Alcoholics Anonymous admit he is an alcoholic? Does someone with acne admit they have it when they go to the pharmacy for some cream? It would seem so. So if Celtic and Rangers start work on removing sectarianism from their fan base, are they not admitting they have a partially sectarian fan base? In my opinion this citation is not needed in the context of the whole section. ByteofKnowledge 12:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
So it's 'seltic', but why? Why no 'k'? Does anyone know?Malick78 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always check out Pronunciation of Celtic. Rockpock  e  t  02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta! Maybe there should be a link to that page from this one?Malick78 09:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Grant
Can anyone add some information to the article on Peter Grant re his Celtic career? There is very little on there at the moment, though he spent many years there. Thanks! --EH74DK 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Training Ground
I can't believe that there has been no articles added about the new training centre at Lennoxtown. I'm sure there are even photographs available on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.39.232 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Σέλτικ
Add the Greek article: Σέλτικ. A Greek friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.192.150 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous Supporters
I think it would be neat to compile a list of famous Celtic Supporters eg: Bono, Franz Ferdinand, Billy Connolly, Paolo Nutini, Rod Stewart,Fran Healy (lead singer - travis)Nadine Coyle (singer - girls aloud),Snoop Dogg,Damien Duff,Robbie Keane,The Arctic Monkeys,Kasabian ,Westlife,Dermot O'Leary

Vice captains
Every so often, the tag of vice captain seems to spring up next to certain players on the squad list.

This is not an official position at Celtic and I can see no point in making reference to players in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo567 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. Internationalists
The list is poor as it lacks of an introduction. Some players weren't capped while signed at Celtic such as Andy Thom so this list is not accurate.Or is it meant for any player wearing the hoops that was gained a cap at some time of the career? It remains unclear. Plus it's not yet linked to the main page. I know I should have written it directly to the directed page but I think here many more will read this. -Lemmy- (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

history & formation sections
when I came to this article the history and formation sections seemed to be pretty much identical, often word for word, so I merged them into one. please feel free to revert it. nangua

Fans
There's no proof that Celtic are so well supported. The only ever time I've seen evidence from this was from their own board members, who claimed to say they were the 2nd most supported team in the world. With the Man Utds, Real Madrids, Barcelonas and Milans of this world - I highly doubt it. 88.107.56.53 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look on the North American Celtic Supporter's web site to see a list of supporters clubs. Look at Korea CSC, Vila-real Submari CSC, St Pauli-Celtic CSC, Blackforest CSC, Scandanavian CSC's, French Celts CSC - these are non-Scottish Celtic supporters clubs. Look at games abroad where Celtic tops are very common in places such as Germany, Croatia, Spain, Ireland, Olympique Marseille supporters, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any source either but literally any native Irish and many exile Irish (e.g. in Boston) are Celtic supporters. Here in Germany there are many supporters as well. Sounds strange but it could be true. -Lemmy- (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree - as a Celtic season ticket holder there are many people attending games that aren't a "traditional" Celtic person. I was recently speaking to two Norweigans who travel over to watch Celtic once or twice a year. At the Celtic v Tirol Innsbruk UEFA cup match several years a go there were approx. 15 Germans dotted about in our section who were over to watch Celtic as well. Japanese are very common at Celtic Park now adays too. I know that there is a Carlisle CSC full of English guys who come up for every home game too. I think that this is true about being one of the largest supported.


 * Look at Villareal - behind one of their goals there is a Villareal & Celtic banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How many Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc fans support only that particular club? How many Man Utd fans support eg. Barcelona or Stevenage Borough fans support eg Man Utd, Real Madrid and Milan. So if you look at it this way then it is very plausable that Celtic are one of the biggest supported clubs in the world - PB Celt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I swear that the Celtic FC page is being vandalised every few days now.As a firm Celtic Supporter(and anybody else)I think you should do something about it you see vandalism.If you don't what to do,ask somebody to help.Or inform Huggle,which is a dealing with vandalism tool.Plus if you found out who did it then tell somebody,to prevent it from happening again.宁雨翔 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page on...
I don't know but does anybody know if there is a page on the Celtic Charity Fund or the Celtic's Lady team.宁雨翔 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a problem
On Celtic FC for managers,you may realize that there is NO managers for Celtic FC from 1961 to 1964(I don't know who the manager was).Can somebody help,thank you.宁雨翔 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy McGrory was the manager from 1945 until 1965

Honors
Why are Celtics runners up spots in the European cup and the UEFA cup under the heading minor honors? I know Celtic fans would rather they had won them, but I would hardly call runners up in the most prestigious club tournament in Europe a minor honor. I would have thought only minor tournament wins should be under this heading. Jack forbes (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Celtic have won the league 42 times. Why does the total of league wins in the managers column only come to 39? Jack forbes (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PPS No need to answer that one, I came back to the article and figured it out by myself (genius). Doh! :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

9-in-a-row
Why has the note been removed about setting a then world record of 9 league championships in a row? It originally had a note that this "now Scottish record" being equalled by Rangers. I think it showed the importance of when Celtic managed this where as Rangers was only equalling a now domestic record!

Good idea - i think this is important too.

New section
I think we should add two new sections on to this page to talk about the the type of supporters and the charity organization that we run.

Fastest hat-trick
Can anyone find a reliable source for Mark Burchalls fastest hat-trick in European club football? I've had a look and can't find anything we can use. The problem of course is, if it was the fastest at the time does it still hold true? Jack forbes (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An archive of a Daily Record article is available here at a cost though the Burchill stuff is shown without charge George The Dragon (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Tic" as a nickname
Why does someone constantly remove "The Tic" as a nickname for Celtic? This is an older nickname and one which the Club obviously recognizes as they have a phone-in programme on Celtic TV called "Tic Talk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Should be left in. hippo43 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Manager flag icons
I have added national flag icons to the managers section and would like some advice. Which flag should Martin O'Neill be represented with? There is no (as far as I know) flag icon for N.Ireland and the Union Jack is perhaps not specific enough. Any ideas anyone? Titch Tucker (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the Northern Ireland flag to him. It's just flagicon with Northern Ireland as the country. srushe (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh!I thought I'd done that! I must have made a typo error. Cheers! Titch Tucker (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances
I came across a couple of websites, this one and this one which have me a little puzzled. Both of them appear to say that Alec McNair has the most appearances for Celtic with 604. The second one even says Billy McNeill has the second most appearances, yet he played 790 games. I can't figure it out, can anyone else? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fan Friendships
Why not create a section for friendships between Celtic and other clubs - most obvious is St Pauli but also Liverpool, Villarreal (formation of Celtic-Submari Celtic Supporters Club), Barcelona, SpVgg Greuther Fürth, etc?

Celtics in pop culture

 * The article needs to have a section on Celtic F.C. in pop culture. For example, half-Scots singer Rod Stewart mentions the team in his 1976 hit song You're in My Heart, which everyone presumed was a love song written about his girlfriend at the time Britt Eklund, but he later admitted it was about football and the teams he supported.--jeanne (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Malicious content
Edited to remove malicious content from an author who uses specualtion as fact in regards to the reasons for the club's formation. It is widely known, through club and a number of independant sources, that the club was started as ameans to raise funds for the poor of Glasgow's east end, not, as was stated, on sectarian grounds.

Edit also discussion page whcih contained malicious content which was obviously designed, through it's not Celtic content, to as a slight on the name of the club.

I propose that this page is now semi-protected such is motivation for other rival clubs fans, and one in particular, to submit malicious content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.233.188 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)