Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 10

Rangers FC
Suggest adding the following:

The club was also the first club in Scotland to achieve a domestic treble in season 1948-49 and has gone on to achieve more domestic trebles than any other club in the world, winning their 7th domestic treble in 2003.

The club has also produced more international Scotland Caps(1285), Goals(199) and Players(146) than any other club. (25thMar 1876-1stApril 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason: Important landmarks in clubs history- can be cited from Wiki, and various others.

comments ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Give the sources first so they can be verified then once verified add it--Andy Chat c 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Treble cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treble, referencing http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Records/0,,5,00.html

Scotland records cited at http://www.londonhearts.com/scotland/clubs/playersbyclubapps.html SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection to adding these, and I don't doubt they are true, but we need good quality, independent sources first. Neither of these is a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. --hippo43 (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah what surprise, the ol hungry hipoo ! I am glad u have no objection, very kind of you. As the original entry is accepted I cannot understand why you think it not good enough, as you are no stranger to the Treble page ? You do not have the monopoly on what is and isn't a acceptable reference and what is not.

but in the interests of civilty here's another citation;

http://www.free-football.tv/articles/Rangers.html

"Since sharing their first trophy Rangers have gone on to win a host of others and to this date remain the most honoured football team’s in the world, having amassed a total of 107 trophies and making their trophy room one of the most famous in the world. Along the way they have achieved many records including having achieved the most domestic League Championships which now totals 51, some of which helped the club to achieve a record 7 domestic trebles.

At the same time Rangers have also made their mark in Europe and hold the record of competing in European competitions 46 times so far, which is more than any other British club. They are also the first Scottish club to progress to the group stages of both the Champions League and the UEFA Cup."

Now, hippo if u can answer why felt it necessary to ask for a different citation than the one on the treble page which you have already contributed to ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea what sources the Treble article cited, If they are not appropriate, per WP:RS, then they should be removed from there as well. The source you just suggested is obviously not a reliable source, per the same policy. I've no doubt this will be referenced in decent sources somewhere. The 'monopoly' on what is an acceptable source, as far as I know, is WP:RS. --hippo43 (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Verifiability. --hippo43 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See what happens when we make assumptions, still, that page contains references from the websites of the following clubs; Celtic, Shamrock Rovers, Derry City, Bohemians, Al Saad, and Rangers (surprised you never spotted any of these, especially the ones you were involved with,?)still you won't miss them here I'll bet ;-).

So all these references are unacceptable ?

I believe I have provided enough sources to satisfy a "reasonable" person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For statements like "first Scottish club to win a treble" or "more trebles than any other Scottish club" you need good sources. I'm sure they will be referenced in some quality publication somewhere. It has nothing to do with a reasonable person - you need to find good enough sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. --hippo43 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another citation:

"...completed the seventh Treble in the club’s history." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article1138017.ece

yet another citation

"The 1948/49 season was Rangers' greatest ever as they went on to record the first ever treble, victorious in the League, the Scottish Cup and the new League Cup. "

http://www.carling.com/football/glasgow-rangers-fc/history.html

yet another citation:

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. 23 November 2006.

http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/doublerec.html#treb

Now hippo, I find it strange that you cannot accept any of the references above, whilst you can happily accept references from all the clubs above on the Treble article\page, and you appear quite happy to accept citations from Celticfc.net(official club site)and kerrydalestreet.co.uk(Fans website) on the Celtic FC article\page, both pages in which you have been heavily involved editing. Seems to me you are applying one rule to me and another for yourself ?

Section break 1
I believe I have provided enough references, it is now my intention to edit. Please do not remove entries with citations until we get third party input. regards. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * first two are realiable third party sources so go ahead and amend the article using them as citations, please remember not to copy but writ eit in your own words.


 * Secondly Hippo i would like to know if this is true that you are accepting those above unrealible sources for the celtic page? if so i think something in the admin boards might be required as you are being a biased editor then, however i will not pass judgement until i hear your side of the story. old sayign there two sides to every story.--Andy Chat c 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick glance at yoru contribution suggest you are not doing this however i still like your side of the story you do not neccassirly need to reply here--Andy Chat c 19:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * RSSSF doesn't say that these are the only trebles ever won anywhere, or anything similar, and doesn't make any statements about records. Second, is RSSSF a reliable source? I can't find any statement about their fact-checking, editorial control etc.


 * The Times is obviously a reliable source, but doesn't support the statement you are looking to insert. It says 7 trebles, but doesn't say anything about 'more than any other club' etc.


 * On the Carling site, there's no evidence that there is any editorial control etc, so I don't consider it reliable.


 * I find it strange that no reputable newspaper, or broadcaster or published book can be found to support these statements. Basically, you are introducing your own commentary. If you can't find a reliable source making the statements you want to insert, then you need to let the facts speak for themselves. --hippo43 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point i had made a bad assumption because the sitews would most likely be realible that the content wa son them and sekkeraftertruth had found it but obviosuly that might not be the case i will have to check myself, if it does nto say what is gettign said it says then it can not be added--Andy Chat c 21:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Times only meantion doing it seven times so that good enough source to prove that but nothing more than that. EDIT (the second source is not realible forgot my next comment)the seocnd source is realible however it does not meantion what you ar etrying ot say so can not be used.--Andy Chat c 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

hippo, So you object to all six independent citations,(including a statistical service that has been running worldwide for 15yrs and has a stated quality control policy) but you accept citations without question from: www.Derrycityfc.net-Club website www.bohemians.ie-Club website www.shamrockrovers.ie www.celticfc.net

Section break 2
3 Irish clubs websites plus Celtic's website without question on the Treble article ? Can you even see how this can be construed as a non-neutral position ?

Then on the Celtic page you have acceptable references from:

Celtic.Net-Official club website The Celtic View-Official club newspaper KerrydaleStreet.com-Fansite LonestarCeltic.com-Fansite

Where is your consistency ? Let's have a wee look at some other articles that appear to interest you;

Celtic FC Celtic Park Rangers Signing policy-Graeme Souness Donald Findlay-Sectarianism Elite Stadia-(Removing Ibrox from, trying to add Celtic Park to.) British Overseas Territories=Banned from Rangers FC- edit warring Feb 2009 RFC- "Neutral statement? Not sure that I'm the man for the job! " (could not agree more.) Treble- 1st club mentioned, Celtic, 2nd Club mentioned Celtic Quadruple- about ? Celtic. The old Firm-Celtic and Rangers UEFA 2003 Cup Final- Celtic v Porto Lisbon Lions- Celtic 67 team History of Celtic FC- some interesting comments on the discussion from hippo The Celtic View-Celtic paper Jimmy Johnstone-Celtic player

I will stop (for now), but I think there is plainly a pattern here, my question would be, Hippo, why the attraction to Rangers FC ? Does this go some way to explaining his vociferous opposition to any attempts at balancing the Rangers page ?

Something stinks here.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Something stinks"?? I would suggest you bear in mind WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL etc, but I guess I'd be wasting my time. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make - perhaps you could be less cryptic. Maybe you could let me know who is allowed to edit which articles.


 * I have no interest in discussing other articles with you here. I have edited hundreds, and no doubt many of them contain sources which are crap. I suppose that means I am somehow "accepting them without question"? If you care about other articles, discuss them at the relevant talk page. Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of subjects, not just Rangers. Why the attraction to Rangers FC? --hippo43 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * SeekerAfterTruth, this is not an appropriate forum to discuss Hippo43's wider contributions or his motivation. He has a talk page you can discuss these issues and, if you think there is an issue that needs wider comment, there is WP:RfC. Please keep you comments here focused on the content of the article, and please stop accusing other editors of editing in bad faith. We are all volunteers here, which means we should all treat other with respect. Try and assume everyone's goal is to improve the article, just like you are, and there will be a more pleasant and constructive dialogue.
 * Now, regarding this subject of this section: I think its entirely fine to mention the first and number of trebles - there appear to be reliable sources for that. I don't see any reliable sources confirming that is "more domestic trebles than any other club in the world". I think it would really help if you reviewed WP:RS. Finally, its not a good idea to mention the exact number of international caps, goals etc. The numbers will change every for months and thus will date very quickly. Rockpock  e  t  06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a reliable source for "most trebles", I think it's a contrived statistic because many countries don't have a league cup (eg1 Italy, eg2 Spain), or if they do they introduced it much later than Scotland (eg1 England). For instance, Barcelona won "the treble" for the first time in their history last season (European Cup, La Liga and Copa del Rey). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Rangers winning the First Scottish Treble: Sunday Herald (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19991226/ai_n13943942/) and The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/3270015/Ian-McColl.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bab nyc (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st one does not say they wont the treble as such but does say they wont everything in seaosn 29-30 include all reserve cups, the 2nd does meantion it so could be used, and the second it defintely a realible source, first i will need to look at more--Andy Chat c 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st one appears to be realible --Andy Chat c 11:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st one: I think you might be looking at 1930 instead of 1949. My apologies for not directing you to the appropriate section. Given there are two reliable sources, is there a consensus that Rangers were the first team to win the Scottish Treble? --Bab Nyc (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, but i think someone is will have to judge if soruce 1 is realibel as well, i am 60/40 on it being realible, but since the second one is i can not see why it can not be added now.--Andy Chat c 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Source 1 is from a website belonging to CBS (the American Broadcaster and news gathering organization). It republishes an article originally from the (Glasgow) Sunday Herald. This same source is already used on the Rangers FC article in a number of places, e.g reference 34. Anyway, since Source 2 is good, it seems there is agreement to add this to the article. Given the article is locked, how is this done? --Bab Nyc (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It only locked to ip user and non auto confirmer users, if you are one of these post the material you wanted added with a source using the cite template and where oyu want it to go and i willa dd it--Andy Chat c 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * just because a source has bene used before does not mean it pass WP:RS just means osmeone has managed ot add it before, i did observe it was CBS and that it was publiush herald article, however there appears to be that you could sign up and post things from anywhere that wha ti need to be checked to see if anyolen can add informaiton or does it merely get added then checked and found by the site first before adding.,--Andy Chat c 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say that 'Ibrox was awarded UEFA five-star stadium status, now obsolete.[66]' How is it obsolete when it is still the only ground in scotland to hold 5 star status, or is this just a celtic fan doing what he does best vandalising. Remove this obsolete please.
 * because UEFA changed the standard 5 stars no logner exists it was replace with something else and Ibrox have yet to request it be reviewed with the new standard so it is obslete, please do not make suggestion it is been made liek this jsut because of celtic fans, nither celtic nor rangers fans who are not objective and who are not comply to wikipedia rules get there edits reverted very quickly-- Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough i was unaware of that but perhaps a more appropriate wording could be used other than to gain some form of reaction for example 'now out dated' or 'status out of date and requires reviewing by uefa' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.98.215 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

European success and national tragedy
I propose that information about the memorial of the Ibrox disaster is explained, mainly that a statue of John Greig was unveiled on a raised platform at the corner of the Copland road and Bill Struth main stand at a service in 2001, it has the victims names on a plaque on the base. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.glasgowsculpture.com/pg_images.php?sub=ibrox_disaster http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/1092431.stm


 * Sounds a good idea but i am sure it is covered alreeady but expand the current part but it does not deserve it own section-- Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangers 2009/10 Home Kit
Rangers have released the new home kit, now on sale: Rangers.co.uk. I'm not sure how to change the kit design in the infobox, I would be very grateful if someone could be generous enough to update the pic! Macarism (Talk to me) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to go for GA status again?
Its been 2 and a half years since this article had attempted Good Article status, but failed on Peer review. Time to try again? A lot of concerns seem to have been addressed, so maybe it is time to refine the article a little bit more and recommend it for reassessment?  Macarism  Talk to me   10:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * going on the peer review it would probally fail again, best i suggest peer review it agin find out anytihng need to be fixed then fix it then put it into GA review-- Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangers and bigotry
A reference to Glasgow Rangers and bigotry from respected Historian Norman Davies "The Isles" page 769 that could be included. "...it came as a shock to find that there were still enclaves in the Isles where the old religious bigotry reigned undisturbed. One such enclave was Glasgow Rangers Football Club." "...in 1999 was obliged to fire its chairman for celebrating a cup-win with an evening of rabidly anti-catholic songs -

We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die!"

Davies, Norman (1999). The Isles. MacMillan: London. ISBM 978-0-333-69283-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedao.glasgow (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a very godo example and i pretty sure it was on the bbc news as well so that reference would be welcomed to. but how it gets added and wher ewill have to be discussed and resovled first.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the section on sectarianism on this article is big enough already and covers it in plenty of detail, especially as there is only 2 small paragraphs on the Celtic F.C article. There is an entire article on Se/.ctarianism in Glasgow where perhaps the quote in question belongs, but theres only so much that can be mentioned here on the main article which is about a football club. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the celtic section needs more add it with references. the aritcle is about it and wether fans liek it or not it part of the club and as wikipedia is about the history of the club it needs to be added, i am nto saying add a whole p[aragraph about yes that wha tthe other article about but it quite signfacant so should have a lien or two added about it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable - "we can't have too much discussion of sectarianism here because there's less at the Celtic article." How about we stick to what sources report? This isn't the place to discuss other articles. --hippo43 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No im just saying there seems to be enough information covering that topic on this article already with an entire other article going into huge detail about the sectarianism in glasgow and there is a section on it at Old Firm. The section on this article covering sectarianism is big enough in my opinion, its just one topic about the football club. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be included, except it is factually inaccurate. The reference is to Donald Findlay, who was neither the chairman of Rangers, nor was he fired. You'd think such a "respected historian" would have better fact checking skills. Rockpock e  t  22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket is right on both counts, although there's not a huge distinction between 'fired' and 'told that he was resigning'. In any case, there are a ton of references which do get the facts right on this incident. --hippo43 (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What is on the Celtic article compared to the Rangers one is not relevant. Unlike the teams, their articles on Wikipedia are not in competition with each other. There is, I believe, enough about the subject on this article. This article is about a football club, not some of the unsavoury sociological baggage that surrounds it, much of which has nothing to do with the club. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the celtic article issue it has nothing to do with this one there is no competition etc, jsut some fans do not want it known what happens at the club. There is enough on the subject however in this case it is quite sigfancant int he fact it shows how far the secterism goes within scotland as this was a high profile person ie a lawyer who takes on some of the biggest case in scotland and i think the uk but they where caught doign secterin songs and i think it should be added as it does show the extent of the problem and that what it mean tto be doing ont he articl eshowing the extent of the problem and what hte club are trying to do to fix it, but a more detaisl coverage of this event should be in the secterism in scotland article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the particular incident being discussed above has everything to do with the club. The one area which I feel needs some more coverage is Rangers' previous reluctance to sign catholic players. There is a fair amount of coverage in some decent sources, so I'll try to add something useful when I have a chance. --hippo43 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Norman Davies main point seems to be that Rangers Football Club had been an "enclave" of bigotry since they "employed no catholic players" (Davies, 1999, p. 769). Maybe the Davies citation would serve a purpose if we were to write: "It is widely recognised that Rangers Football Club, in particular, have had a problem during their history with bigotry (Davies, 1999)." There is also this good link from the current Rangers manager Walter Smith talking about the previous sectarian signing policy, if this helps Hippo43. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning sectarianism on the main page is one thing but to have a huge multi paragraphed section solely on random things that relate to sectarianism on the main page of the club is not needed. Why not just put a link to 'sectarianism in glasgow's' page instead of virtually copy and pasting whats there onto the rangers fc page. A similar section on the celtic fc page is about one fith the size due to the fact that no new links to sectarianism on their page can be added for some reason.  21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The so called "Sectarian Signing Policy" is a "fact" that has no sources from within the club. There was a Catholic player way back in the early 1900's. I'll look up his name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domainer11 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the current Rangers manager Walter Smith has talked about Rangers sectarian signing policy, and also Sandy Jardine. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it not be appropriate then to mention that celtic had exactly the same policy but in reverse originaly. Oh but because they 'changed it' earlier it means they have immunity doesnt it oh how silly of me to forget that part about the rules to wikipedia (Monkeymanman (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * As I point out below, this is the Rangers wiki page. Maybe the discussion about other teams could be taken to those other teams' wiki pages. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rangers Fans and Racism
I was wondering if we should have a section on "Rangers Fans and Racism"? We have a section on the Old Firm and Sectarianism. This is clearly a page about Rangers and not the Old Firm, but I guess that's another discussion.

If we were to include material from the racial abuse of Bobo Balde and Momo Sylla then we could also include the Famine Song in the section on "Rangers Fans and Racism". Especially the recent court ruling from three Scottish judges which suggested the Famine Song is racist. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the page covers it ie both clubs, maybe the content needs to eb expanded but ther eno need for a rangers fans and racism-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have the "Old Firm and Sectarianism" as the main section and then we have "Rangers efforts to combat sectarianism". This appears to suggest that sectarianism only arises in the context of the Old Firm, which is false. And only Rangers have made efforts to combat sectarianism, which is also false. We should have "Rangers and Sectarianism" and "Rangers Attempts to Combat Sectarianism". This seems much more consistent and objective. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about we have a page about celtic fans and racism where we have evidence about the racial abuse of rangers players i.e the throwing of bananas at mark walters, monkey chants at basil boli. Also numerous occasions of singing the lyrics 'go home ya huns go home' 'up the ra' 'f**k the queen' that would be appropriate wouldnt it. (Monkeymanman (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Same as above it gets covered int he odl and secterism page no need for that as it abuse-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * May I point out, that this is the Rangers wikipedia page. It is plainly not relevant what is on another wikipedia page. We could have a "Rangers Fans and Racism" section, unless people can make a convincing case that there has been no racism by Rangers fans. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article would nto be required it would sit in the old firm and secterism article quite nicely i agree that a section on that is required but not a article as it then be falling into the policy of abuse i think might be thinkign of the wrong policy-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to talk about Rangers fans and racism in a section on the Rangers page since this is an important matter. And manifestations of racism by Rangers fans have happened outwith the Old Firm. For example, racism by Rangers fans directed towards former Hamilton Academical player James McCarthy. So it's inappropriate to think Rangers fans racism exists only within the context of the Old Firm. I think it is clear we should have a section on the Rangers page called "Rangers fans and racism". --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for a whole new section on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If this tit-for-tat noncesense continues, every football club's article will end up swallowed by disproportionate lists of one-off incidents. I for one look forward to the festival of POV point scoring. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2 of you seem intent on attempting to damage the name of rangers football club in the typical 'celtic way' by point scoring be it through 'sectarianism' or 'racism'. And that is all this new section would be another attempt at point scoring. Before you mention it i think it is clear to all which side of the fence you stand with the old firm, and seeing as one of the 2 of you or both are moderators to both the old firm pages i think the value of an impartial view is non existant here. (90.217.174.157 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree We Are The People. Tit-for-tat discussions do not have a role on the discussion page. It would be better to focus on the topic of this wiki page, which is Rangers and their supporters. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the topic of this wiki page is Rangers football club. Supporters might come under that at some stage but to label a clubs supporters on the whole like you are attempting to do, rather than look at the club itself is irrelavent and as i have already said is point scoring. (90.217.174.157 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * This is not abotu rangers football club it is a article on the club and the supportors are part of it, if it was not problem then it would not be here and anyone comign to read will get to know the full story good and bad-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. These aren't intended to be pages only written by fans of the club. They are meant to provide a rounded reflection of the topic and all important aspects of the topic. We shouldn't put only material from one point of view (i.e. a fan who only wants one viewpoint expressed and everything else is censored). --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So to mention the fact that their has been incidents of ‘sectarianism’ is one thing, but to have just RANDOM references is just inappropriate. (Monkeymanman (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

UNIDENT

What random references?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you Moderate both the Rangers FC page and the Celtic FC page AndrewCrawford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.174.157 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of references below here that someone has put up (90.217.174.157 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * It does nto matter if i moderate both of them tha tis irrevelent. The list below is just so people can view the material that is getting provide to support or not support the above arguements.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering because anything that is posted on the celtic fc discussion page to argue whether or not new additions could be made and reasons for and against is completely ignored but on this page the response is almost immediate (Monkeymanman (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I have posted in the past saying it should be but my life is occupied by a little baby so wikipedia is least of my worroies, and i dnt really care about the celtic one-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with talking specifically about racism at Rangers? It happens, so maybe we should report it?


 * Yyyyyyyyyyawnnnnnnnnnn. - Dudesleeper / Talk  01:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This implicit tolerance of racism based upon a desire to sweep it under the carpet is disgusting. Anyways it's just storing up problems for the future for Rangers.

I dont see any issue with 'sweeping it under the carpet' or 'tolerance' as you put it. There has been so called instances of racism in the past with rangers ASWELL AS WITH EVERY OTHER CLUB IN FOOTBALL as there are always some thick idiots in EVERY support no matter where you go, thats just a fact of reality. Rangers were one of the first to come out with an anti racism / sectarianism stance in scotland and i dont know about what you think but the difference in rangers supporters views (especialy young people) has changed for the better in the past 10 years. (Monkeymanman (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC))


 * By choosing to emphasize that racism has existed at other football clubs, does this mean Rangers fans are any less racist? Also, racism clearly continues to be a prominent feature of the Rangers support, with the declaration by three judges that the Famine Song sung by Rangers fans is racist. BTW I'm amazed that we've not got a link in the article to the fact that Rangers fans' Famine Song has been declare as racist by three appeal court judges in a Scottish court of law. Maybe we should add one? - Nedao.Glasgow / Nedao.Glasgow 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I emphasized the fact that racism exists at every football club and that every football club has these complete biggots within their own support. I believe there should be something saying that rangers football club themselves condemed that song in its context at the time and sanctioned numerous people found guilty. (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Without third party source it cant be done because then it original research, but i aint saying it shouldnt be meantioned, but this article is abotu rangers not other club no matter what hapepns at them has nothing to do with this article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a mention of chief executive Martin Bain's reaction to the song and the furore over it when he said, "Clearly some supporters feel aggrieved that a song they believe to be no more than a tit-for-tat 'wind up' of celtic supporters should be singled out in this way and merit the attention of police, governments and ant-racist organisations". Not exactly a strong condemnation but maybe there is one out there that's a little stronger? Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tht one is fine and realible-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article say that rangers did not condemn the song when they were the first to step out with flyers to every fan saying not to sing it, is that not clear condemnation by the club? (Monkeymanman (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Sending out flyers is not a condemnation. It was an attempt to prevent their supporters being arrested which would give Rangers a bad name. If you have a source from someone high up in the Rangers heirarchy condemning the actual song as racist then it can be included. Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to find out what the wording was on those flyers. Is there a source for the exact language used on them and whether the word racist was part of it? Jack forbes (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * References from celtic football clubs own chairman is not exactly independent and non biased is it? That link to 'show racism the red card' just takes you to their main page and does not show any statement from them that i can see about it which begs the question of verifiability of it??  (Monkeymanman (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry. Where are these references you are referring to? Jack forbes (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/famine-song-vile-vicious-and-racist-1.892400 the website is neutral but the statement is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was neutrally reported. Your POV that the statement was not neutral does not matter. The source is perfectly good. Jack forbes (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day you will write what you like and no one will be able to change it right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, if I could write what I liked I would be on to articles like Scotland and give it the whole pov bit. I can't though, which is probably a good thing. I'm not here to argue against everything you say but, the fact is we need reliable sources if we are to include information. If you could find those reliable sources to back up your opinions I would be more than happy to see you include them in the article. Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * yeh right (Monkeymanman (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Instead of just thinking it all about you and the club getting a bad name why not listen, if oyu go throught eh archive oyu will find there is plenty of times things have been changed in this section but wikipedia ia about facts and realible source nto about giving the club and fans a good name, if they where so good they would get it. I am fan but i am editor and i understadn the fact this is part of the club and it should be included, i dnt tolarate even in my own family, the family member that do know i wont allow it within my own house or with my children. but the fact remains it exists, if you can get stuff on celtic and want ot add it there go ahead if there objection bring it to talk like this and then inform a user liek myself or jack who will come to the celtic page and amke sure it added if revelent and relaible sourced.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand fully what you are saying and agree. But it does seem that everyone is out on this page to point score but that is neither here nor there and am not wanting a reply to that. I agree that these points should be mentioned as the fans are part of the club and anything to do with them should be on the article. In saying that i recommended to the celtic fc discussion page that they explain in more detail sectarianism / racism incidents envolving their own fans instead of just stating where the fans came from (in an old firm generalisation) and that celtic fc started an anti sectarian campaign. I got a reply which is still there on the discussion page saying i quote 'the page and articles should only be about football fact and not about a minority of individuals who certainly do not represent the vast majority.' and 'what does it matter what one club does and does not do.' These statements are very contradictory to what i have been told on this discussion page. I would be interested to hear what you think about that? Thanks (Monkeymanman (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC))


 * As i dnt have it on my watchlist i only general look on it ever now and then i was unaware, my views are there talking mince as the one opposing are fans that do nto want there club name brought down, but the fact remains it eixsts in both sides and has to be meantioned if a relaible source is provide. if i get a few minute i willl have alook over the dicussion then reply and then start the process of getting it added there to.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey, I have contributed to both articles you are discussing and my stance is the same on both - we need to reflect what appears in reliable sources, in proportion to its coverage. In this case, I don't think there has been much coverage of Rangers fans and racism specifically (as opposed to in a sectarian context), so I don't see much need of such a section here. If you want to discuss other articles, this isn't the place. --hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there quite abit of coverage in the media of the racism towards Bobo Balde? In The Telegraph in The Times  in WSC  on the anti-racism web site Kick It Out  on the BBC web page  in the Guardian  in Law Journals  etc  --Nedao (Nedao) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point - considerable coverage, but only one incident - hardly a pattern being reported, so maybe not worth a section in this article? --hippo43 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough hippo43. I could have been clearer there. These links refer to a number of incidents of racism against Bobo Balde. In March 2001, in a game at Ibrox. In September 2001, in a game at Ibrox. And March 2003, game at Celtic Park. These are in addition to a number of occasions when the racist Famine Song was sung. This is more than one incident of racism. I think we may have enough such that we have a subsection of “Rangers Fans and Racism”, within the section “Old Firm and sectarianism”. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I don't agree here. The famine song, while it has been described as racist, is also undoubtedly part of the sectarian problem, and I don't think the article needs separate sections on both sectarianism and racism. IMO, the famine song, orange strip, sectarian songs, signing policy etc are part of the same issue. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be said that Rangers fans' racism and sectarianism is part of the same problem. That's a reasonable view point. Although they are clearly not the same thing. Therefore, I think it would make sense to have the main section on (3.) sectarianism. And then a subsection (3.1) "Rangers Fans and Racism". We could have the numerous incidents of racism amongst Rangers fans in this subsection. Against Bobo Balde. Against Didier Agathe . Also an Asian Rangers fans experience of racism at Ibrox . And then the existing discussion of the racist Famine Song. What do you think about a subsection? --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour. The famine song is part of the sectarian issue, without question. Despite the other incidents you linked to, I don't think there has been much coverage of "Rangers fans and racism" as a subject. The issue of Rangers' sectarian problems, on the other hand, has received wide coverage. --hippo43 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The clubs actions are certainly far more important and useful for the article than having extensive coverage in the article of a small bunch of fans abusive actions. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if a Scottish Justiciary Appeal Court upholds a conviction of a Rangers fan for breach of the peace for singing the famine song, aggravated by racial prejudice, we can safely conclude that the famine song is racist. Or could you please explain to me why this is not the case? --nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a case for both, but who is to say what is correct no one really knows. What is sectarian and what is racist these days again no one really knows.  Where does it end?(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC))


 * But Lord Carloway, who heard the appeal with temporary judges Alastair Dunlop QC and Brian Lockhart QC, said: "The court does not consider that the lyrics of this refrain bear any reasonable comparison to those of 'Flower of Scotland' or indeed 'God Save the Queen'. "Rather, they are racist in calling upon people native to Scotland to leave the country because of their racial origins. This is a sentiment which....many persons will find offensive." Case closed.--nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed] The club, through the Rangers Study Centre, is also involved in the "Ready To Learn" project, along with Glasgow City Council. The aims of the project include raising awareness of sectarianism, racism and prejudice among young people in Glasgow.[citation needed]
 * If theres no citation then why is this allowed to stand on the page? I dont understand this.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

While i am here i propose that the mention of donald findlay be removed from this section as it really is innapropriate. I must mention it but celtics talk page argued that Jim Torbett be removed / not mentioned on their page because he only worked for celtic like wise with findlay. Ted Bundy worked for the Republican Party. Check their entry to see if he is mentioned. Of course not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Donald Findlay's sectarian behaviour is appropriate for a section on sectarianism as it relates to Rangers Football Club, for obvious reasons. If you want to discuss what material should be included on another page, bring it up at that article's talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Donald findlay simply worked for the club, i believe that it is not a NPOV, you are cherry picking certain things to bulk out this section on your POV.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm not cherry-picking sources - I'm reflecting the coverage given by reliable sources to this incident and its relevance to Rangers' sectarian aspects. As vice-chairman, Findlay was one of the club's most visible and well-known representatives, not just an employee. This is patently obvious to sensible people. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'patently obvious' i thought that was a POV and was illegal by wikipedia. He was an employee, not anyone of serious importance, the man acted alone and had little to do with rangers as a club as apposed to sanctions / fines by uefa which 'is' a club matter.  This would be more suitable on his own profile page.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "Not anyone of serious importance"? He was the vice-chairman - a board member! You really do talk nonsense. --hippo43 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At that time rangers had a ridiculous number of vice chairmen’s, board members, committee members. So to single out one for his actions and say that it had everything to do with rangers football club is ludicrous.  On the other hand being fined by uefa is a ‘club’ matter not the action of one individual.  This should be on his own personal page if anywhere not the page of Rangers FC(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Are you a crazy monkey? He was the Vice-Chairman and it was on the front page of newspapers! Hardly an insignificant matter. You should put it back into the article instead of censoring it. Put your blue tinted glasses away. (Uffiziuzi (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I've put it back in. --hippo43 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense Hippo43. Here's a link. (Uffiziuzi (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Nice abuse there Uffiziuzi. That link shows he was fined by the faculty of advocates.  It was an individual act not one on behalf of rangers FC.  I do not believe in censorship but this belongs on his own personal page if anywhere and not the Rangers FC page.  It can surprise you what ends up on the 'front page' of newspapers.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * The Findlay incident has been in the article for a while - that indicates that there was consensus for it to be there. You suggested here that it should be removed, and did not get any agreement to do so. You then removed it anyway, against consensus, are you really surprised that editors aren't happy?
 * I note that you were keen to include incidents involving fans and the head of a supporters group (i.e. not club employees) in the article about another football club - why such a different approach here? --hippo43 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to alter the section slightly but knew you would revert it back anyway so rashly deleted it. A similar approach to yourself then Hippo regarding contradictions, i know.  The general consensus on this page it seems is if there are referances that suit 'your' POV then it can go in the article,  If you want to discuss other articles you should do so on that page as you yourself would put it(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

The page has to reflect a real picture of the club. If someone who has never heard of Rangers football club reads the page and decides to go and watch a game then their shouldn't be any surprises for them, Rangers have been in trouble with FIFA many times recently for crowd trouble and bigotted singing and this side of the club should be acknowledged on the main page. Calumscott (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)calto


 * Rangers are a Curate's egg. Good and bad should be reflected.

I think it already has been mentioned to a very large degree (Monkeymanman (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Celtic FC fans (whom the song was aimed at) are not a race, most people of Irish descent in GB find the whole Plastic Republican shtick cringeworthy to begin with. By claiming that song is "racist", it asserts a collectivism, that somehow the majority of the 14 million people of Irish descent in GB want anything to do with Celtic FCisms. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangers FC and Bigotry
Fair enough monkey man. Here's another link about Rangers FC Vice-chairman Donald Findlay singing anti-catholic songs and how it had wider implications for Sectarianism in Scotland. It's from the BBC, not sure if Rangers fans are boycotting that media outlet too? (Uffiziuzi (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree it had wider implications regarding 'sectarianism in scotland', but this would be more suited to his own personal page as it was an issue involving him not Rangers FC.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Right, and if John Reid where caught singing sectarian songs you don't think it should be mentioned in the article? You don't get it do you, as Vice Chairman he had a standard to maintain, and if that standard dropped well below what is expected then it reflects on the club. I don't know why you insist on arguing over this. It's well referenced and belongs in the article. Jack forbes (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So the behaviour of the Rangers vice-chairman, at an event organised by a Rangers supporters club, attended by first team players of Rangers, celebrating a Rangers victory, and singing a well known sectarian Rangers song, has little to do with Rangers. I suspect others on wiki will think your argument looks rather weird Monkeymanman and begin to question your credibility, nevermind your objectivity. (Uffiziuzi (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I dont think it mentions rangers players but nevermind, if john reid did something like that 'you' would argue that it does not belong in the Celtic Fc page just like you and others of the same persuasion argued that things like celtic players caught doing things innapropriately or employees of the club acting innapropriately should not be mentioned on the article page and that argument was upheld.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
 * From your comment "like you and others of the same persuasion" it is quite obvious you have come here only as a Rangers supporter and not a wikipedia editor. Start contributing by looking for good sources to add relevant information to the article, and discuss it if other editors disagree. Getting consensus is important and you have no consensus for deleting the Donald Findlay material. One more thing. This is the Rangers article, discussions of any other articles belong there. Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did delete the section which i should not have, i should have at least got consensus from you very 'neutral' moderators, sorry, editors. You were the one who mentioned john reid not me and by mentioning him referred to the celtic fc article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
 * So, there is nothing to argue over. I'll be off then, bye! Jack forbes (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we keep this on topic please :). As a rangers fan i do not like what happens but the fact remains it happens and since this aritlc eis not here to promote rangers but give a overview of the club and its fan then everytiohn has ot be covered that is a major thing. However user are free to meantion otehr articles in context but can not bring into dispute anytihng abotu that article but take it to that tal page of that article. If anything on the article is not sourced and is wrong remove it otehr wise bring it here to discuss changes to it :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole use of the term "sectarian" seems to be dragged beyond bounds. First and foremost Rangers bigotry seem to be more associated with anti-Republicanism, specifically Celtic FC diaspora parodies of it on this island (with a few tribalistic referenced to the Pope now and again). For instance in that link the BBC claims that song is "anti-Catholic", yet what does Fenianism (a term used to refer to republicanism due to the Fenian Brotherhood) have to do with most Catholics in the GB? I highly doubt that Celtic FC types go to Church. The claim that singing anti-republican songs is "anti-Catholic" or even "anti-Irish diaspora" is actually bigoted in itself, because it claims that such groups are some sort of "fifth column" who support that political ideology, when most dont at all. The only group in GB which supports republicanism seems to be Trotskyites. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You hardly doubt that Celtic FC types go to Church? Quite a statement, Yorkshirian. I know many of those "Celtic FC types" (what do you mean by that?) who do go to Church. And please, don't think all Rangers supporters are that political that when they sing about catholics they only mean Irish republican supporters. Have you ever lived in Glasgow? Have you ever been asked as a kid whether you are catholic or protestant, then wait and see if your answer is to their liking? I don't recall being asked if I was a republican or unionist. Sectarianism has been a blight on Glasgow and it's all to do with whether your roots are Irish or not. And to make it clear, I mean sectarianism from both sides. I do believe a genuine Rangers supporter would laugh at your suggestion that it has nothing to do with Catholicism or the Irish diaspora. Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously due to republicanism itself, arriving here from Ireland, through immigrants (though the ideology arrived there from France). But there are 14 million people of Irish descent in GB, the majority of whom do not associate with what Celtic FC types propagate. The republican flag Celtic FC wave is not a "Catholic flag", the songs they sing are not pronouncements of Catholic theology; its always victim playing, primtivist-romanticism, Republicanophilia themes (this is associated with the revolutionary left). Chanting "ooh ah up the RA" has nothing to do with Catholicism, especially when an Irish priest Fr Denis Fahey, described it as a "communist army". - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "Celtic FC type" language is getting a little irritating now. When you say the republican flag I presume you mean the Irish flag. While not a flag I would choose to wave I've got news for you, this is a free country. If you are on this page to defend sectarian and racist chants then you really should go elsewhere and leave it to those with no interest in defending such rubbish. Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute the collectivist assertion, that cricitism of republicanism is anything to do with a "race" in general or primarily about religious theology (the term "sectarian" itself suggests a general unawareness of Catholicism, the Church is not, nor has it ever been a "sect". It is the divinely insituted Living Body of Christ). The symbols these people brandish are republican as are their songs. The article should reflect this, instead of trying to widen the scope to wider unaffiliated groups of people. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid all the sourced references saying the chants are racist/sectarian trumps your, erm, opinions. Goodnight. Jack forbes (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is "racist"/"sectarian" (newspeak) you're going to have to create an article for your group whom the chants are aimed at; the "Republican Diaspora ethnic group". It is racist and anti-Catholic to try and associate the Irish diaspora in GB at large, or people who are Catholics, with the far-left political ideology associated with Celtic FC's fanbase. There is no evidence for this collectivist assertion. As a practicing orthodox Catholic, of half-Irish descent; I feel no offense at all if somebody, somewhere is making anti-republican chants. Republicans are another group, unaffiliated to Catholic doctrine—they instead share an ideology and metaphysical descent from the Jacobins whose anti-Catholic antics in the Vendée are infamous. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was acutally a recent tv program on it, and you would be shocked how far it goes and you would shocked when it happens. It only happens on old firm match day, best of friends turn worsst of emenies then the day after there all fine again. the donlay findley case jsut shows hwo far to the roots of scottish culture it lies. what the bbc and so on report does not even really touch it it jsut there opinion but running from myself an wife where we both of the other half i can assure it not as simple as that and i do not liek what happens hence why i am proactively tryign to make it know so it might shame a lot of rangers fan that od it to stop it it bad for the club.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that such things don't belong at a football match and the odd anti-Catholic chant that occurs doesn't belong anywhere period. But the idea that peoples shouldn't be challenged on their chosen political views, just like everyone else in an empirical society, seems typical of the BBC's far left agenda. Imagine if people were not allowed to criticise Nazism without being deemed "racist against Germans", or criticise Bolshevism without being deemed "racist against Russians". - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the Famine song is a challenge on someones political views? Do you think singing f*** the Pope is a political statement? I hate all kinds of sectarianism and when somebody tries to water it down and pretend it's nothing serious it lets those who sing those songs think it's fine to continue. Over the years it has actually calmed down a little, only because it has been vilified by the press and the people of Glasgow. Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying that 'I know many of those "Celtic FC types" who do go to Church' thats hearsay and no proof but thats besides the point. Its the celtic fans who are the ones who claim these songs that they sing are political and argue that saying 'f*** the queen' is a political statement, but meanwhile you would argue that saying 'f*** the pope' is sectarian??
 * 'While not a flag I would choose to wave I've got news for you, this is a free country.' Is a football ground the place to have an irish republican flag or is it only a weapon to gain a response, and a response which the person holding the flag would dub sectarian?
 * Would you say that anti-british, anti-british armed forces, and even refusing to hold a minutes silence for the people who fought and died for our country is sectarian or political? (Monkeymanman (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
 * What I say or don't say on the matter is neither here nor there. It's what the reliable sources say that is important. If you have something you wish to add to the Celtic article then the Celtic F.C. talk page is the place to go. Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not wishing to add anything at the moment to the celtic fc article but even if i did you would argue to the end of time that anything i say is not a NPOV but nevermind. The discussion in question was not about the celtic fc page but wether or not certain statements are political or sectarian or other and you have completely avoided the question.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I have already given you some of my opinions, but the fact is my opinions or yours for that matter don't belong on this talk page. You can ask away, but I'm finished arguing over this. Now, not meaning to sound like a broken record, but if you have anything to add to this article which will improve it then do so with reliable sources and discussion. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey, our opinions on whether something is sectarian/racist/whatever are irrelevant - if certain incidents are reported by reliable sources in the context of sectarianism, the article has to reflect that. That is why I didn't support the argument for a 'Rangers fans and racism' section above, and it is why I support including the material currently in the sectarianism section. --hippo43 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * so if something is a fact but you do not have a reference can it go in the article?(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Nope it cant be added or if it added it must be accompanied by code so that it says ciation needed so peopel reading the article will know it might  not neccessarily be fact because ther eno soruce for it-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey, read WP:V - generally speaking, if something is not verifiable, it can be removed. In practice, facts which are not in any way contentious do not need a specific reference. (For example, "Rangers FC is a Scottish football club") Most editors would prefer you to add tags rather than deleting stuff. If you know something to be untrue and it is unreferenced, it can be removed. --hippo43 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a section in this article i would like to discuss. 'Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed] The club, through the Rangers Study Centre, is also involved in the "Ready To Learn" project, along with Glasgow City Council. The aims of the project include raising awareness of sectarianism, racism and prejudice among young people in Glasgow.[citation needed] In the past Rangers fans have racially abused Bobo Balde, which were widely covered in the media.[69][70][71][72][73]'
 * first of all it was posted by someone who has not got a NPOV and cherry picked sources to support his POV. Secondly one of the links is to a non identified fan who claims he was racially abused, not bobo balde, 2 go to virtualy the same thing and discuss the majority of the article about celtic vs liverpool and a kilmarnock player who was abused at a game (not involving rangers fc), and finally i thought it was agreed that this was one incident and had no place in the article. I would change it to.
 * Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed] The club, through the Rangers Study Centre, is also involved in the "Ready To Learn" project, along with Glasgow City Council. The aims of the project include raising awareness of sectarianism, racism and prejudice among young people in Glasgow.[citation needed] In the past some Rangers fans have racially abused Bobo Balde, which was covered in the media.[69][73]. Rangers player Mark Walters received racial abuse at Celtic park from some Celtic FC fans where bananas were thrown at him. (Monkeymanman (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I think we could put this material in a section on Rangers and Racism. In addition, we could use the reference of evidence of racism against Bobo Balde, Furthermore, in the section on Rangers and racism we could have Keith Coventry the British Artist has Glasgow Rangers at number 5 in his art work "The Racist League", 1992. Also we could have the racist abuse of Patrick Kluivert. Finally the racist abuse of Paul Elliot using your reference again.


 * By the way M, I'm not sure why you fail to mention the East Coast bed fellows Hearts' racism. Isn't this a biased point of view M? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * where do i begin, you realy are determined on this subject (rangers fc baiting) and clearly have a one sided view on getting your POV into the article and not improve it in any way. 'keith coventry'? is that not a bit POV on his part?, WSC i dont believe is a moderated website but merely someones opinion on paper, that would be like reading my opinion on paper and i am sure you would not agree with anything i would say.  As for what i said i tried to improve what was there, not by deleting anything but to give it a bit of a better 'balance' that wikipedia desires.
 * As for saying that rangers fc and HEARTS are somehow equal and the same is ridiculous and just sums up how one sided your green glases are.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please indent your replies monkeymanman. Maybe Coventry's art work of Rangers in the racist league could be included on public perception of Rangers and racism? WSC: maybe you are right. I was saying that Walters experienced racism at Hearts, which you fail to mention. Also Rangers fans apparently sang "I'd rather be a darkie than a tim" while Walters played for Rangers. Should we report that in a section on Rangers and racism too monkeymanman? Also I see you've not denied the evidence of racism against Bobo Balde and Paul Elliot which you provide evidence of. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Public perception does not count as i have been told. 'Apparently sang'?
 * I would let what you have put into the section stand but still think that if you add anything else it will be 'undue weight'. That was only evidence of one game i believe, and it was the media at work as usual but if you have a referance then by wikipedia standards thats what it goes on. What do you think of;
 * Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality.[citation needed] The club, through the Rangers Study Centre, is also involved in the "Ready To Learn" project, along with Glasgow City Council. The aims of the project include raising awareness of sectarianism, racism and prejudice among young people in Glasgow.[citation needed] In the past some Rangers fans have racially abused Bobo Balde, which was covered in the media.[69][73]. Rangers player Mark Walters received racial abuse at Celtic park from some Celtic FC fans where bananas were thrown at him, and also at hearts home ground tynecastle.
 * If you are so concerned with hearts i would love to see you argue with them for a 'sectarian or racism' section on their page or hibs lol.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't really think this is necessary, but if others insist on referring to inceidents of racism, I think this might be a more neutral approach:


 * "... Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde,[69][73] and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic and Hearts fans. " --hippo43 (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And, of course, there was racism from Rangers fans towards Mark Walters. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree i dont think its necessary, but to satisfy the argument then that statement you put would be absolutely fine.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Maybe to be more proportionate we could include mention of racism during that same game when some Rangers fans sang "I'd rather be a darkie than a tim (catholic)?" Or are we editoralising to give the impression that all clubs have equally manifest racism? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'All' clubs have had racial issues in their past. I would still go with what HIPPO said.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Even Rangers monkeymanman, with the song "I'd rather be a darkie than a tim (catholic)"? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we want to tell the whole story, maybe we could also mention: "Mark Walters received racist abuse from some Rangers fans too". Nedao.glasgow (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nedao, i deleted your section that you put in because i had updated this with what Hippo had said (not totally deleting what you had written but altering it slightly for wiki reasons) after discussion, but if you are to revert back to your original which is against wiki criteria then i will not agree to have any updates on this(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please see below MMM. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangers fans continue sectarian singing despite clubs efforts
I was wondering if we should add something about the sectarian singing from Rangers fans on 4th October 2009? I think we should get some consensus on this. (1) Do we agree that there was sectarian singing from Rangers fans in October 2009? and (2) Should we include it in the Rangers and sectarianism section?

My own proposal would be to include the following: "Despite Rangers FC's efforts to reduce sectarian singing, as of October 2009 "thousands" of fans at Ibrox continue to sing sectarian songs. " Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would not improve the article but only support your one sided POV argument that you have been consistently making. As for the link you have posted to support you POV, written by graham spiers, he is not exactly neutral in any of his press reports about rangers fc is he?. (Monkeymanman (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC))


 * This is going roudn and orudn in circles i suggest maybe we should maybe take this to Dispute Resolution take it to formal mediaiton to try get third parties who are not ivnolved to suggest the best way forward for this article, this way everyoen can voice there concerns and can provide sources to backupo what they say would everyoen agree to this? as it seem the best way forward-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not always in favour of material from one side. See my post above about a section on Racism and Rangers. Also I've reverted vandalism that suggested that Rangers were "sh*t".


 * Seems like you are always against evidence of sectarianism at Rangers, including this latest evidence of sectarian Rangers fans. So it's hypocritical for you, to question the respected London Times newspaper journalist, Mr. Graham Spiers, since your head is in the sand. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Round and round? A comment was made about wether or not this should be in the article and i just said that i dont feel it would improve it or add anything else that has not been said already.  theres been no reply yet (Monkeymanman (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC))


 * With round and round i mean the whole issue about what should and should not be there i am trying to offer a solution to fix this-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems fair enough. How do we go about it Andrew? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution is unnecessary, at least for now - this is simply an issue of consensus and following policy. Monkey, Nedao - your tit for tat edits about racism are ridiculous. Nedao, there is no serious body of coverage of 'Rangers and racism' as a subject. On the other hand, there has been substantial coverage in all kinds of sources about Rangers' sectarian problems. I really don't think it's necessary to include an update on sectarian chanting every week. It's not at all contentious that Rangers fans have long sung offensive songs, and there have been various recent episodes widely reported, and referred to in this article.
 * That said, Monkey's attempt to discredit Speirs is pathetic. Speirs is writing in a very respected, fact-checked source. The fact that some Rangers fans don't like him, because he writes about stuff they'd rather ignore, does not in any way disqualify him as a source. Are you seriously suggesting that what he wrote is not accurate, and that no Rangers fans were chanting this stuff?? --hippo43 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hippo43, I'm not wanting to test yours and other editors' patience. Especially since you are doing a good job trying to ensure that there is fair play here. I accept that there can't be a sectarian update every week for repeated evidence of the same thing. This would be unnecessary, as you point out.
 * I would like to point out one thing though. The flow of the section "The Old Firm and Sectarianism" ends with positive noises about Rangers combating sectarianism. Clearly there should be a heavy caveat at the end of this small section, since the efforts have clearly failed to eradicate sectarianism amongst Rangers fans. I'd recommend that Graham Spiers has the last word in this section. Since he has been a prominant reporter of this particular issue. Something along the lines of "As of October 2009, Rangers had failed to eradicated examples of sectarianism amongst their supporters". Would there be consensus for this hippo? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I agree that there is no need for dispute resolution. As Hippo said, this is an issue of consensus and policy. Secondly, I don't believe we need to include Spiers report. The section ending with the comments that Rangers are combating sectarianism implicitly implies that there is still sectarianism to combat and therefore has not been eradicated to date. I think including the Spiers article would be unnecessary. Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

UNIDENT

As i say this issue keeps coming up ie the secterism part of the article, look in the talk archive nad here how many times does it come up? it a lot, by involving third parties then our views on it will be elimated and then someone else who has nothing to do with it can say this si acceptabel this is not, this is fine for sources this is not, so we have a clear and defined way to put it and knwo what and what can not be included, yes we can get a consesus on it but is that goign to solve the dispute? no because you willg et peopel disputing it but if we have neutral party deciding we can have a link a thte top of the talk page that will take peope to that decision. I think in the long run that would be the best way forward. This particular issue like other will be cleareed up within a few weeks but how logn befor ethe next one? As for the rpocess i would be happy to do all hte leg work for it, if it is decided this might help for the long run-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is Andrew, dispute resolution is not there to allow someone else to come in and say what can and can not be included. That's what consensus is all about and that can be had on this talk page. If there are individuals who do not agree with the consensus they could always ask for a Request for comment. Jack forbes (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jack Forbes - dispute resolution is just not necessary, and we don't need a neutral party to come and decide what to include, we need knowledgeable editors following policy, using reliable sources properly and discussing disputed points to reach consensus. I also agree that we don't need to editorialise and sum up the section on Rangers' efforts to stop sectarianism. It is self-evident that if you have to take all these measures to cut out sectarianism, you have a problem with sectarianism among your support. --hippo43 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that this season Rangers fans have been sectarian is implicit, since Rangers have implemented anti-sectarian measures in the past, I find unconvincing. Indeed I think there may be a few issues being combined into one. Firstly, do we agree that there has been sectarianism this season at Ibrox by “thousands” of Rangers fans? Secondly, do we feel that this information should be indicated in the article, explicitly or implicitly? Thirdly, how explicit or implicit should this be?
 * I think we all agree that there has been sectarianism this season, apart from Monkeymanman. Secondly, I think we agree that this should be indicated by the article, or why would people think the argument can be made implicitly. The third point I’ll come back to once we get a consensus on points one and two.
 * Finally, I'm happy to leave a decision about dispute resolution to Jack, hippo and Andrew. Although if me and Andrew are in favour and Jack and hippo are against, does that mean we should have dispute resolution to decide if we should have dispute resolution on the Rangers article? ;) Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there has been sectarianism at Ibrox this season. I see no need to include any more text on it as I believe the section informs us that sectarianism continues. There is nothing there saying it has ended. On your last point, I think we should find a consensus on whether we should have a request for comment which might give us the go ahead to ask for dispute resolution (consensus required) on the possibility of having a dispute resolution on this article to find consensus. After all that is accomplished my consensus will be to put my feet up and watch the show. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL Jack. Seriously though on the first point, could you please point out where the section informs us that sectarianism continues, say this season? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For starters, anyone who has read graham spiers stuff from the herald in the past will know just how one sided his articles about rangers are. He does it to gain attention to himself i believe and he does a damn good job at it, this attention allows him onto TV and external sources and he makes a mint from it.  It says it all when every time rangers won an old firm game he would not report the game itself but focus on sectarian issues, yet again he kept this trend up.
 * As i have said will this improve the article? Does the article say that 'rangers have completely cleared all sectarian issues and have no sectarian instances or fans left in their support' it does not, so to say that the article finishes wrongly on a note that does not sound as though all rangers fans are sectarian biggots is daft. I agree that there has been sectarianism at rangers games this season but are they the only ones?  Where do we end if we add things about every time some 'journalist' mentions sectarian problems next to rangers fc?  Any right minded individual who reads the article in the way it is just now will get a very good understanding of sectarian problems involving rangers fc and will not automatically think because someone praised rangers at the end of the section that they have no sectarian issues or fans left.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC))


 * So if you believe we should disregard Speirs' reporting because you consider his work "one sided", presumably we should ignore your contributions for the same reason? --hippo43 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did i say anything about disregarding him?? I simply stated what my opinion of him is and the fact that if we post everything up here from every individual reporter or journalist we will never end. The fact is it was one reported reference and i agree if it had been a media wide reported sectarian matter then it would be worth discussing to see whether or not it should be in the page but not from 'one' newspaper.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please indent your replies monkey man. Let's go for two mainstream braodsheet newspaper sources of Rangers fans sectarian singing this season, something not discussed in the article. One suspects that irrespective of how many people mentioned it in the media you'd still claim any criticism of Rangers fans' sectarian singing was one sided and not worth discussing in the article. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was an interesting article, i liked the response he said he gives both sides when they argue about each others sectarian nonsense, even tho he is still taking his time to put it all into his column lol
 * do you honestly believe that this will improve the rangers fc article page? Or is this just to back up your POV? (Monkeymanman (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I think all we need is a recent source from Rangers or a reputable newspaper stating they are (still) fighting bigotry. I don't have enough time to search tonight, but if someone could have a look I'm pretty sure there will be a good enough source out there. This would obviate the need to use Spiers newspaper column. Jack forbes (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe stick with the sources already suggested. There is more recent coverage of Rangers' ongoing sectarian problems (such as Speirs' column) than there is of the club's attempts to stop it - far more significant, for example, is the coverage of Rangers' response to the Famine Song, and their unwillingness to condemn it. Better to stick to independent coverage of the issue than rely on a club press release or media puff piece about their campaigns. --hippo43 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem with using the Spiers source is that (according to some) it will need to be up-dated with new stories of sectarianism every so often to show that it still exists. The section will grow out of hand with all these references. That's why I think one reference stating Rangers are still fighting, however hard, to rid Ibrox of sectarianism is the best way to go. This can stay as one reference until that time when reliable sources say differently or they have eradicated the problem. Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could be right, but I think we need to avoid editorialising as far as we can. There are already references to significant incidents from 2009; there is no need for a constant stream of updates of every individual case. IMO, letting the facts speak for themselves is preferable to reporting campaigns to stop it, then adding "...which proves sectarianism is still a poblem." --hippo43 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not editorialise. To be perfectly honest, I don't think my above suggestion is absolutely necessary. The facts do indeed speak for themselves, which is why I actually think it's fine as it is. Jack forbes (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An outside opinion: As interesting as Spiers may be, he is a columnist as well as a journalist and these much of his reporting on Rangers sectarian problems are opinions pieces, which are not the best of sources. But I think we need to get a historical perspective here. Yes, it is verifiable that Rangers have ongoing problems with the behaviour of some of their fans. That can and should be noted, but we should not be giving it undue weight, and we certainly don't need to list every time another incident is reported. I suggest a few sentences be agreed on, and then this can remain stable. Rockpock  e  t  23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As you know, I'm unconvinced by the argument that Rangers response is an indication that the problem exists. Since you might as well only report evidence of the club's response to racism and sectarianism and no evidence whatsoever of actual incidents where the problems are manifest. I do agree that to identify every issue would potentially lead to a very long article. Therefore, I'd agree that you summarize things. So for example conclude the section on "Rangers efforts to eliminate sectarianism" with, "In season 2009-10, there was verifiable evidence that Rangers had ongoing problems with sectarianism. Despite the club's efforts to eliminate the problem amongst supporters, there were reports that "thousands" of Rangers fans still engaged in sectarian abuse".  Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly you really are on a single tracked mission here and it is clear what your POV is, you have no intent on improving the article but only to stir up this debate even further. I would go with what jack said and either state that rangers are still fighting the problem or leave it as it is.  As for the statement that you made NEDAO the first 2 references have been already mentioned but the last one, i have never heard of SCOTZINE but it could have been written by you for all we know as it is basically an online fan forum. (Monkeymanman (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I know we don't all exactly have the same opinion on this, but I think there may be some common elements that may be the basis of some consensus. For example, we all agree "that there has been sectarianism at rangers games this season". The question is whether saying there have been campaigns to stop it, is an indication of an ongoing (ie "this season") problem with sectarianism. Indeed as hippo indicated there may be some doubts about how affectively the anti-racism policy is being implemented (ie Martin Bain on The Famine Song), so we should not really have some PR guy at the club write about these important matters. I propose two sentences which indicate what we all agree "there is an on-going problem", since we have no evidence that it occured this season. Indeed, Mr. Spiers makes the additional and substantive policy that Rangers are failing to deal with the problem. Now that is new, in terms of Rangers efforts to eliminate sectarianism. Any other important evidence this year can be included in a footnote (ie fines or points deducted). Monkeymanman, I take your point about scotzine, although in my defense, it was only really useful as a link to youtube evidence of Rangers fans singing FTP at the Emirates in the pre-season. I've also got some youtube evidence of a guy shouting FTP at Ibrox last week. Not sure we need all this youtube stuff though. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really think we need anything new here. IMO "this season" is unnecessarily arbitrary for an encyclopedia - there is coverage of events this year, which is recent enough. I don't think anyone will read this and think the problem has magically gone away over the summer. Unless there has been significant coverage of this "ongoing problem" we would be editorialising needlessly if we tried to state that there is an ongoing problem or that Rangers' campaigns haven't worked. Let the facts speak for themselves. --hippo43 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. It appears we have a consensus to leave it as it is. Jack forbes (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "This season" is hardly more arbitrary than this calender year, especially for a wiki entry about a football team. Moreover are we never again to update the section on Rangers and sectarianism? Indeed, for a football team, I'd have thought "season" was more appropriate. Coverage in national newspapers is not insignificant. At present we have a rather one sided section included on Rangers attempts to eliminate sectarianism and some compliments from UEFA. Is "ongoing problems and failure to eliminate it" too fact based for some? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to believe that you think this section (i.e rangers and the sectarian debate) is 'one sided' in terms of not degrading the rangers support enough, this section (i.e Rangers' efforts to eliminate sectarianism) is a follow on from the previous and i believe the 2 were the same section before and were split up. Although i still think the first section has some paragraphs which are unneeded i think the 2 work together just fine as they are and would agree with HIPPO on what he said on this.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Nedao, nobody suggested never updating the section, but IMO the most recent episode to receive wide coverage was the Famine Song story. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been wide coverage of the problem in the second half of 2009. (I may be wrong - can you point us to sources giving significant coverage?) If there is another major event which attracts a lot of coverage, someone will no doubt update the section. Monkey is (sort of) right on this - the overall section is not one-sided. If anything, it is too generous to Rangers' "efforts" to stamp this out, but at least it presents both the problem and the club's response. "ongoing problems and failure to eliminate it" may be accurate, but it is not sourced, and so is original research. --hippo43 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * hippo43, I'm glad no one is suggesting we will never update the section again! TBH I think it's somewhat arbitrary to suggest we must have something as prominant as the Famine Song before we include it. We've two sentences in the section on Rangers efforts to eliminate sectarianism, from Uefa praising their efforts. Was this given the same wide coverage as the famine song? I very much doubt it. I'm merely suggesting that we could have one sentence at the end of this section which is a reposte to some of the puff. "In season 2009-10, Rangers had an ongoing problem with sectarianism, despite their efforts to eliminate it." It's hardly revolutionary stuff I'm proposing, is it? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, it's blindingly obvious from the episodes described that the problem exists. Reporting every single passing mention is not necessary. Unless a source, preferably several, explicitly makes the point that the problem still exists despite the club's attempts, I just don't see it adding anything to the article. --hippo43 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we not have a consensus to leave it the way it is? Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear: how many sources exactly do we need to say the policy has failed? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this count?: "Walter Smith believes Rangers will forever be saddled with the "stain" of sectarianism despite the club's best efforts to weed out a hardcore of bigots from their support" Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

UNIDENT

So do you think that if someone (neutral who has been living on another planet) read the whole section on sectarianism that they will automatically think that it has been totally eradicated, just because the last sentence says 'praised rangers'?

How about: Although sectarianism is an ongoing problem, in 2006 William Gallard, UEFA's Director Of Communications, commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination.[68] Further, in September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.[69](Monkeymanman (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you with the attempt to seek some compromise. If we have some mention of ongoing nature, we can keep the point to one sentence. We can let the facts speak for themelves and I will therefore drop the request that we suggest "despite the efforts of the club" or the material from Walter Smith, saying Rangers will forever be tarnished by this problem. There is a chronology here we should apply and my preference would be to have the praise first, since it is earlier in time, and then we can say "As of season 2009-10, sectarianism was an ongoing problem amongst the Rangers support."
 * In order to seek some compromise about the racism, we could also resolve this by first mentioning Mark Walters (ie racism from some Hearts and some Celtic) And mentioning Bobo Balde. And we could consign a discussion of the racism towards Mark Walters from Rangers fans to a footnote. (ie the singing of "I'd rather be a darkie than a tim (catholic)" and Rangers banned some season ticket holders for abusing Walters). Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Might have seemed abit rude there. Of course, everyone else has to agree/not disagree too! Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As for your section on ongoing issues. Your "As of season 2009-10, sectarianism was an ongoing problem amongst the Rangers support' after a section about praise for the efforts would seem that it was only from 2009-10 there was a sectarian problem????
 * Meanwhile (if something had to be edited on this which i really dont think there needs to be) i would still go with what i suggested: Although sectarianism is an ongoing problem, in 2006 William Gallard, UEFA's Director Of Communications, commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination.[68] Further, in September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.[69].
 * Before you mention it, it does not immediately say that all sectarian issues have been solved it simply says that it is an ongoing issue.
 * As for the racism discussion. I was going to allow your edit of abuse of bobo balde to stand with a slight change of wording and another ref to give it balance, but you deleted it all without even discussing the matter.  I realy dont think this is needed as it is undue weight. Hippo agreed with this although i would have went with what he suggested.(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC))


 * What about "In season 2009-10, sectarianism was an ongoing problem amongst the Rangers support. "? This doesn't suggest that the problem was only today, since it makes your point that the problem is ongoing. Chronology indicates this should come last, but I'd be happy to discuss that to seek compromise.
 * Racism: we're clearly going to have review given my new evidence. Racism was directed at Walters from Hearts, Celtic and Rangers fans. But we could put the racism towards Walters from Rangers fans in a footnote and not mention it in the main text. Abit like "Rangers had a rule not to sign catholics". then in the footnote, some excepts to the rule. I'm endeavouring to find compromise here and appreciate your attempts also. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sectarianism; i would still go with what i suggested, as it shows that sectarianism is ongoing, this would rule out every ref needing to be added whenever any journalist mentions sectarianism and rangers fc in the same sentence (barring any major media wide / football wide carry on that would bring benefit to the article on this matter).
 * Racism; you initialy added this section on bobo balde without consensus, i was going to allow it to stand after discussion and slight alteration, but you deleted an update, so without full consensus now i will not allow this ref to bobo balde or any other like that to be permanently added without consensus. (i still think what HIPPO said would have been fine and i would of accepted that)
 * Hippo, Andrew and Jack i would be pleased to hear your views on the proposals and the ongoing argument from NEDAO. I think it would be fine as it is but have offered a compromise, not completely ignoring the argument. Thanks in advance (Monkeymanman (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm happy to go with a mention that "Sectarianism among Rangers fans is an ongoing problem.", please draft something to reflect that.
 * Do we only want racism included if it's from some Hearts and some Celtic fans against Walters? What about some Rangers fans racism towards Walters? Is that not to be included? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave you a suggestion. Wait until Hippo, Andrew or Jack get back to this to get other opinions.  Until that time leave the article as it is.  That includes leaving your bobo sentence out please until we get other opinions.  Give it at least a couple of days to give them time. Thank you(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You're sectarian suggestion was really in you want to mention that sectarianism is an ongoing problem. Could you mention something like "Sectarianism is ongoing at Rangers.. "?


 * Please stop censoring evidence of racism against Bobo Balde. Do you really wish to hide racism? Alternatively I could include hippos suggestion that racism was against Bobo Balde from Rangers fans. AND racism was against Walters. In particular, from Rangers, Hearts and Celtic fans in the main article. This is entirely consistent with hippo's suggestion. Or do we only include evidence of racism against Walters if it is NOT from Rangers fans? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Monkeymanman, are you in violation of the Three Reverts Rule? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I made my suggestion about the ongoing issue, i said i didnt think there was a case for adding refs for the reason i gave.
 * I dont believe in censorship, how can you say i am censoring this when i would have went with what Hippo said?? Do you really think that this one instance during a couple of games reflects the whole picture? Or is it UNDUE WEIGHT?
 * I still want to get Jack, Hippo and andrews opinion on this until any changes are made. Give it a couple of days for them to get back to this
 * If i am in violation you are too i am afraid.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Edit warring?
OK, so, somebody mind filling me in on this? What's the issue causing this edit war? Master of Puppets 15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Scottish Football, it leaves me baffled too. But from what I do understand it's over whether or not a small peace of info regarding racist behavior by Ranger FC fans should be included or not.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So much I've gathered from reading the above, though I'm still confused about why there's edit warring. The discussion above is recent and could create consensus; there's no reason to fight... Master of Puppets  15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a touchy subject and Scottish football fans are very passionate. There's also bitter rivalry between Celtic FC and Ranges FC, that could be playing a part in it. Lamest edit war anyone?...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that's embarrassing if it is the lamest one... ;) Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that pretty much covers it. One suggestion from a helpful editor was to write "... Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde,[69][73] and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic and Hearts fans." Once I discovered that Mark Walters had also been racially abused by some Rangers fans, everything was to be hushed up. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. It started with Nedao wishing to add a section into the article about racism. NEDAO brought it up here on the discussion page and had responses from editors including myself.  Other editors did not think it was necessary due to one off incidents etc.  Nedao refused to gain consensus and put a section in anyway which was dubious.  I decided to discuss the matter and Hippo came back with a tweak of the sentence with a new ref to give it balance which I replaced the previous with (almost all of the previous Nedao edit was still there though).  Nedao deleted this without discussion redoing his previous edit which did not have consensus in the first place.  I said to go to the discussion forum before trying to redo, he did both.  This is what has been the problem.  Remenber that these incidents are one off and I and others don’t feel that they reflect a decent picture and the consensus (not including Nedao) was to leave the article as it was.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You are the only person that had censored evidence of racism. To solve this issue instead of taking it elsewhere, shall we go with a small tweek to hippos suggestion "... Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde,[69][73] and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, Hearts and Rangers fans."? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus from other editors (outwith the 2 of us) was to leave the article as it was, single incidents dont relfect on the whole picture. You continually say mark walters was abused by Rangers fans, if i am correct it does not say he received abuse directly at him at all.  They sang a song that had certain racial referances in it at this game to respond to celtic / hearts fans who were throwing bananas at him.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
 * In effect this was (crudely) praising him and who he was.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "The Glasgow club banned some season ticket holders following racist abuse aimed at Walters." in defence of Walters, Rangers' fans, with an unconscious racism, sang "I'd rather be a darkie than a Tim (catholic)". Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'In defence of Walters' Those are 2 contradictory statements.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Could you elaborate on what you think is the contradiction? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And do you agree with the other piece of evidence indicating that there has been racism from Rangers fans against Mark Walters, since season ticket holders were banned? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears consensus is set on this; however, feel free to discuss further. Please just make sure you discuss everything before you start editing again. If anybody needs assistance, I'm always available at my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets  15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help Master of Puppets. I'll seek your advice if we can not resolve this on our own. Hopefully with the inclusion of "... Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde,[69][73] and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, Hearts and Rangers fans." Myself, hippo and monkeymanman have all agreed above to have something on racism include. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hippo i believe said he didnt think it was necessary, i also dont think its necessary, you also have contradictory referances.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You agreed to have something about racism directed towards Bobo Balde included, if there was also a mention of racism towards Mark Walters. Since I've presented evidence of racism from Rangers fans against Walters, you've decided we shouldn't have anything on racism towards Walters or Balde. Is your position tendable? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, i tried to get some form of compromise with the sentence that you put into the article, you deleted that compromise without question, thats when i decided that we must get a full consensus before editing anything else. Other editors decided it was not needed apart from you, you have a contradictory argument over the mark walters affair of abuse from rangers fans, meanwhile both were single incidents that do not reflect fairly over the vast scale of things and have no benefit to the article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You admit that you were ok to include mention of racism towards Mark Walters, as long as it does not mention that it was from Rangers fans?!? This is clear bias. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although one of your referances states that there was abuse towards walters the other says that it was in defence of walters??
 * What is clear was that he was pelted with bananas would you not agree with that. Whether rangers banned some supporters for singing that song or something else is not clear.  It just says abuse at walters, that could have been misinterpreted as singing that song.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Talking about bias you seem to have one about this dont you.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

So the consensus is to leave the page as it was?(Monkeymanman (talk))


 * You seem Nedao to not want to improve the Rangers FC article in any way, but only to show incidents of racism / sectarianism(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
 * And here we go again...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you all just agree on what should and should not be int eh section and not discuss the celtic article here. If you can not agree and this is blowing way out of control i will take to medation to sort it out and decide what is acceptable and what is not, and how much teh seciton shoudl cover. This is way out of control and no one can get a consesus on it, and the issue wont go away-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry andrew but i dont believe we are discussing the celtic article. I dont think any changes need to be made, i agreed with a proposed edit that was duly deleted. Are you willing to give your opinion on this.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * True jsut now it not getting meantioned but look baack at the archive and the stuff at the top it is, at the end of the day it the smae subject, i dnt see the point in giving my opinion anymore as it to touchy a subject and it causing edit warrign which i do not want ot be part of. i rather see neutral part take this over and finally decide what is ok and what is not-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, would they look at the whole sectarianism section again or just what is being argued over here?(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the help Andrew. I agree we should ask someone to decide if we can include a sentence that says: "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde.[69][73] And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans." Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So what 2 refs are you going to use for the bobo one? And where in the article are you wanting it placed?(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde. And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans."  Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd put it after the sentence: "The aims of the project include raising awareness of sectarianism, racism and prejudice among young people in Glasgow." Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediaiton can be about a spefic problem liek this, or it could be the whole issue and that way tyou get someone who is neurtual and unbiased and the hwole seciton can be reviewed and decided what is appiorate and what is not, how much shoudl the seciton cover etc. I am jsut sick of seeing constant fighting over this one sectiona and i rather see work done on teh rest of the article so we can make it FA-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont condone any of it, but also find it annoying (i know i am part of it) when the only thing thats talked about on a Football clubs article is sporadic incidents from fans. How much the section should cover would probably be more important in the article as (dare i say it) on other clubs articles who have similar problems there is very little if not any referances to sectarian / racist behaviour of a minority of fans.  What i would be concerned about would be the neutrality of the mediators how sure can we be of their neutrality and that they dont have any allegiances in football whatsoever?(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'd like to apologise to everyone that is being inconvenience by this. I'm sorry that it turned into a battle of wits (or maybe half wits would be better description ;). But i think racism is a very important subject. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think racism is a very important subject aswel but i dont think a Rangers Fc wikipedia article is the place to voice your opinion by adding a couple of referances about certain incidents.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * If it was that important why are you not trying to add it to the Celtic FC page or the hearts page?(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Let's cut to the chase. Shall we resolve this ourselves or shall we ask if someone else can decide if we include: "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde. And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans." ?Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We can probally makea consesus on it but what about th next thing anf thing after that? that why i rather someone not involved helps decided what to do-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok Andrew, i agree with you, you act in the best interests of the article and always try to get neutrality. But if you put it to the mediation i would strongly suggest that they look at whats already there aswell and not just this new entry.  They have to understand that rangers and celtic both go together and in the west of scotland especially for example when there is something of rangers in a neutral shop there will be something of celtic aswell.  So in a wikipedia sense they should really look at other realted football articles like the celtic fc one and see just how much weight is put on non football issues like sectarianism and then look at the rangers fc one. I mean on the Rangers FC article this debate takes up more than the Stadium and squad sections put together does.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * It's a reasonable point you make about the future Andrew. For now, it's up to what everyone wants. Maybe we could have votes on arbitration or this proposal? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident
I think a vote on it would be best, but if ir does go ahead it will eb to review the entire section and possible set out rules for all scottish clubs with regards this type of thing. At the end of teh day it exists but the problem si how much shoudl eb reported in the club article, what should be covered, what should not be covered. If we have a clear set of guideliens for al clubs then the debate son wether not to add or delete sometihng will be know. The medation would have to be done by someone who is not involved in football or socttish footbal in particular. I think arbitration might be a bit harsh but if medation could not solve it then arbitration would be the only way forward and then it governed by wikipedia trustees who follow wikipedia guidelines to the fullist. At teh end of the day i just want all this ifhgitng on what to include and not to stop and get on with improving the article to FA-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * would taking a vote be fair though because for instance there is no middle man or control over how many times someone votes, that still may bring a new problem as many editors as you mentioned earlier andrew are celtic fans on this article. Mediation as you say would have to be from someone not involved in scottish football.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * A vote here would be for registered autoconfirmed users so if someone tries to vote more than once they could be took up for sockpuppets. Even if a celtic fan says no and there no uniform answer there would nee dot be good reaon why not to take it medation, but this is only talk jsut now we can discuss about how to do this later. i rather get a conesus on the current problem and then look to the future-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok on this issue how about; Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality. In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at rangers games, from both home and opposition fans.[27][29](Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * That way both sides are covered without arguing over petty details. The links are there to read more if someone wanted to.  One from each would sufice(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC))


 * My suggestion would be: "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde. And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans." . Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need for mediation here. It's a simple content disagreement which will be sorted. Trying to open this out into some wider dsicussion of Scottish clubs and sectarianism is pointless and unnecessary. Report what is published in reliable sources blah blah blah ... --hippo43 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If a problem exist then mediation is required. this problem keeps goign round and round, there is a NEED for a clarifation on what should be inlcuded and what should not, and how much should be covered. We have to get sorted once and for all then all scottish club articles will have the same ruels applys. Realible sources is good but how much do we cover and what this is what the main problem is and it needs mediation ie outside neutral users-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporting what is published in reliable sources is a principal I think we can all agree on. I too think we can sort this immediate problem out (ie whether to mention Walters was racially abused by Rangers fans). The long term issue, can be a separate discussion. Should we mention Walters abuse or should we not? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident

Since it about racism and the section is about secterism i probally say no, but it might be useful in the secterism in scotland which could be renamed to Abuse in scottish football or something similar-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in mediation here. This is a contentious issue yet it has always been possible to reach some kind of consensus by referring to policy, using reliable sources, and relying on sensible editors to moderate the lunatic fringe. Yes, sometimes there are disagreements, particularly when new editors get involved and bring new points of view - this is common in hundreds of articles, and is not even undesirable. It's one way the encyclopedia is improved. The last thing we need is some uninvolved editor who is unfamiliar with the issues trying to tell us what is acceptable here or in other articles. --hippo43 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No unfimilair with no links to this issue is the best way forward then it is unbias and a NPOV, then there can be no claims of it a eltic fans way or this is just tryign ot show this club up etc. It will means a clear set of guideliens for it. I can not understand your reluctance to have a clear set of guidelines. Once this issue is finally resolved i will bring it up at the rpoject to get there views on it, at the end of the day mediation does not require everyone to agree or else ther enever be mediation as some people will refuse if it meant they would lose. (Note i am not saying this is the case with you just pointing out a fact)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrew on that. There needs to be a clear understanding of how much of this should be on a football clubs article page.  If it was from mediators who have no ties in any way to scottish football or football in general then that would be best.  Then there would be no case for 'football' fans who want to 'get one over' the other club.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Back to the argument in question if i remember correctly and from looking at the article there was a similar case like this on the Real Madrid page (who are arguably the biggest club in world football) where by in recent years abuse of players has occured. They went down the line of what i just mentioned a bit up the page, where they never referred to any particular incident on the FC page and just gave a couple of links so people can read more about isolated incidents if they wanted.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC))


 * My understanding is that people wanted to include in the Rangers page particular incidents of racism directed towards Walters from other teams. Until it was mentioned that Walters had been racially abused by Rangers fans. With sources saying they sang "I'd rather be a darkie than a tim(catholic)" and supporters banned for racist abuse. The facts should really speak for themselves, should they not? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it highly unorthodox that this entire talk page has been taken up with this same discussion.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you recommend that we resolve this? Should we let the facts speak for themselves?Nedao.glasgow (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew/Monkey, my understanding of mediation is that a mediator helps editors who disagree on content resolve their disagreement together. It is not an outside 'expert' coming in to give their view on how we should approach things. It us up to us as editors to decide how to shape the article, using existing policies and reaching consensus. There is already wikipedia-wide policy covering this kind of issue well enough - a different agreement here cannot supercede that. Trying to apply some new standard across all football club articles, or all Scottish football club article, or whatever, is pointless and not needed. Perhaps wait for comment from some other editors who have contributed here? --hippo43 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would getting outside opinions be pointless and not needed? Why should different football teams article pages have different rules for non football related inclusions?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Unident

Mediation is to solve problems or disputes. It is also about policies and that is where the problem lies policies because the polocies are not clear what should be done-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew, the policies are perfectly clear, especially WP:NPOV in this case. Rather than always trying to refer disagreements here to outside mediators, why don't say what you think on the issue?


 * Monkey, I have no problem with outside opinions, and I'm not suggesting different rules from other articles. My objection is trying to appoint an authority figure who does not know the subject to somehow rule on what is acceptable. The community has already reached consensus on content policies - we don't need separate rules here, we just need to apply those policies. We had reached a consensus on what to include, so there is nothing substantial to mediate. --hippo43 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with what Andrew said that this argument has come up and will continue to come up time and time again well after this week, month and year.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
 * The 'community' that you mention is affected heavily by fans of opposition clubs trying to 'get one over' the other, by using wikipedia football teams articles about non football related inclusions. It is this non football related scenario that is the problem.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I can comment on this issue what about the nexta nd the next and so on? do you realyl think this will go away now? it will come back again and again. We might have reached a consensus but can we be sure ita just argeement. Wether you like it or not this has to be resolved outside of fans that incldues me and you, even tohugh we might be Neutral there always the fact it there. if guide;lines are set down on what to inlcude how much to cover etc then we refer peopel in the future to there guideliens which are set out. again once this is resolve i will take it to the project for outside discussion then it no logner ot do with us but everyon in the wikiproject football then go from there-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Im not talkign abotu serapte rules i am tlaking about clarify the rules and seting them out properly in the project so it clear for anyone to see, the policies jsut now are very unclear on this particular subject it jsut says that everyone should be covered, but this a very touchy subject and needs its own policies on what to do with it in general not for here. You know very well i have went against rangers fans before and said it got to be included because it part of the club and this is not about censoring even tohugh i am fan myself but i think the subject itself it gettign to eba problem one and it needs clarifcationa dn policies set out now.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be important for them to look at whats already there (whether or not it should be) and decide what exactly needs to be on a 'football clubs' article, with respect to what is on other FC articles on the same subject of non football related events.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No it has to be inrespect of what other articles have, it about generalising what should or shoudl nto be base of Racism, secterism section of club articles. is a minor event like this is purely hypertherotical example, of one fan being arrested and charged for secterism abuse and aggvate assault? i say no, is a fans singinga song at one match once enough ot include again i say no, but would a fan singing a song during the whole match coutn yes, would someone senior of the club doign that type of thing counti say yes. its this type of thing that needs to be cleared up for us to decided is wrong because we each have own views it has to be decided netural with someone with no connection to this so it a fair decision.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense - the relevant policies are clear, and article content is decided by discussion on talk pages like this, by editors looking for consensus. It is not determined by bringing in uninformed outsiders to dictate special rules. All articles need to be approached individually - the subjects for inclusion in the Manchester United and Hartlepool United articles, for example, or the Austria and Australia articles, could be very different. The sectarian issue among Rangers fans is fairly unusual, and has a great deal of relevance in explaining the club's importance and place in Scottish society. This is not the case with most clubs.


 * The article will never be set in stone - consensus can change. Andrew, you might be uncomfortable with the recurring disagreements, but that is life - it's the nature of wikipedia.


 * Monkey, editors' contributions need to to be judged on their merits. Who you think they support is irrelevant. Again, this is a common issue across wikipedia, regarding fans of products/artists/bands etc, and bigger issues such as political parties, ideologies, religions etc, and it is dealt with by WP:NPOV. Published reliable sources and wikipedia policies are what's important, not the prejudices of editors. If you feel this article should be approached in a different way, convince us with the strength of your arguments and sources. That's what the discussion page is for. --hippo43 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that different football clubs should have different rules regarding the inclusion of non football related matters. So you say that rangers fc must be put in this 'place' that you mention? And not just explain the football club, its achievements, records, seasonal performance like other FC pages.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * You say consensus can change but if you have a hard line of editors who have a single grouped view on a matter for one reason or another then that is almost impossible to change unless you get a whole new outside opinion on the argument. The argument is how much of this should be in a FC's article page with respect to others etc(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Not with respect to other, this has ot be indepenebt of other articles it has to be article wide and how it should be done. but everytihn else you said is correct.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey, what I'm saying is that all articles are treated individually and differently. The rules (or policies, at least) are the same for all. What is appropriate to include in one article is irrelevant in another. For example, the Real Madrid article should include coverage if how it is the 'establishment' team, and its significance in Spanish history, re Franco etc. Similarly, the article on FC Barcelona should address its relevance to Catalan nationalism. An article about Third Lanark would be very different. This is an encyclopedia after all. The article is about Rangers Football Club as a whole, not just the about club's first team, results, players etc. You may not like the truth, but it's out there in reliable sources.


 * Per WP:CON, consensus in one area (eg a football project) on how to treat football articles cannot overrule wikipedia-wide consensus, in this case on content policies. Trying to achieve some kind of template for all club articles is not in line with the core content policies and is unworkable. My point that consensus can change was in response to Andrew's point about recurring disagreements. People disagree, sometimes several times on the same issue - so what? Monkey, if you don't like the consensus that has emerged here, try to change it through persuasion - you could be right. Appealing to some outside arbiter for a ruling that there is a kind of cabal of anti-Rangers editors is ridiculous and will get you nowhere. --hippo43 (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident

Hippo you mind poiting me to teh guidelines whic cover this type of thing because the last time i check MOS has nothing on it so ther eis no set guideliesnb on it yet, i am not taking it for this article i believe there has to be set guideliens for all article which at the moment i do not see if you can poit me to the guideliens on what is ok and not and how much coverage on this typoe of thing ie racil/secterism i will gladly read it and then admit ther eno need for outside views on it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is also not about he fact conesus changes i knwo it does, but the underlying problem is far deeper than someone cahnging there consesus it more the fact thing get changed but to no guideliens i can see yet and it the acutalyl section is to a degree a POV but only in the form of what goes itno it not the statement themself.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this still going on??? (Well at least it's not an edit war)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey has a bare faced cheek saying that there are different rules being applied. He wanted to include mention of racism directed towards Mark Walters from Hearts and Celtic fans. But when it comes to Rangers fans racism towards Walters, he wants it censored. Does any one else object to including evidence of racism towards Walters from Hearts, Celtic AND Rangers fans? Who else has this entirely hypocritical and inconsistent approach? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If racism is getting included yes included the rangers fans racism to as it is important as well-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not according to monkey. Only racial abuse towards Walters from Celtic and Hearts fans is to be included. We've not to mention abuse from Rangers fans. What complete double standards Monkey has on this. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Hippo, you mention the barca and real pages, it does have their history and their foundations of the clubs and quite rightly so, as does the rangers fc page. But how much do they go into detail about events outwith football?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Nedao, you continualy bring this up and say i am sensoring this abuse from rangers fans. Lets start from the beginning shall we. You put up a statement about abuse of bobo balde without consensus, i choose to discuss the matter rather than delete it, another alternate was put up onto the article page, keeping the foundation of your original statement although i and others felt that it was not needed from the start.  You decided to delete this without discussion and put your original back in.  At this point i stated that until consensus is reached through dscussion then no statement should be put up regarding this (in any way) due to your rashness.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh by the way how are you getting on in including this abuse onto the celtic fc and hearts fc pages?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * A one sided story. Face facts for once. Monkey agreed to have racism from Celtic and Hearts fans included, did you not? Indeed you put it in. And once I suggested there was racism from Rangers fans towards Walters, Monkey wanted no mention of racism towards Walters. Did you not? If you answer yes to both questions you are being hypocrital. Can you please explain, why you might be hypocritical on this? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I put up an alternate to the statement that you had posted, when you duly deleted it i decided that until consensus was reached no statement will go up regarding this in any way. Whether or not that included abuse from rangers fans before or after is not the point.  You call me hypocritical, when you are the one out on wikipedia not to improve any article but to attack rangers fc and their fans.  That is all you are doing.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You did not answer the question(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * If ranges fans done it then it has to eb included even if it blackens our name because it should because that sort of thing is not acceptabel in this day adn age and the sooner it can be erricted the bette ri say-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not acceptable but should this be on the article page in the first place. Referring back to the real madrid page (who are arguably the most famous FC in the world), they had been investigated by uefa for this but only a small sentence was put into the article and it did not go into detail.  Why should the rangers fc page be different.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * That would be the common sense view Andrew. Monkey is hypocritically trying to cover up racist abuse about Walters from Rangers fans but wants to include it if it's from other fans. I find it unbelievable that we are continuing to argue with someone with such an indefensible position. It's like arguing with someone who wants to defend the racists. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unident

I agree with you on that, that why i am taking this further to get this clarifed and policies se tin place for this type on thing on all articles. Unless hippo can provide me a link to where it states this jsut now. Comparing article on wikipedia is not what we do, we edit and make the aritcle accurate and as good as possible, my only question is is the section now changing to secterism adn racism all together if yes then it hsould be included as it important esicappyl in the fact the rangers fans done it as well-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy if we include in the section "Rangers efforts to eliminate sectarianism". Indeed this was Monkey's proposal. Mu proposal based on Monkey and Hippos is as follows: "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde. And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans." I too think we should be consistent. What do you think Andrew of this particular change? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How are you getting on with puting this onto the hearts and celtic article pages? Or is the fact that you are only out to 'get one over' rangers fc stand?(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Don't you want to talk about your hypocrisy on Mark Walters any more? I mean to propose the above but only mention other teams racism towards Walters is complete and utter hypocrisy. You have no credibility here. Your argument is a joke. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did, i gave my reasons for not allowing your un consensed inclusion to stand and the reason why your new proposal may not have a just cause to be included. I proposed that we go down the route like the real madrid article who are the biggest team in world football and state that both RANGERS fans and OPPOSITION fans have been accused of racial abuse in the past at rangers fc games, but leave the details for any one who is intersted to read about elsewhere in a couple of refs.


 * You still have not answered the question. Or is the answer just as i suspect(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I have no oppoisation ot it. Monkeymanman can you please stop bringing up other articles into this debate this is not what wikipeida is about. i have said i am goign ot take this further about this typoe of thing in all clubs article and gets guideliesn set out but until this paritcualr arguement is cleared up i do not want o take it forward as it will make it ahrder.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?
Andrew Crawford thank you. Hippo do I also get agreement from you to include the following: "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde. And former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, some Hearts and some Rangers fans." . If so I will assume this is consensus on the matter. Unfortunately unanimity will not be achieved while monkey has his opposition. Consequently, I will include the material in the page and that will be an end to this particular matter. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree - as I said above, there is no need for this - it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Individual games have received more coverage than these incidents. However, if everyone else insists on including it, it should read:
 * "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde, and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, Hearts and Rangers fans." --hippo43 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your ammendment is fine with me. Unanimity is something we won't have. A consensus may exist if Andrew, myself and you are ok with it. Jack Forbes contributed to the discussion so he may like to add something.
 * I'd rather avoid having a protracted debate on defining "significance" and consistency with existing elements being "significant" in the page. So maybe there is another solution people will find agreeable and to an extent a compromise we can have consensus on.
 * What if we include this material in a footnote? To an extent this could be deemed a compromise on everyones part since the main text is not changing but the information will be in the footnote, but less prominant. It may also be consistent with the suggestion of significance. I'd use the example of the footnote on Rangers didn't sign catholics, but there were exceptions. Thoughts please. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems a better options i personal think it not right for secterism nor do i think not signing catholtic player but i do think it should be on teh article and footnote seems fine-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nedao you really have got a one tracked mind about this, you still have not answered the question. Who is showing 'bare faced cheek' here(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * So in effect you plan to say that the racial abuse from rangers fans was on a level with that of celtic fans and hearts fans. That does not sound right wouldnt you say.  So the question is either to go with what you have proposed, or to go with;
 * 'Rangers have a Sectarianism and Racism Monitoring Committee, which reports to the club's board on club policy relating to sectarianism, racism and equality. In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at rangers games, from both home and opposition fans.[27][29]
 * I say we take it to a neutral (preferably a neutral group), whatever they think, then i will go with to get this over with.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * As there isa ocnsesus on this does not need ot go toa netural group however you are welcome to got the wikiproject on football and ask for comment form other users. The weird issue on getting someoen else ot judge can not be about invidual thing as then it does fall under what hippo has said a non editor making decision on a issues, my problem is not with this issue but the contunisious issue regardign this problem and the fac ti have yet to see any formal wikipedia rules on governing this type of thing on the articles as the MOS for football article does nto cover it so i think it something that has to be addressed a nd formal decision on what to cover how much to cover etc be dealt with. Since youa re unhappy wiht the decision i do hope the someone form teh wikiproject for football can come and give you a neutral view on it so this discussion might have to go on logner to reacha consesus-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just dont think it is correct to say that the abuse was uniformed as it certainly was not. All Nedao has set out to do on wikipedia is attack rangers fc and their fans, my proof of this is that he has no desire to put this abuse onto the celtic fc page and the hearts fc page.  So where would the best place to get a second opinion on this be, i know of the society of sports, law and sex is that the best place or is there another? Thanks for the help anyway(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Unident

this is your best option Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football if i thought nedao phrase he was adding was not justify or was incorrect in any way i would oppose it getting added hence why i never gave my agreement until i knew excately all teh details off what was goign to be done.However anything about other articles i do not discuss here as that is not wikipedia pratice, howeve ri am not interested in them aritlces so i will not go to there talk poages. but you are right nedao should be putting on there articles sa well btu i do not know if he is or not and i do not know why he is not if he is not but i will not discuss it here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unanimity is not required, only consensus (i.e. a lesser level of agreement). Andrew would appear to agree we have consensus on this and hippo would appear to agree we have consensus based up his amendments to my sentence above. Therefore I think we have consensus, unless Andrew and hippo object.
 * However, we could have full agreement that we include monkey’s suggestion in the main text (“In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at Rangers games, from both home and opposition fans”) and then incorporate my material in a footnote? We are both compromising here and this will be an end to the matter. Monkey, I am compromising since the main text is changing based upon your suggestion and you are compromising since I would like hippo's suggestion to go in as a footnote.
 * So, in an attempt to foster a full agreement, do we have unanimity or shall this matter continue ad infinitum? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again i have no problem-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Puting aside any disagrements, i think that your edit is incorrect as it would state that the abuse was uniformed which is untrue, to solve that we would need to put a whole description of extra info into the section that would look very untidy in an already tidy looking summation of the efforts that rangers have attempted to employ. Could you give me an example of a footnote already in use on the page (if their is one) as i have never needed to use one in an article before.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please note monkey, we have consensus. We do not need unanimity. Nevertheless, this is an indication of the footnote. Also, please note your amendment to the text indicates uniformity. This is the proposal: “In the past there has been racism directed to players on the pitch at Rangers games, from both home and opposition fans”
 * Do we have an agreement monkey? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is there such a dramatic difference between the way Celtic and Rangers' articles cover the subject? They are similarly sized clubs, for whom this issue is of similar significance. Surely a couple of paragraphs here would also suffice, with the specific details belonging on the sectarianism in Glasgow page? WFCforLife (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not for this discussion, other articles have no context to this article, as for coverage it now getitn discussed at a higher level-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WFC, it's a perfectly understandable question, though your assumption is not really correct. There is such a difference because the issue is not really of similar significance across the two clubs, at least according to the coverage in reliable sources. The reason we have avoided a brief summary in favour of specific referenced examples is because of the difficulty in agreeing a neutral and accurate summary without editorialising too much. Looking at this article specifically, depending on who you believe, Rangers either have a small problem with a minority of their fans, or have been a fundamentally sectarian club thorughout their history. At the moment, the incidents covered (which are generally connected to the club itself) let the facts speak for themselves. --hippo43 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Firstly nedao, ok we have uniform consensus and you can put what your last post said i.e both, included a brief summary in the article and your inclusion in the footnote. Thank f**k thats over lol(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Now for the next one, WFCforLife i am glad you brought that up because i thought i was the only one who thought this. Celtic and rangers go hand in hand, in any neutral store where you see something of rangers then you see something of celtic to give balance, thats the way it has been and the way it will always be fact. Originaly it was the way that there was the same summary paragraph on BOTH old firm pages stating what the situation was and how both clubs have attempted to resolve issues. The same paragraph still exists (bar the inclusion of one sentence) on the celtic page while the rangers article has been attacked by celtic fans trying to 'get one over' rangers, and because they have 'reliable sources' it means it can go in the article. But meanwhile the same attacking by rangers fans to even the score has been laughed off by the die hard editors of the celtic page even tho they have similar 'reliable sources' by saying that it is a minority. I completely agree that both clubs should return to the brief summary and all other random incidents that might relate to sectarianism should be on the sectarianism in glasgow page perhaps under another heading of the 'old firm'. That way you leave football matters to the football clubs article and sectarian matters to the rightfull article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Oh by the way nedao if the football community come to an agreement that matters like the one you are posting should be kept to the racism in association football page then i will remove it after getting a 'consensus' based on the discussion posted there(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * You’re just recycling old arguments now.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a valid point that if there is a devoted article to sectarianism in a particular city should incidents about sectarianism not be kept to that page rather than the football clubs article?(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC))


 * OK thank you Monkeymanman, if no one else objects I will put the proposal in. I'm glad we could resolve this item. Thank you for everyone that contributed and also thank you for your patience on this particular issue. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea beat me to it, ya swine yea... ;) Good luck tonight in the CL. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edu
I was wondering what everyone thought about this incident? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To get the first word in on this, i only wish edu had grabbed a police officer and got the guy arrested so that he could be named and shamed. Hope the guy still gets caught and nailed to the wall for it.  As for what you are implying by bringing this up here, no i dont think it deserves to go in the article.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Well said Monkeymanman! I wouldn't nail him to the wall right enough. That sounds abit severe.
 * You know I would like to say I'm surprised you don't think that it should be included...although I am abit surprised you brought up the possibility at least, given your aversion to including other incidents.
 * What does everyone else think about this Edu thing? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not nail him to the wall (figure of speech if you have not heard of it before) they should do that with people these days especially for child sex abuse. Anyway i think it has been put up on the correct article i.e. racism in association football. Of course wouldnt want to deny you of getting another tally mark up there nedao.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm just interested in the peoples views on the Edu thing. Seems like a big thing on the news. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh it would do, funny how it never mentioned about racist abuse from celtic fans that edu received (i think it was last month) and he mentioned it on his twitter page, but that wouldnt interest them at all would it.(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC))


 * i think racism towards your own player is more sever than opposing fans not saying that is not just as important but it shows how low and abusive some fans are to own players who have done them good. probally find the fan is BNP person-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably find the fan to be (if we ever find them) not even at the game. You should see some of the folk that kick about in the back streets just because rangers are playing, for instance neds asking you if you want your car looked after for a pound.(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Still dont think it deserves to go on the article(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree with Andrew Crawford. Any racism is wrong. But if a Rangers fan does it to a Rangers player outside the ground, then that merits particular attention. It's all over the media, including the United States and Cananda. Maybe people have a view about what we should do with the wiki page? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Maybe people have a view about what we should do with the wiki page?' yeh preferably people with your views correct? If it happened outside the ground how do you know the guy was even at the game, it could have been anyone(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

UNINDENT It's rather presumptive to say I am not prepared to discuss these things. I always try to seek consensus about controversial or uncertain issues. On your point about the identity of the racist. You seem to be infering that the guy was not a Rangers supporters. Clearly the club has some dignity about it, they say he is part of the Rangers support. Let's be honest for once, he's more than likely to be a Rangers fan, is he not? And even if he was at the game, you'd may still not want it in wiki article. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say you are only on here to discuss 'these things', all i am saying is that it was outside the stadium and it 'may' have not been someone from inside the ground.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC))


 * What things would "these" be monkey?
 * But you're right, it may not have been someone from inside the ground. But it's likely they were a Rangers fan, since the club is taking some responsibility, unlike youself. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)