Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 8

Need for 2 more Sections, The Souness Revolution, and Jock Wallace
Could we add a section of the achievments of Jock Wallace ? I believe his treble winning exploits deserve a mention.

the 70's section could be better perhaps mentioning also the importance of Willie Waddell in upgrading Ibrox Stadium in the aftermath of the Ibrox disaster.

Could we also add a section on the importance of the arrival of Graeme Souness and the background to his arrival in the context of Marlborough and Holmes desire to modernise the club ?

On a side note, I cannot see any edit facility on the main page ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit bit is at the top, you need to press the edit the page, unless you have firefox and enable the extras in yoru perferences.

A sub section in the club history i think or where at least walter smith return part is would be welcomed, however it will need to be sourced and written in none POV or copied from the source.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I will work on it.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No Edit tags?
I cannot edit this page as there is no edit tags, and only a Locked icon top right. Any help ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It means the page is semi proctected and only establish users can edit. paste teh code of what you want included with references and i will put it in--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Sectarianism section
I would like to edit the following paragraph:

Despite these measures, UEFA indicated that they would launch another investigation after Rangers fans clashed with riot police and were filmed making sectarian chants during the defeat by Osasuna in their UEFA Cup match in 2007. The Rangers Supporters Association secretary indicated his belief that a small minority of fans are to blame, suggesting "it doesn't matter how often they are told [to stop sectarian chanting], some people will just not listen."[35] In September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club has taken against sectarianism.

To include the following statement from the Navarra police spokesman Antonio Ferreiro:

"It is unfair to say that, generally, Rangers fans behaved badly. Only a few misbehaved and let down the perfect conduct of the rest."

And also to include the following facts:

There were only two arrests, one before the match and one after, both for drunkenness.

These edits are needed to more accurately reflect a balance in what is included in this section and what can be construed as merely a list of perceived sectarian events.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The first one would be a good addition as it gives good refelection, however the second one about being drunk is not really about the secterism about people being drunk to say peopole are only secterine whilst drunk would not be accurate either.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But please bear in mind i have not verify teh sources i am taking your word on them so someone might revert it later if they believe the soruce you provided doe snot state what youa re saying--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If we use your criteria, then surely the fact Rangers fans clashed with riot police is not in itself evidence of sectarian behaviour, in which case the entry about Osasuna should be removed. Where is the citation that UEFA were investigating a sectarian incident and not a crowd disturbance ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not answer any of them, i never wrote it, i am only saying how it should probally be, however the rangers fans riot in manchester is notable but if it within secterism section it maybe should be move somewhere else,as for the source for it i can not say people can edit wikipedia and add anything it then down to people like myself to then if i am editing a aritcle to source it or remove it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but it still concerns me as it is without citation. Also the reason I mentioned the arrest figures is that it would more accurately reflect the level of disorder,not to use drunkeness as an excuse for sectarianism.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote from the police spokesman should maybe be included; however, it would not be accurate to omit the rest of his statement, particularly "Rangers supporters threw coins and lighters at Osasuna fans and even spat on them. Some Rangers fans were heavily under the effect of alcohol. During the day, some drank incredible amounts of alcohol. Some fans were doing the toilet in the ground." The Osasuna incident obviously encompasses sectarianism (as investigated by UEFA) as well as some generic crowd trouble. Perhaps a section on various incidents of non-sectarian trouble (such as the Manchester riots) would be useful, but I am sure it would be deleted pretty quickly. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a citation for the UEFA investigating sectarianism and the outcome of said investigation ? (also note the use of the word "some". This begs the question of how many supporters have to be involved to warrant inclusion.) There is also evidence of overreaction from Spanish police and poor crowd control and segregation ?

Again, all this does not seem appropriate for page purporting to be about a football club, perhaps guidance from the wikiproject is needed here, as sectarianism and crowd trouble may be notable in terms social behaviour, they are notable in terms of association football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the following should be removed as it factually inaccurate:

In 2002 the club dropped their controversial orange away strip after a "furious debate over whether Rangers were profiting from their sectarian overtones."[31] Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians had criticised the club's decision to market an orange shirt, as the colour is associated with the Orange Institute.

This implies the club dropped the strip for political reasons, and not as the club stated, for commercial reasons.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Osasuna incidents and investigation are covered well by the BBC article. It is clear in that source that the investigation encompasses the sectarian singing which was filmed. I'm not sure what your objection is. Consensus so far has been to include this info on sectarianism - it places Rangers in some context within Scottish society. For an encyclopedia to leave this stuff out would be ridiculous.


 * My point on including the whole statement from the police spokesman is obvious - to selectively include only the parts which mitigate the behaviour of these fans would be a clear breach of WP:NPOV.


 * On the issue of the orange strip, the title of the source is "Rangers to drop orange strip after sectarian outcry", and the article makes the whole situation pretty clear. IMO, the current paragraph reflects what the source says. --hippo43 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clearly wrong, the club publicly stated they removed the tangerine\orange strip for commercial reasons, as they do every season, this must be included in the statement for accuracy and balance. How can you possibly say this paragraph is correct when it makes no mention of the actual reason for replacing the strip provided by the club themselves ?

As for the Osasuna entry, I can find no citation for the outcome of the investigation or the remit of the investigation by UEFA.

It's all academic anyway, as I am unable to edit the page in any way. This is the kind of article that gives WIKI a bad name, with inaccurate and unsubstantiated entries.. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be right that the club's statement about their orange strip should be included - I've added it. I've also added more info on the Osasuna incident, including another source. --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on the tangerine\orange strip is POV and as such factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see no mention of it on the page. Also you have failed to mention that whilst Rangers were fined £8,000, Osasuna were fined £31,000 over thier fans behaviour, again, no balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am publicly calling the contributions oh hippo43 into question. This user is using this WIKI page to pursue his own agenda. The removal of the full quote from RST regarding the Famine Song is a case in point. Hippo43, also a contributor to the Celtic FC WIKI page, is misrepresenting the facts in denying any recourse to his statements. His removal of the full UEFA sanctions after the Rangers\Osasuna game again show a lack of balance. And again, he shows this in that he has constantly refused to allow edits to the section on the Rangers strip, which is factually wrong. The club stated the reasons for it's withdrawal, but he insists it is sectarian. This is factually wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And again hippo43 wishes to quote a section of the RST statement and not the full statement needed to show the context of the section he has cherry picked as worthy of inclusion. This article is in dire need of balance and hippo43 is actively blocking any attempts at balance and factual accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, calm down. I know you're fairly new to Wikipedia - I'm no expert myself, but removing sourced examples of sectarian behaviour by some Rangers fans, as you have done, is not cool. It suggests you may not be editing from a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV. The James McCarthy example, which you removed, is especially relevant as it shows that the sectarianism displayed by some of Rangers fans is not only confined to the Old Firm context. Also please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF.
 * I actually inserted the statement by Rangers about their strip, after you brought it up, so it's a bit daft to say I'm resisting any change to that paragraph. The sources are clear that there was considerable public discussion, by some respected public bodies and figures, about the obvious sectarian significance. Rangers' version of events is a valid one and merits inclusion, but it's not a view shared by everyone.
 * As for the Rangers Supporters Trust statement, I removed your lengthy (and equally selective) quote because it gives undue weight to the opinion of a small group who are not especially notable. (See WP:UNDUE) If readers want to read the whole thing, there is a link to it. If you would prefer to include a different short quote, I'm open to discussing it.
 * Removing the info on Osasuna's fine has nothing to do with balance - this section is about Rangers and sectarianism. The UEFA fine imposed on Osasuna for their poor organisation and the behaviour of some of their fans is not relevant to the subject. As you implied earlier, if Rangers' fine had not been for the sectarian chanting, but for general crowd trouble, it would not be relevant in this section either.
 * I've reverted to the stable version, with the addition of "some Rangers fans" and the club's statement on their strip. Rather than us edit warring, can we discuss changes you want to make here first? --hippo43 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1
I appreciate your patience with a fairly new user and will attempt to enter into a hopefully fruitful debate in the quest for a balanced and fair representation of the sectarian problems associated with the club. However I firmly believe that this page is not the correct location for a listing of perceived sectarian episodes, surely these belong in the Old Firm and Sectarianism page, where, incidental they are also listed, some sections word for word. I think most would agree this article requires some improvement, and I fell the bloated Sectarianism section detracts from the overall article.

I also strongly contest the strip issue, it is quite simply factually incorrect, if the club presents it's reasons for it's withdrawal as commercial, then that is the facts pertaining to the club. If other parties have assumed a sectarian reason for the colour of a jersey and it's withdrawal, that is a point of view. Is the orange strip of the Dutch national side sectarian ?

The headline on the citation page states "Rangers to drop orange strip after sectarian outcry" and then includes the statement "A spokeswoman for the club told the Sunday Herald that the decision to drop the tangerine shirt was "a commercial decision, not based on politics. We change the shirt every season with new designs to try to make it new and fresh". That is the fact of matter, anything else is supposition. I wish to add the clubs statement.

That some individuals have chosen to interpret the tangerine\orange strip as sectarian does not make it so, would Celtic or Hibs wearing all green constitute sectarianism, off course not.

As for The Famine Song, you cannot say the quote ,

The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying it was a "a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".

equates to the actual statement:

"Racism’ is not a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans and in rejecting these specious accusations the Trust restates our opposition to racism and sectarianism, which stands comparison to any other similar body".

The above again is an example of the overall lack of balance. You say you removed as "it gives undue weight to the opinion of a small group who are not especially notable". In which case why is it mentioned at all ? By removing the words you have, you have changed entirely the context and intention of meaning of the statement. I wish to re-instate it to the above. The above is the bare minimum acceptable if this article is to have semblance of a fair and balanced representation of the issue. You cannot point out only problems and not attempts to solve them.

As for Osasuna, we must decide why it is included, was it because of the sectarian aspect the club was fined ?, if so then the mention of clashing with riot police should be removed as that is not sectarian, but crowd trouble, if this remains, then mention must be made of the fine Osasuna received for both poor organisation\segregation AND the behaviour of their support.

I would wish to change it to:

"Despite these measures, UEFA again fined Rangers (12,000 euros) after some Rangers fans were filmed making sectarian chants during their defeat by Osasuna in the UEFA Cup in 2007."

If u wish the reference to riot police to remain, the again you must mention the fact both clubs support were involved and both clubs were fined.

"Despite these measures, UEFA again fined Rangers (12,000 euros) after some Rangers fans were filmed making sectarian chants and clashed with riot police during their defeat by Osasuna in the UEFA Cup in 2007.

Osasuna were fined 45,000 Euros for serious deficiencies in the organisation of the game as well as for the improper conduct of their supporters and Rangers were ordered to pay 12,000 Euros for the latter offence involving their fans."

[35][36] The Rangers Supporters Association secretary indicated his belief that a small minority of fans were to blame, suggesting "it doesn't matter how often they are told [to stop sectarian chanting], some people will just not listen."[37] In September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.

Again, this is about balance and fully representing the facts.

I believe one way to avoid this section becoming just an endless list of episodes on both the Rangers FC and Celtic FC articles, would be to agree a statement that succinctly sums up the very real sectarian issues facing either club, a brief history of the roots, and the ongoing steps taken to attempt to eradicate it (in Rangers case, The Pride Over Prejudice campaign, again, notable by it's omission or The Blue Book attempts to deter the signing of sectarian songs.). Any further discussion on the nature of sectarianism should then be directed to the Old Firm and Sectarianism page, where they can be afforded the space for further, deeper discussion. This not intended to abdicate the club from it's responsibilities, but to facilitate rational discourse on the nature and history of sectarianism on a wider front.

I would be interested to hear your views on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the orange strip, if you want to include the full quote from the club, fair enough. However, if you are seriously arguing that the strip's colour had nothing at all to do with sectarianism, I think you need to take a step back and think about it. This isn't a forum on the issue itself, so I don't want to get into a debate on the specifics, but comparisons with Holland are pretty weak. Orange is Holland's national colour - what place does orange have in Rangers' culture or history except in the sectarian context? The important thing is that reliable sources covered this issue - it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to ignore the debate in favour of the club's stance in what is clearly a politicised situation. In short, it is verifiable, per WP:V.
 * As for Osasuna and riot police, I don't think it's a huge issue. For me, it is relevant to mention the clashes with police to describe the overall incident as it relates to Rangers. If it helps to mention the fine also given to Osasuna, I'm ok with it (though I can't see how it adds value to the section. Do the shortcomings of Osasuna's organisation and their own fans' behaviour somehow excuse or mitigate the chanting and behaviour of these Rangers fans?)
 * On the issue of the Famine Song, I would support removing the statement by the RST entirely (You asked "In which case why is it mentioned at all?"). They seem a fairly insignificant group - their stated position is so far from the prevailing opinions that they only really represent a tiny minority view, rather than a serious advocacy group. According to WP:UNDUE, such views should not be included. However, I do feel it is appropriate to include a short quote from them to avoid this paragraph seeming entirely one-sided. The sentence (which I think I added) summarised the RST's view ("The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist.. ") then included a short quote from them explaining how they saw the song ("saying it was a "a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans"")
 * As things stand, there is just one sentence covering the various complaints about the song being 'racist', and also one detailing the response from the RST - this seems 'balanced', at the very least. The fact that there aren't more serious voices echoing the Trust's view maybe tells its own story. If we were to include a longer statement from the RST, it would also be appropriate to quote at length the large number of more prominent and eloquent people who condemned the song. Rather than 'balance', wikipedia policy is that all significant views should be included, in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable sources. In this case, the article is more than fair to the RST's view.
 * I can't agree that we make a generic statement on this page and the Celtic FC article, and leave the details to a separate article - to me, that is an unencyclopaedic whitewash, and in itself would assert a particular point of view (that sectarianism is equally distributed across two clubs in Scotland, and that sectarianism is confined to the Old Firm context), ignoring the details of the situation. There is (or at least, was) some overlap between the two corresponding sections, but each one should include details relevant to each club, both flattering and less so. This article is about Rangers, and has to include information about the sectarian behaviour of some of the club's fans, and on occasion, the club itself. It also has to include instances of arguably sectarian behaviour which have been discussed as such in reliable sources. A large part of the club's significance in Scotland (and Celtic's) derives from their rivalry and the sectarian issue, and the media coverage those receive.
 * To me, the number of sectarian incidents listed in relation to Rangers is significant. I can see that having a growing list could become unwieldy, but sticking to a list of specific, referenced cases avoids the obvious difficulties of agreeing a broad statement about less concrete issues - the extent of Rangers' sectarian problem, how important it is (or not) to the club's identity, the club's historic signing policy etc. Given that so many contributors to the article are passionate about its subject, I don't think anyone would be able to create a version which was accurate, NPOV and sustainable. Another possibility is a shorter section with links to a main article about 'Rangers and sectarianism', but I don't imagine that would be well received either. If there is good quality material about Rangers' efforts to curb sectarianism, then I'm in definitely in favour of including it - I'll see what I can find. --hippo43 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeker, great work on updating the article. I've copy-edited what you added, pretty heavily, to give it the appropriate weight (IMO) and to include more third-party sources. The club's own PR material is obviously slanted and independent sources are preferable. For example, William Gallard's comments were about the SFA and many clubs, not only Rangers, and on closer reading I can't find UEFA actually commending Rangers' campaign in the pdf cited by Rangers. Feel free to disagree. --hippo43 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that we make a generic statement on this page and the Celtic FC article, and leave the details to a separate article - to me, that is an unencyclopaedic whitewash, and in itself would assert a particular point of view (that sectarianism is equally distributed across two clubs in Scotland, and that sectarianism is confined to the Old Firm context), ignoring the details of the situation. There is (or at least, was) some overlap between the two corresponding sections, but each one should include details relevant to each club, both flattering and less so. This article is about Rangers, and has to include information about the sectarian behaviour of some of the club's fans, and on occasion, the club itself. It also has to include instances of arguably sectarian behaviour which have been discussed as such in reliable sources. A large part of the club's significance in Scotland (and Celtic's) derives from their rivalry and the sectarian issue, and the media coverage those receive.
 * To me, the number of sectarian incidents listed in relation to Rangers is significant. I can see that having a growing list could become unwieldy, but sticking to a list of specific, referenced cases avoids the obvious difficulties of agreeing a broad statement about less concrete issues - the extent of Rangers' sectarian problem, how important it is (or not) to the club's identity, the club's historic signing policy etc. Given that so many contributors to the article are passionate about its subject, I don't think anyone would be able to create a version which was accurate, NPOV and sustainable. Another possibility is a shorter section with links to a main article about 'Rangers and sectarianism', but I don't imagine that would be well received either. If there is good quality material about Rangers' efforts to curb sectarianism, then I'm in definitely in favour of including it - I'll see what I can find. --hippo43 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeker, great work on updating the article. I've copy-edited what you added, pretty heavily, to give it the appropriate weight (IMO) and to include more third-party sources. The club's own PR material is obviously slanted and independent sources are preferable. For example, William Gallard's comments were about the SFA and many clubs, not only Rangers, and on closer reading I can't find UEFA actually commending Rangers' campaign in the pdf cited by Rangers. Feel free to disagree. --hippo43 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, the number of sectarian incidents listed in relation to Rangers is significant. I can see that having a growing list could become unwieldy, but sticking to a list of specific, referenced cases avoids the obvious difficulties of agreeing a broad statement about less concrete issues - the extent of Rangers' sectarian problem, how important it is (or not) to the club's identity, the club's historic signing policy etc. Given that so many contributors to the article are passionate about its subject, I don't think anyone would be able to create a version which was accurate, NPOV and sustainable. Another possibility is a shorter section with links to a main article about 'Rangers and sectarianism', but I don't imagine that would be well received either. If there is good quality material about Rangers' efforts to curb sectarianism, then I'm in definitely in favour of including it - I'll see what I can find. --hippo43 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeker, great work on updating the article. I've copy-edited what you added, pretty heavily, to give it the appropriate weight (IMO) and to include more third-party sources. The club's own PR material is obviously slanted and independent sources are preferable. For example, William Gallard's comments were about the SFA and many clubs, not only Rangers, and on closer reading I can't find UEFA actually commending Rangers' campaign in the pdf cited by Rangers. Feel free to disagree. --hippo43 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

--hippo43 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Hippo, thank you, but I have to say your editing was more than heavy handed, I am reverting the page so that the sections you have removed can be discussed. I appreciate you feel you have, in your opinion "given it an appropriate weight", I disagree. I spent a considerable amount of time on my last edit and common courtesy should ensure a proper amount of reasoned debate before such cuts are made based on a single opinion. All material was cited and factually correct, your suggestion that it is PR from Rangers suggest you feel that the content was incorrect or imbalanced ? Reverting the page will give you a chance to explain exactly what it is you have a problem is.

I have complied with your request not to remove content without debate, and I would ask that you afford me the same courtesy ?

I have also noticed my entry that confirmed a legal precedent for the term "hun" to be legally considered a sectarian term which in turn backed up the stance of the RST, has also been heavily edited despite an incontrovertible citation, any idea who made this change and for what reason ?

cheers. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Hippo, in answer to your query about the UEFA document, I would refer you to Section 4.a "Setting Up Workgroups", which uses Rangers as a model.

"Rangers FC has an in-house Sectarian and Racism Monitoring Committee comprising key officials from within the club. Its function is to monitor relevant matters as they affect football in general and Rangers FC in particular. The committee meets monthly and ensures that Rangers FC constantly challenges inappropriate behaviour at matches. The committee has also been instrumental in an ongoing ”Pride Over Prejudice” initiative, an official policy statement, a “Blue Guide” for fans to follow, internal and external ten-point plans for employees and fans respectively, terms and conditions for season ticket holders, poster advertising on internal concourses, trackside advertising, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you feel I've been too heavy-handed but this isn't just about debate and agreement, it's about Wikipedia's policies. It's just not appropriate to include so much material from Rangers themselves publicising their initiatives. In line with WP:RS we need to use reliable sources, and third-party sources are preferable to self-published sources. The club's own PR material is not necessarily imbalanced, but obviously self-serving. The third-party source about Gallard's comments, for example, is far more encyclopaedic than Rangers' own version.


 * Moreover, you didn't discuss the material you added at all before doing so, so this isn't about courtesy. I appreciate that you spent time on it, and I think your work is valuable, but that doesn't mean it should all stay in. Some of what you added wasn't especially well written or well laid out and some of it was lifted fron Rangers' own website, so needed to be copy-edited. Much of it read like a PR piece for the club, and it was likewise based on "a single opinion". The version I left was closer to the version that has evolved here through discussion and consensus.


 * WP:UNDUE specifies that points of view should be included "in proportion to the prominence of each" in reliable sources (i.e. not the club's own website). I have tried to stick to that, but may have got it wrong. I'm happy to discuss it if you disagree.


 * There were also examples of original research (see WP:OR) in your edits. You asserted that the problem is just "a small minority of Rangers fans" (or similar words) four times, but this isn't referenced - it is essentially your own view, and others disagree. If you want this section to include analysis of the extent of the problem, there is a wide range of views which would need to be included.


 * Moreover, the source cited for the 'Hun' court case did not state that 'Hun' is a sectarian term. According to sources, the sheriff described the offence as "stupid" and "crass", not "sectarian" - your version put different words in his mouth. I left in the facts - the Celtic fan was convicted of a religiously aggravated breach of the peace. This speaks for itself, and doesn't need embellishment or interpretation by us. If you read the numerous sources for the use of the nickname 'Hun', you will see that there is not broad consensus that it is a sectarian term.


 * I removed the reference to the UEFA pdf because as far as I can see it doesn't 'praise' or 'commend' Rangers, or recommend their model as best practice. It just mentions what the club has done.
 * --hippo43 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the editor who introduced the "Old Firm and sectarianism" sections to the two OF clubs' articles back in 2006, I share Hippo's concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Without seeming judgmental, is there a conflict of interest here? --John (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to highlight what the club has done combat sectarianism, to ignore the many citations is just scandalous. Once again, I am publicly questioning hippo's behaviour and motives in consistently refusing to all efforts at balance and truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hippo, Osasuna, 2 arrests out of 15,000, Manchester 50 arrests out of 150,000-200,000 surely constitutes a minority ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeker, I think you may be losing a little perspective here. The version I left included info on Pride over Prejudice, the Blue Guide, Follow with Pride, the Old Firm Alliance, Ready to Learn - 5 specific instances of the club's work. It also mentions two cases of UEFA praising the club. I note you haven't addressed any of the issues of policy I highlighted.


 * It may be the case that Rangers sectarian problem is only due to a minority of their fans' behaviour/attitudes (though I think the issue is a lot more complex than that) - the problem is that you need to find reliable sources which say as much. Your own opinions and calculations about specific events aren't admissible. It could be argued, for example, that if the problem is so insignificant, why do Rangers need to make such an effort, with so many initiatives, to combat it? If the problem is down to just a few "ninety minute bigots", why do Rangers need to educate thousands of children about the dangers of sectarianism? I think there's an inherent contradiction there.


 * I also find it interesting that in questioning my "motives" (and ignoring the policy WP:AGF) you have implied that I somehow can't be fair in my edits because I have also edited the Celtic FC article. That is somewhat ironic when you are promoting Rangers' efforts to combat discrimination.
 * --hippo43 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This debate is now spiralling downwards and it was never my intention to get involved in a sectarian debate, but to add balance to a section of an article which badly needed it, you have prevented that as you intended.

I see from your comments above your agenda will not allow any semblance of balance or fairness and the article is the poorer for it. I had hoped we may have achieved some form of conciliation, but even that seems remote.

You may wish to reflect that Celtic and others also indulge in educating "thousands of children about the dangers of sectarianism" why ? because it only takes a few....

I feel this section now needs a third party independent to settle this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than throw in the towel, perhaps you could discuss each area you think needs to be changed, point by point? I'm not sure why you insist on bringing up other clubs - this article is just about Rangers.


 * Since you raised the matter a few days back, the article now contains a new section covering numerous ways that Rangers have been working to stop sectarianism, and we have agreed other changes - this is simply not about myself and John resisting change or preventing discussion. You, however, haven't gone about things the right way - you have reverted edits by other users without good reason, to the point of edit warring. Please stop talking about "my agenda", as you know nothing about me. Again, please read WP:AGF


 * The issue that we have is that material needs to be of good quality, and meet various policies. If it is unsourced, or not from reliable sources, or original research, or does not reflect a neutral point of view, then it can't be included. If you want to discuss things in a proper way, I'm all ears. --hippo43 (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As i already told you, you need to discuss things, you are clearly a rangers fan and do not like the fact your club is getting bad things said about it on wikipeida, however as hippo has said it isnt people are against making it more facutual accurate but everything has to be referenced with third party sources not first party as first party will always say what it wants to make itself look good, and some of the tihngfs removed where due to copyright violation. At the end of the day wikipedia is about article which are about source which are about everything to do with the subject of hte article good or bad--Andrewcrawford (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From your history hippo43, It is plain to see you are following an agenda that precludes any hope of balance in this article. You are no stranger to promoting your beloved Celtic FC at every opportunity, whilst denigrating anything to do with Rangers FC, as your talk page and history clearly demonstrate. Also no stranger to edit-warring to the extent you have been banned from editing on more than one occasion, and have incurred the wrath of more users. Yet still you are allowed to propagate your inaccurate views here, and as such Wikipedia is left with an article teeming with recentism and POV. As for AGF, in your case, your record shows you do not deserve that consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit required; In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song, containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song, and warned they could be arrested for it.[39] Subsequently the song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card[40] and described as "vile, vicious and racist" by Celtic chairman John Reid[41] and complaints prompted Irish diplomats to contact the Scottish government.[42] The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying : "Racism is not a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".[43]

In November 2008, a fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine song during a game on 9 November against Kilmarnock.[44] Rangers fans have also sung the song at the Hamilton player James McCarthy.[45] In February 2009, sectarian chanting by some Rangers fans during an Old Firm match at Celtic Park was reported to the SPL by the match delegate, again relating to the chanting of the Famine Song.[46]

Reason; Undue weight. Is this chant going to relevant in 10yrs ? recentism. How does it merit 12 lines ? If people need more info, someone has created a Famine Song article. Suggestion:

In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song, containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song, and warned they could be arrested for it.[39] Subsequently the song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card[40] and others[41].The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying : "Racism is not a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".[43]

comments ? SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fairly obvious your proposed version does not reflect the media coverage of these incidents. The Rangers Supporters Trust's view is given far too much prominence in your version. For me, it's about right as it is.


 * I advise you to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF again. You have been contributing here for just a few weeks and already have decided to ignore these policies. Your views on my 'agenda' are pathetic. A quick look at my contributions shows I have contributed to a very wide range of articles. In your time here, you have really only been involved in one - this one. In every case, you have tried to paint Rangers in a more attractive/less unattractive light. You clearly have no interest in the encyclopedia as a whole. --hippo43 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I advise you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RECENTISM then WP:UNDUE Anyone who checks your history will see the tone of your posts, which is the reason you object to any attempts to present an alternative viewpoint to your own. Again, this is not your article. If I feel a section is inaccurate or not NPOV, i have the right to suggest amendments. Yes, you have been here longer than me, long enough to pick up a few bans for similar behaviour to that you are exhibiting here. I will assume good faith, untill my assumptions are proved wrong as they have been in your case. Your attempts to denigrate one half of the old firm, whilst lauding the other has not gone unnoticed, you clearly have no interest in the truth.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right - you are free to edit this article as long as it is consistent with policy. I don't think you'll find me ever claiming to own this article, so I don't know why you keep repeating that. Anyone can see from the changes we discussed to the sectarianism section that I am interested in well-sourced, accurate articles. As for assuming good faith, just read the guideline.


 * As far as I can tell, in over 3,000 edits and 3 years I've been blocked once, which is the same number of bans you would have had in your first 2 weeks if I had made an issue of your edit warring on May 16. --hippo43 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have picked up a ban as u say, but that would have been more through ignorance than intent. I have since taken time to familiarise myself with the rules and with the help of more experienced users, I will continue to learn the ways of WiKi.

Anyway, the section in question, recentism or not ? (Remember this article is about a football club) bear in mind:

The "ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?

"Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, removed, or added. Certain articles may need to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for community consideration; conversely, new articles may need to be created to balance Wikipedia's coverage. Sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews."

I do not believe it will, other unacceptable chants have come and gone from football grounds, this one is no different, however repugnant. (Aberdeen fans singing of the Ibrox Disaster, Man Utd rivals singing of the Munich Aircrash etc..)

It is not about removing the section, but rather trimming it. Again it can be discussed on a specific article.

Again the section on The Famine Song, which also has its own article, we have undue weight:

Undue weight

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Recentism is just an essay, not a policy or a guideline. There is no real consensus on how to deal with recent events -consider, for example, recent football seasons, current events such as this and articles such as Susan Boyle. One of the problems with contentious areas like this one is the difficulty of agreeing on a NPOV summary of an incident or issue. In these cases, we often end up with an unattractive list of specific examples, each one referenced, rather than an editorial on the wider issue.


 * As for chants about the Ibrox disaster or the Munich air crash, I don't see the relevance - while certainly unpleasant, they have not received wide coverage, so they don't merit inclusion. The fuss caused by Rangers fans singing the Famine Song reflected the particular nature of the lyrics. Rightly or wrongly, this song was characterised as racist, sectarian etc - issues which are guaranteed to provoke a significant response by reliable sources.


 * As for ten years from now, who knows? It may be the case that this episode is viewed as especially significant, in that the revulsion it provoked represented a real change in people's attitudes. On the other hand, it may be forgotten as a great big fuss over nothing.


 * I don't understand your last point about Undue Weight. Can you clarify? The version you proposed at 10.22 today gave, by my count, just 17 words to the condemnation of the song, but 27 words to the response, including a quote, from a fairly insignificant body (the RST). That is obviously not in proportion to the coverage it received in reliable sources. The singing was widely condemned by people and groups in Scotland, and received a lot of coverage for the (somewhat bizarre) diplomatic row it caused. According to WP:UNDUE, the coverage in the article needs to reflect the coverage in real-world reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason the Famine Song picked up so much interest is that in these days of rapid communication, sensational stories are picked up and used by various parties to progress agendas, whether to sell copy or push a political view, (remember at Parkhead with the Poppy Protest). Lets face it, the famine did not differentiate on religious grounds, all faiths were affected. The complaints to the Scottish Executive was not one sided either, as Unionists also complained of sectarian chanting at Parkhead. I am old enough to remember pitched battles at games, the progress that has been made is enormous. Again I feel this should not really be discussed here, we cannot afford it the gravitas it deserves.

As for the edit I proposed, I had not edited the response, that was an error on my part. I would have no problem reducing the coverage given to the response in the interest of balance.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be right about why the song got so much coverage, but that's not really for us to decide - we need to reflect the coverage it did get. I am all for distinguishing between serious commentary in 'quality' publications, and sensationalism in the gutter press. You don't need to explain the famine to me - those distinctions, however, are lost on the type of person who would sing something like this. --hippo43 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)