Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

Stephen Pears

I'd always been vaguely aware of this goalkeeper who made a single appearance for United in the 1980s, but I didn't know that he also had a spell at Liverpool (August 1995 - June 1996). He never played a first-team game for them, but was a full squad member (number 27) and I assume third choice (after James and Warner). Can/should he be added to the list, or does not having played a first-team match for Liverpool disqualify him? There are so few players who have signed for both clubs that I think he warrants inclusion in some form - perhaps a mention in the text if not the table - but I wanted to see if anyone disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiresman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

He may be worth a mention for having been owned by both clubs as it's still relatively niche. And he was second choice for Liverpool after injury to No.2 Michael Stensgaard. Warner was (at least on paper) no.3 that season. Koncorde (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What is considered a major trophy?

The box for major trophies excluded the Charity Shield because it is not a major trophy, however it contained the Super Cup. They are about as equally important as eachother, the charity shield is a game between the two domestic cup winners, and the Super cup is a game between the two winners of the major European trophies (Champions' League and UEFA Cup). Therefore I took out the Super Cup for the same reason the Charity shield was taken out. If it is to be included, I think the Charity Shield should be also included. 81.153.39.254 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All trophies should be included. Manchester United has won 60 and Liverpool 59. Stop counting in your own way. Stop vandalizing the page by substracting trophies. It's not 44-41 to Liverpool. Thank you Psyrras Panagiotis 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are references provided for how to determine which trophies are major trophies. Major trophies should be competed for by a significant number of the top clubs and should take place over multiple rounds across a significant part of the season.

It is clear that the Charity Shield and UEFA Super Cup are not equivalent to the Premier League or the UEFA Champions League.

Major Trophies

Premier League (and predecessors) - round-robin season-long tournament competed for by the top 20 clubs

FA Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs and hundreds of lower-ranked clubs

League Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs

UEFA Champions League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues

UEFA Europa League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues who did not qualify for Champions League

Minor trophies

Community Shield (and predecessors) - pre-season friendly single-match between FA Cup winners and Champions from previous season

UEFA Super Cup - single-match between Champions League winners and Europa League winners from previous season

Intercontinental cup - single-match between the winners of the European Champions' Cup and the South American Copa Libertadores.

Club World Cup - week-long knockout competition between 7 FIFA confederation championship winners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.180.113 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that any of those "minor" trophies are less important than the others when you have to win a so-called "major" trophy to even play in them? Some countries even consider the Club World Cup to be the biggest of the lot. Furthermore, the Community Shield is not a friendly, it's an official competition. You want to talk about friendlies, take a look at the International Champions Cup. I understand that the Community Shield doesn't get quite as much respect as the others, but it's still an important honour. Next you'll be telling me the League Cup shouldn't be considered a major competition because the big clubs play their reserves in the early rounds! – PeeJay 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed opinion

"Liverpool is the most successful club in English football history due to the number of trophies they have won."

Has been removed. Whilst Liverpool have won more trophies overall, Manchester United have won arguably the three most significant trophies the most - FA cup, Championship, European Cup/CL. The claim assumes the League Cup is counted as a significant trophy, and that the winning of more league cups is of similar significance to the winning of more FA cups. This is quite clearly a matter of opinion and not encyclopaedic material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.135.152 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool have won more titles and European Cups than Manchester United: they are the most succesfull team in the history of english football. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I signed in because I want to talk about the Sheriff of London Charity Shield with you guys. Tell me what else do you want me to do so you finally understand that it is actually a trophy. TheBrBa (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you answer? Tell me why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield isn't a trophy and I'll stop. I'm editing something based on facts and you wipe it away calling it "vandalism" without explaining. Tell me please why it shouldn't be counted TheBrBa (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Sheriff of London Charity Shield is as much a trophy as the Texaco Cup or the Watney Cup. No one is disputing its existence or the fact that Liverpool won it, it's just that it's a very minor part of football history, and people who include it in lists of honours are usually just trying to bloat Liverpool's trophy haul. It's not the same competition as the FA Charity Shield, it just has a similar name. – PeeJay 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I guess I'll accept that. It matters most in the total count of top flight trophies and not for the rivalry. Thank you very much for the reply though, appreciate it. TheBrBa (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry → Liverpool and Manchester United football rivalry — For continuity purposes, Liverpool contains the F.C. at the end of their name whilst Manchester United doesn't, we don't need their full club names just their common names. — --Jimbo^[online] 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I would support a move to Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United F.C. rivalry, as I believe that "Liverpool" on its own could refer to a rivalry between Manchester United and the city of Liverpool as a whole. – PeeJay 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• While I think a change from current one is def needed, clubs rarely use FC's these days. I would instead suggest Liverpool—Manchester United football rivalry. If you look at the List of association football rivalries then it conforms with a few others. It's also been referred to as The Classic and similar to El Clásico for Real-Barca, Le Classique for PSG-Marseille, Der Klassiker for Bayern-Dortmund, De Klassieker for Ajax-Rotterdam, Superclásico for RiverPlate-Boca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreerajtheauthor (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Dude, this discussion is seven years old now. There is no active discussion regarding a move away from the current title. – PeeJay 21:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. Comp missed looking at the date. My fault. Well I still think the name could be changed to any of the suggestions I gave. After 8 years have you changed your views haha?--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Beardsley

When did Peter Beardsley play for Manchester United?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.134.89 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

According to his article, Beardsley was with Man Utd between 1982 and 1983. He made one appearance, in the League Cup against Bournemouth in 1982. – PeeJay 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FA source confirms this (see under "about"). Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Hooliganism section

I removed the following since it's not supported by citations and is opinion based:

United's "Red Army" took huge numbers to Liverpool on match days and were particularly brutal. This was seen as a result of resentment due to United underperforming at this time while Liverpool were going through their most successful period in time.

I removed the following paragraph as the source article did not exist. "At the 1996 FA Cup Final, an unidentified Liverpool fan spat at Eric Cantona and threw a punch at Alex Ferguson as a victorious Manchester United team walked up the steps at Wembley Stadium to collect the trophy from the Royal Box.[15]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobSlayer91 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kasbee (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Champions league cup

Man U won that one in 1999; why is that not mentioned in the table?98.176.12.43 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What table?, what do you mean?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article cited makes no mention of Liverpool fans chanting Munich songs, although it does say that the travelling Manchester United support rehearsed chants about Hillborough and Heysel. Find a citation if you want to say these things. In the meantime I have amended the article to reflect the citation.89.211.250.155 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Organising the article

I am trying to organise this article so that it makes sense and is worthy of being part of Wikipedia. There is huge scope for fans of both teams to take severe umbrage against what is included here, and as such it needs to be as concise and opinion free as possible.

I am trying to equalise the content and specific language used (including deliberately repeating certain NPOV phrases when listing trophy victories etc.) and seek to include but not downplay the record of success for each team. All the various terminology included (European trebles, domestic doubles etc.) makes large sections of the text unwieldy. I kept much of this language here at the moment and tried to make it opinion free and fair to both sides, but may I propose removing much of the text under the 'Football Rivalry' section and instead presenting the information on what has been won by each club in a table? The most recent changes by PeeJay2K3 have removed 700+ characters from the text but I think we need go further, it can now be read as a list of Manchester United boasts ('a record 12 titles' etc). Please do not think I am criticising you personally PeeJay2K3, this section is almost impossible to present from a NPOV while still being easily accessible.

The structure I propose is:

1. Roots

1.1 Inter city rivalry - Keep this section, and I will find a more acceptable reference stating why these games take place at lunchtime (or else we remove the text until someone can find such a quote). We all know that the police demand that any games not at a neutral venue start as early as possible, but actually finding it written down from a verifiable and NPOV source is another matter. I will keep looking.

1.2 Football Rivalry

Have an introductory paragraph stating that Liverpool won 11 league titles and 4 four European cups from 1973 to 1990 and that Man Utd have won 12 leage titles and two European cups from 1993 to present. I think it is also relevant to state that Man Utd won the Intercontinental Cup/Fifa World Club cup twice in this period here as it is the highest ranking tournament (officially if not truly heralded by all fans).

May I suggest:

Liverpool dominated English football from 1973 to 1990, winning eleven league championships and four European Cups, including several seasons in which they won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions. Similarly, Manchester United have dominated English football since 1993, winning twelve league championships and two European Cups. This has also included several seasons in which they have won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions.

Manchester United have also won the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA World Club Cup twice since 1993.

The two clubs are thus the most successful English sides in European and domestic competitions, with Liverpool having been European champions five times (securing 11 European trophies overall), while Manchester United have been European champions three times (securing 5 European trophies overall). Manchester United have won 19 English League Championship titles, while Liverpool have won 18. Manchester United currently have 34 domestic honours, and Liverpool have 33. These figures are correct to May 2012.

______

I appreciate that this is not wikified, but it removes all the posturing language about record numbers of premier league wins or highly complicated language about what constitutes a footballing 'treble' or 'double' and whether cups count or not.

We should then follow this by including the table of combined honours directly underneath.

1.3 Players Rivalry

This is another minefield. Could we simply state that both sets of players are known to have an intense rivalry on the pitch, and maybe include one quote from each team and a neutral one from another source to support this. Or delete the whole section and add it into the next section (currently 2.1 Player Transfers)?

Mwmonk (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Honours Count?

I'm somewhat confused by the honours count in the introduction to this article, which states that Manchester United have 60 trophies and Liverpool have 59. According to the articles for each club, Manchester United have 62 and Liverpool have 65. Where have each club dropped trophies in this article, and how has the balance shifted in favour of Manchester United? I note this section is unsourced.

Unless I get a satisfactory reply to this, I will edit the page accordingly, and add in the sources that back up the (presumably correct) honours count in each team's respective articles.

roobens 82.17.7.9 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Liverpool article, if you read it correctly, says that they have won 59 major honours (the Football League Second Division, Lancashire League and Football League Super Cup are not major honours). The Manchester United article, likewise, says that they have won 60 major honours. – PeeJay 21:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I am definitely against editors have the right to classify any honor as major or minor after all we aren't sport pundits analyst to give such a recognition if it is a major or minor . any trophy is recognized by FIFA, UEFA is a major trophy , any trophy is recognized by the domestic whatever country football association for their trophies (cups/Leagues) is a major trophy and thats it . once we start to give us the right to classify I think this is not just an encyclopedia anymore then .Adnan (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Adnan n2:Why not leave it to the clubs themselves to provide the distinction? There is a reference for the table sources from each team's official website: Manchester United Trophy Room and LFC Trophy Count The only difference is that Manchester United consider the UEFA Super Cup to be a "trophy" while Liverpool do not. Ironically, Liverpool have more of these. If the Community Shield is to be considered equal in stature to the Premier League, why not include all other pre-season friendlies that have a trophy awarded eg: Emirates Cup or International Champions Cup? Chrisuae (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@Chrisuae: To address your first point, we don't leave it to the clubs because, as you say, they have different definitions of what a "major" and "minor" honour is. And on your second point, we don't include other other trophies because they are friendlies, whereas although the Community Shield is considered a "glorified friendly" by many people, it does in fact have official status. – PeeJay 08:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: It seems reasonable that the major trophies can be defined as the ones that both clubs agree to be major trophies on their official websites. Neither club views the Community Shield as a major trophy on their official websites, so why would it be included in the wikipedia page as such? Can you define "official status" as I believe this would include the Super Cup (English football) organised by the Football League in 1985-86, the lower-division championships, the reserve team championships and others which clearly are not major trophies. The major trophies, as agreed in the official websites and on the other referenced sites all have the following in common: Officially sanctioned by governing body (FA, Football League or UEFA), a significant number of participants (ranging from 20 to approx 700), take place over a significant part of the season and consist of multiple rounds of matches. Chrisuae (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@Adnan n2: We are not passing judgement on what constitutes a major trophy, we are providing references to reliable sources which do so. That's what makes this encyclopedia. I am not a Liverpool or Man Utd fan, my attention was brought to this article because it is biased. To include a tally in the lead section which gives no indication of the difference between trophies is quite unsophisticated, and ultimately biased. To implicitly state that a Charity Shield is counted the same as a Champions League, because it means your team looks better, is biased. To remove five reliable sources which back this statement up, as the user PeeJay has done, repeatedly, is biased. Without acceptance of this, I will take this issue to a dispute resolution thread, where other more experienced editors will have to deal with it. You can't remove relevant, sourced material just because it conflicts with what you want the article to be. This is a collaborative encyclopedia where no one user has the monopoly on what's included in an article. A number of other users seem to accept the major trophies distinction in the lead. All that matters are the references and the sources. It's not even a pro-Liverpool statement. It's just saying that Man Utd have the most trophies in total, and Liverpool have the most major trophies. This is neutral in point of view because it essentially says that neither team is better. I have reverted the lead statement back to this. The view of what makes a major trophy is clear. I don't spend my free time gathering reliable sources, formatting and referencing them, as is the proper conduct for editing a wikipedia article, just so another user can delete them and accuse me of cherrypicking. It has long passed the point of an official edit war, so if it's reverted again like I said I'll take this issue to a dispute resolution stage, where I'm virtually certain it will be decided to keep the five sources. Please can we move on and continue to improve this article. Thank you. Autonova (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisuae: @PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: first thank you for taking it to the talk, but lets first agree whatever version we have right now stays as it is until the discussion finish, second don't wait until someone revert, take it now to a dispute resolution stage without waiting if you want .you provided five sources two of them basically the same dailymail , one of them guardian , the insider and finally the football facts none of them an official classification from FA or UEFA for a major or minor trophy and all of them just a personal opinion of the articles writers if you read the article none of them supported it even by any mention of how it is recognized by the FA , UEFA or even Fifa my friend :) .so I am not sure you will be virtually decided to keep it especially when you have two official websites of the two clubs classify this trophies differently,all what I am saying if other clubs and other sources in other leagues consider fifa clubs worldcup and super cup a major trophy it should be the case in england also and since there is a difference between sources between how it is listed (minor/major) I don't see saying major or minor trophies is needed at all so we don't give biased impression depending on what we pick as a source . so lets see how this discussion goes and whatever consensus we have we will go with it. thats how it works not as someone deleting/adding depending on his free time my friend or effort or research references . :)Adnan (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: @PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: It looks like the article has been reverted. Anyway, can someone provide justification for including the 10 trophies and not others. Both clubs count the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League (and their predecessors) as honours while listing other trophies separately. I suggest that the article can point out that Manchester United's official website includes the UEFA Super Cup as a major honour while Liverpool's official website does not. If the concept of a "Major" trophy is to be dismissed, then we must add all trophies claimed by each team's official site, not just the 10 listed. Chrisuae (talk)

@Chrisuae: Please sign your post after posting them ,and what are the ten trophies you are talking about please ? Adnan (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: I was referring to the 10 trophies that appear in the table. Why were those particular ones selected? I would suggest we include only those that both teams claim to be major honours or include all the honours that each team includes on their official sites. (Sorry for missing signature.). Chrisuae (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@Chrisuae: i just saw the table someone has messed it up and PeeJay probably didn't notice when he was reverting , I think now table include all trophies check it please :) Adnan (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: I think what Chrisuae (talk · contribs) was asking is why we don't include the competitions that apparently only Liverpool consider notable (i.e. the Football League Super Cup, Football League Second Division, Lancashire League, Carlsberg Trophy and various reserve/youth competitions). And I think the obvious answer to that is that only Liverpool consider those competitions notable. The Super Cup was a one-off tournament designed to replace European football after English clubs were banned in the mid-80s, the Second Division is a second-tier competitions, the Lancashire League is limited to a certain geographical area, the Carlsberg Trophy was a pre-season friendly competition and youth tournaments are clearly ineligible. – PeeJay 15:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Adnan n2: That's exactly what I was asking. PeeJay has given good reason to leave out some trophies. I and others have given good reason to also leave out (or at least give lower status) to the Community Shield and other super cups. In fact the reason is the same - they are not considered notable by both of the 2 clubs in the article. So we need to reflect that in the article and I think the well-referenced concept of "major" trophies does that well and improves the article. Chrisuae (talk)

@PeeJay2K3: @Chrisuae: @Autonova: Well first as Peejay said , pre-season friendly competition and youth tournaments are clearly ineligible so lets move on from those ,and geographical trophies don't need to be included on my opinion since they are geographical only , for Football League Super Cup if it is official FA competition it should be included because the whole discussion about discarding major and minor honors classification, so if you say this is notable or not it is the same my friend .it is not a contest to see who has more trophies it is just an article to list both teams trophies . thank you Adnan (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Liverpool and Manchester United list their honours the way they do on their websites because they believe there are two tiers of competitions. If there are any categories, I'd say they are divided into European/international honours and domestic honours, and I'm sure I can find references to support that. Like I said, you can find references to support pretty much any position, and I believe the references that were previously in the article to support the major/minor distinction were cherrypicked just for that purpose. – PeeJay 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Adnan n2: @Autonova: This article is about a rivalry between two clubs and a comparison is being made based on trophies won. The trophies used in this comparison should have a clear reason for inclusion. It is pretty clear when the trophies are listed under headings "Domestic Trophies", "European Silverware" and "Other Honours" on Manchester United official website that a distinction is being made. Also, Liverpool FC Official website makes the distinction equally clear by leaving the "other honours" out of the main LFC Trophy Count table completely. According to the FA Community Shield was an invitational match prior to 1974. It has been played between the previous season's FA Cup and Premier League winners from 1974 onward, but its purpose is as a "curtain-raiser" and to raise money for the clubs to give to charity. It is one last pre-season friendly played one week before the league season starts. If neither of the 2 clubs in the article include the FA Community Shield on their primary list of honours, why does an encyclopedia article? We can end this if PeeJay can find a good reference that shows the FA Community Shield and other super cups are worthy of being included with the others. Otherwise, I propose that we use the official websites of the 2 clubs as a definitive source and separate the trophy table and counts accordingly.

@PeeJay2K3: @Adnan n2: @Chrisuae: I'd dispute the assertion that my five sources are unreliable - two are national newspapers, including the sports editor, and the others are independent publications, with listed authors, one of which was named independent sports website of the year, apparently. Prestigiousness of awards is a subjective topic and to find five sources which agree upon it is the best you can get really. But it seems the club's official websites are agreed to be more reliable, which I'll accept. I'd suggest listing the League, European Cup/Champions League, FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League/UEFA Cup/Cup Winners' Cup as "major trophies" (both sites use the term "trophies"), and the rest as "other honours" (the Man Utd site uses that term, and the Liverpool site implicitly lists them as the same). Since the Super Cup is listed as "major" for Man Utd and "other" for Liverpool (as well as excluded from the "major" distinction in the five sources I found), it's probably wise to list it under "other honours". If it's agreed then please feel free to edit the article as such. Autonova (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the reliability of the sources, I'm just saying that different sources categorise things in different ways, and some don't categorise at all. The BBC, for example, lists all of the honours without feeling the need to separate them into "major" and "minor" categories. And that's in an article that is specifically about this subject (i.e. the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester United). Basically, categorising into major and minor introduces a level of POV into the matter; it's almost like gerrymandering the numbers so that it seems like one club is more successful than the other in the competitions that "matter". If we treat them all the same, although it may put Manchester United on top, there can be no arguments when it comes to simply comparing the raw numbers. – PeeJay 10:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is too much debate about one article , If English FA includes the super cup you want as an official website then Peejay2k3 can't remove it other wise he is using too measures , if they aren't just move on guys ,either way I don't care anymore too much time for this good luck Adnan (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: Adding super cups and friendlies in order to make one club appear to be ahead of the other shows bias. References to FIFA, show without any doubt that the Community Shield, other pre-season friendly tournaments, lower-league trophies, youth level trophies and regional trophies are not major honours and it clearly lists those that are using the terminology "major honours". So far there are no references to show that the Community Shield is considered a major trophy. Let's stop playing with the numbers to get a favoured outcome and go by the world governing body as definitive. The article is now updated to use FIFA, UEFA, the clubs and the BBC as the sources of the data. Please do not undo it unless you can find a higher football authority than FIFA and UEFA that says differently. Chrisuae (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Who says the Community Shield is a friendly? Because it's definitely not. It's an official tournament. See the BBC reference I gave you. – PeeJay 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Plus the info you added clearly makes a mountain out of a molehill. You don't need five tables to show the number of trophies each club has won. – PeeJay 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: You are right (too many tables showing almost the same thing). I've tidied it up to use FIFA rather than the BBC as the main source and then noted the subtle differences for UEFA, the clubs and the BBC. Chrisuae (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: Can you provide any justification for why an article on BBC website is correct and FIFA, UEFA and the 2 clubs are wrong? It seems like you are undoing edits and references to the official websites of the two main governing bodies of the sport involved and the clubs involved in favour of an unreferenced table that changes the perception in your team's favour. If you believe that FIFA and UEFA and the 2 clubs are not credible sources, please state why. Thanks. Chrisuae (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

As I've stated, there's no consistency between the sources as to what constitutes a major/minor honour. You can't just mix and match sources and come up with a hodge-podge of numbers. The BBC source treats all honours the same. You may not agree that they're all worth the same, and clearly there's more prestige to winning the Champions League than the Community Shield, but they're both honours that count for one trophy in the clubs' trophy cabinets. – PeeJay 18:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: While there are minor variations, the changes I made address these in a very simple, concise and referenced format. You have chosen the BBC as the definitive source and it does include the Community Shield as if it were equivalent to the others - which we agree it is not. This seems like bias - FIFA, UEFA, Manchester United and Liverpool are surely better sources than a BBC article, but the BBC article adds a minor trophy which your team has won most often. I used very neutral language and kept your BBC reference along with the other 4. I think the article is better for it as it goes to the heart of the rivalry between these clubs. I will revert it - please feel free to edit it, but please do not simply revert to the original as I think we can agree that there is controversy here and the changes I made address that. Chrisuae (talk) Chrisuae

@PeeJay2K3: @Chrisuae: I support your last edit format, Chrisuae. I support the use of FIFA as the source. It is neutral, reliable, and the closest to an authoritative measure of honours. It's a more neutral approach than relying on the clubs' websites, which are inherently liable to bias. But the key element of your edit is that you attribute the information to FIFA directly, which is encouraged in Wikipedia guidelines. I also support the statement "In the absence of any definitive measure of historical success, both clubs can legitimately claim the to be 'the greatest English football club'". One change I would make is to form a paragraph after the table, instead of four short ones. But as I said, I support your edit. Autonova (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: Thanks for your support Autonova. I'll make the change you suggested and add some additional references. Chrisuae (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: PeeJay2k3, I've restored the referenced table and removed the un-referenced table. Hopefully the format is now easier to compare the 2 clubs, but the point of the paragraph you removed and all the references was that there is no way to do a definitive comparison. FIFA is the highest authority in Football, but other strong sources were cited to remove any bias when choosing a single source.

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: PeeJay2k3, you've put the same numbers as before, which are not reflected in the references you used. Was that a mistake? Also, you have removed references to FIFA, UEFA, and media sites.

The numbers are supported, you just need to count. I assume you know how. And yes, those references were removed since this article is not the place to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of any particular competition. If you don't think the Community Shield (or any other) is worth listing, take it up with the members of WT:FOOTY, since this will certainly affect other articles. – PeeJay 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: This is now on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: PeeJay, I see two tables on the Liverpool site, the first listing 41 major honours and the second listing 90 total honours. The Manchester United site shows three tables: Domestic Trophies (35 listed), European Silverware (5 listed) and Other Honours (22 listed). The edits I made to the article did not discuss the relative merits of the trophies, it just referenced the ones that FIFA, UEFA, the clubs and media sites listed. Your table matches none of the tables in the two references you cited, it just picks a few trophies from each. Chrisuae (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

You're clearly being obtuse. Obviously we don't include second-tier league titles, pre-season friendlies or youth team honours. And before you tell me the Community Shield is a pre-season friendly itself, that's clearly bullshit. – PeeJay 22:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: PeeJay, your last 2 messages have not addressed the concerns about your selected list of trophies. You are deciding for yourself which trophies should be included or not and you just happen to have selected a set of trophies that place your favourite club ahead. My opinion or your opinion on the Community Shield or any other trophy is irrelevant. As you say, this article is not where the relative merits of the trophies is to be discussed, it should just reference counts from reputable sites without editorialising or "pick-and-choosing" from those sites. On what basis did you select those trophies you included and why was the process you used to determine this so superior to the methods used by FIFA, UEFA, the clubs and most media sites? Chrisuae (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

You're ignoring the BBC reference, I see. The Manchester United reference also lists exactly the same competitions, with the exception of the UEFA Cup, which the club has never won. – PeeJay 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Why should we include the Community Shield but not the First or Second Division? I just don't see the argument. The five sources I originally listed, plus the FIFA and UEFA sources, plus both of the official club websites, plus most of the nine additional sources which Chrisuae included after the FIFA table, do not list the Community Shield as a major trophy. So if we include the Community Shield, why stop there? Autonova (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The First Division is included, but only for years when it was the top tier of English football. The top tier is the only relevant level. If you want to include Second Division titles, you're really only acknowledging that one club was in the Second Division longer than the other, and that's not anything worth shouting about. And would you please stop talking about "major" trophies. They're just trophies, there's nothing major or minor about them. – PeeJay 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How come you can say that the top tier is the only relevant level, without citing any sources, and I can't say the only relevant trophies are ones which are decided by more than one match (i.e. not the Community Shield), whilst citing over ten sources? That's not fair. Autonova (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You realise the BBC source and many others omit second-tier league titles, don't you? And if single-match competitions are irrelevant according to you, what about the Intercontinental Cup (pre-2004) or the UEFA Super Cup? Was the Super Cup more relevant when it was played over two legs? You have to win the Premier League or FA Cup to be in the Community Shield, just like you have to win the Champions League or Europa League to play in the Super Cup, and you had to win either the Champions League or the Copa Libertadores to play in the Intercontinental Cup. What is it about the Club World Cup that makes it more relevant than the Intercontinental Cup by your logic when the qualification criteria are exactly the same? – PeeJay 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to my original edit back in January, which listed the major trophies as the league, two domestic cups and two continental cups, which was dismissed as cherrypicking. My point is, including the Community Shield but not the Second Division seems itself to be cherrypicking. Autonova (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: @Nikothep: PeeJay, the BBC reference was included - you took it out along with all the others. Please answer the question I asked about why you took out the BBC reference and all the others I had included in favour of your own interpretation of what is a trophy worthy of inclusion in the article? The Manchester United website includes the Community Shield in a separate table called "Other Honours" so why is it included in the article while the "other honours" on the Liverpool site are not included? Neither club site is definitive and that's why I included FIFA, UEFA, the clubs and media sites. So far, we all agree with everything that you are asserting - 1) it's not up to this article (or us) to determine which trophies are major or minor or worthy or unworthy of inclusion, 2) no single source is definitive, 3) Community Shield is worthy of inclusion according to BBC and maybe others so that should be mentioned. The solution is the edits I made referencing the highest authority in football (FIFA) and mentioning the subtle differences in other reputable sites. I really don't see what your objection to that is. My edit directly follows wikipedia guidelines on neutrality Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.. Chrisuae (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

The Wikipedia guidelines on Neutrality states

"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."

Clearly, in football matters, FIFA is the most prominent source, then UEFA, then the clubs, and then the media. Eliminating FIFA and UEFA, citing only the BBC reference and editorialising (ie: not "fairly representing") the clubs' websites and eliminating in-text attribution when the sources differ somewhat does not comply with this guideline. Chrisuae (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

FIFA is not an independent source, since they organise their own competitions that they have a vested interest in maintaining the prominence of. Same goes for UEFA, who have a bit of a feud with FIFA at the minute due to the allegations of corruption against FIFA and Michel Platini's opposition to Sepp Blatter as FIFA chairman. Looking at the media sources you've provided, they're not much use either. This Guardian article is out of date, This Daily Mail article excludes the "Super Cups" on a totally arbitrary basis, this Telegraph article doesn't even explain why it's leaving out some honours, nor does it indicate which ones it's actually including, and this Telegraph article includes honours that definitely shouldn't be included such as the Lancashire League, which is a regional competition, and the Second Division, which is a second-tier competition and no indicator of success (sure, they won the second division, but that just means they were in the second division in the first place). The Man Utd equivalent of that last one doesn't even acknowledge the two Second Division titles United won, so the reliability of those sources is already in question. As for the Super Cup, it was only held once and only involved six teams, but then that's just my opinion and I wouldn't object to its inclusion. – PeeJay 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If FIFA isn't a reliable and neutral source then I'm not sure what the point of all this is. It's used in most of the football featured articles. It's the governing body for world football. And if the Guardian article is not relevant because it's out of date, what about the all-special BBC article which the article currently relies upon? It was written in September 2012. Also, including the Man Utd and Liverpool official sites as sources is ambiguous - the Man Utd site lists a different set of trophies than the Liverpool one. Evidently, different sources give slightly different trophy tallies, so the most neutral edit is to include all of them, with the neutral, authoritative FIFA source as the principle one. Autonova (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point about the Guardian source is that it was published before Manchester United overtook Liverpool as England's most successful club (by some measure), and therefore it made no difference whether the "super cups" were included or not. Now that the total has been beaten, an article written for the Guardian more than 10 years ago carries less weight than it did at the time. – PeeJay 12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay, so, you're asserting that a single BBC article that is the only one to arbitrarily include a trophy that makes it seem like you're favourite team is ahead is the most prominent source and FIFA, UEFA and the rest of the media is all either "biased" or "not much good" and should be eliminated. Please read the guidelines on bias: The Wikipedia guidelines on Neutrality states

"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."

Even your own favourite club is not as biased as the edits you made - the Community Shield is "domestic" yet it doesn't rank in the same table as the actual honours that Manchester United have won under "Domestic Honours" and is instead relegated to "Other". The edits I made follow these guidelines completely. Your edits do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the BBC article is the only one that includes all honours without apportioning any ideas of "major" and "minor" status, or misattributing regional and second-tier titles. You can accuse me of having my objectivity clouded by my support of Manchester United, but you'd be dead wrong. I suspect the Manchester United website listed the Community Shield under "other" because it conveniently allowed for three equal groups of three competitions; if they really thought so little of the competition, they wouldn't have listed it at all. I can't explain why Liverpool hold it in such low regard – perhaps because they haven't won it very often... As I've said, this article is not the place to discuss the relative merits of each competition. Obviously each method advances a particular point of view, but I see no evidence that either is completely neutral, and hence the status quo of the article should remain, in the absence of a suitable alternative. – PeeJay 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay, I'll leave it as is to save you the trouble of reverting and hopefully someone will provide some help. I believe you know that the Community Shield is not worthy of inclusion with the others and that Manchester United's website reflects that rather than being an issue of formatting. I've never before seen a reference that refers to a site and then says that due to formatting, the site really means something other than what it says. Personally, I wouldn't include any of the Super Cups or pre-season competitions or lower leagues, but some of the references do and that is what matters on Wikipedia. It's not a matter of trying to determine Major/Minor in the article (maybe there should be a separate article on that) it's just a matter of citing prominent sources and mentioning where they agree/disagree. If you use the term "honours" that includes all honours and in my opinion is not a valid basis for comparison. If you include the 3 Domestic and 2 European season-long trophies and their predecessors, then in my opinion you have a valid basis for comparison. Either way Liverpool has more, but opinion doesn't count - references do. I believe you are using motivated reasoning to prioritize the BBC article, remove the other references and misinterpret the club websites. You have found an media article that is uniquely providing a count favourable to your team and you are clinging to that as authoritative. It is worth no more than a mention along with the others. Chrisuae (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@PeeJay2K3: @Autonova: Another thought on the BBC article that gives the outlier data point: The BBC is biased due to the fact that they have broadcast rights to some competitions and need to promote them. The reason they have the unusual inclusion of the Community Shield in the article could be that they have the broadcast rights to match highlights and so prefer to promote it as a major trophy (better than referring to it as Chelsea's second-last pre-season friendly). As I understand it, sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view, but PeeJay is suggesting that FIFA and UEFA should not be cited as they are not independent sources as they organise their own competitions (though they agree on 85 of the 86 trophies). There is disagreement between sources and we don't have any sources that we can agree can't be accused of some sort of bias, so shouldn't we use in-text attribution to mention this? Chrisuae (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

The BBC may have commercial interests, but it's part of their charter that they can't be biased; as a broadcaster, they have to have a level of due impartiality. Furthermore, to suggest that they're exercising any bias based on the fact that they have broadcast rights to Community Shield highlights is potty. Do they even have those rights? Perhaps as part of a news broadcast, but I don't recall having ever seen a Community Shield highlights show on anything other than the host broadcaster. – PeeJay 07:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The BBC has the rights according to Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom. The BBC may be impartial regarding the two teams, but there is nothing to say they cannot promote their own broadcasts and that brings the possibility of bias in favour of the importance of the Community Shield. It may be a stretch but not as much as dismissing FIFA and UEFA because Blatter and Platini don't like each other. I believe FIFA and UEFA also both have a level of due impartiality and they are approx 99% in agreement. Again I ask: shouldn't we use in-text attribution to mention this? Chrisuae (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Well, what trophies to include is a matter of personal preferrence. There are enough sources available to cherry-pick one that suits yourself. Wikipedia should be neutral, thus this version was perfectly fine, from a prose point of view. Stating exactly why the sources differ so much. For the table, though, I'd include the English Super Cup as well, just to give a complete overview (maybe omit the totals row then).-Koppapa (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Koppapa, I've implemented the edit. The majority of the people on this talk page and a dispute resolution discussion agree with it. Only one editor disagrees. Autonova (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Heavily Biased Edit

The most recent major edit of this article is ridiculous. It is full of unfactual informartion and convenient ignorance of the truth to heavily favor Liverpool. For starters, any other subsequent rivalry page on wiki uses total honours to count trophies as that is the least subjective form. For some reason, this one uses a highly subjective "major honours" system which puts Liverpool top of the trophy count when otherwise United would have won more. Conveniently such a trophy measure was NEVER used when Liverpool led United outright in honours in years past. The source is based off the unreliable and poorly maintained FIFA website, which despite not counting the English Super Cup (Community Shield) as a major trophy, it counts the Dutch and French Super Cups as such as well as REGIONAL tournaments for a few other clubs. This hypocrisy makes the source unreliable and not suitable for use per wikipedia's terms on source credibility.

The author then states that UEFA's website list 44 trophies for liverpool and 41 for United as they dont count the club world cup. This conveniently ignores that UEFA dont count that tournament as it is not in their jurisdiction but this is never stated. It also doesnt add the term "major" to the trophies as that changes the meaning entirely from overall trophies, which United have more of (the fact United have more honours is totally ignored throughout even though its a totally valid point in comparing historical success. It is then totally fabricated that United dont list the intercontinental cup on their website and list 40 major trophies. These statements are blatant nonsensical lies as the United website does show the aformentioned cup and merely lists 62 honours. The word 'major' isnt even used on the website!

Continueing on, the author uses sources from 2004 (which he doesnt quote properly and conveniently ignores the talk of total honours in the same source and only mentions the part about "major trophies") and quotes inaccurately from other sources (using the telegraph's major trophy article to reference the belief in the "major trophy" count when the article clearly shows lower division titles as major honours, making it unclear what their criteria is.

With such an illogical, unfactual and nonsensical piece of work currently submitted as the main edit for the article, I move for it's removal and a far more just and accurate portrayal of reality to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefelmer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It might come as a surprise to you, but this is not some grand conspiracy against Manchester United (if it were, it would be a pretty pisspoor one). Manchester United's own website draws a distinction between major and "other" honours. It categorises the Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup and Charity/Community Shield as "other honours". This then leaves the MUFC website as counting the 20 league titles, 11 FA Cups, 4 League Cups, 3 European Cups, 1 Cup Winners' Cup and 1 Super Cup (total = 40) as major domestic or European honours. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained before, there is no distinction between "major" and "other" honours on the Manchester United website. What there is, is two groups of honours that were easily categorisable into sets of three, leaving three left over. The honours under "Other" are just as valid as the other six, they're just of lesser value than the other six. But that's not to say they're of no value, or even that they should be categorised as "other". My point is, when you have a group of nine items to display in an aesthetically pleasing way on a web page, the best way to do that is clearly to split them into three groups of three. Just because three of them ended up in a group called "Other" does not make them "minor" honours, nor does it make the other six somehow "major" honours. – PeeJay 07:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The term "major" is never used at all anywhere on the site. It lists trophies and then "other HONOURS". It is simply listing all honours and this is corroborated by the "trophy room" section that lists all those trophies together. And it does also list the intercontinental cup......on page 2 if you bothered to have a look. Such blatantly unfactual and biased information cant be allowed to stand.

It's not on page 2 because there is no page 2. It's right there on the main page... – PeeJay 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)more to the point then

Davefelmer (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The fact that United have more honours should be acknowledged in the intro; the major honour table can be kept but to present the neutral, unbiased all sides to the argument, it must be stated that while Liverpool have more "major trophies", United have more honours. Every other wiki rivalry page has honours tables instead of major trophy tables and ours should acknowledge this even if you persist on this "major honours" count. All agreed?

Davefelmer The sources used are FIFA, UEFA, the clubs and the media in that order (ie: order of prominence). You seem to want to include the "Other Honours" to make your favourite clubs seem better, but to do that you need to find sources that are more prominent than the ones used. This has all been discussed at length already. If you can bring yourself to read the Liverpool club website, you will see that including "Other Honours" for both clubs would still not achieve your goal. Chrisuae (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)are you for real? If you can "bring yourself" to read ANY similar wikipedia club rivalry page, you will take note of the fact that they all use HONOURS as the trophy system and not "major trophies" as that is extremely subjective and not clearly defined. It is you who is insistent upon using a trophy count not consistent with ANY other page of this type to make YOUR club look better. In any case, major honours are not the same as honours overall and the fact is that United have more honours and this should be duly noted at the intro in order to give a balanced view of all perspectives.

Davefelmer We've been through all this - you need to cite sources and do so accurately, not just assert made-up "facts". Other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources WP:CIRC and if you find some that are not sourced you should add "citation needed" or edit them to include a valid source. The websites both have lists of "other honours" and that still puts your team in second place. If you include the trophies on both "other honours" lists it's 90 - 62 and no other source does this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)no it is not because liverpool include youth and reserve honours. If you add the relevant trophies United have won from those competitions, United are ahead once more. Made up facts are like stating United list 40 major honours on their website. THAT is a made up fact.

Davefelmer, we are in agreement. Listing all of the honours on the "Other honours" part of the two clubs' websites does not belong in the article. That's why, after much discussion and mediation, it was done how it is - listing only the ones the clubs list on their main honours lists and not the "Other Honours" lists that include friendlies, reserve trophies, charity matches, testimonials, youth events, lower-tier competitions, etc. Chrisuae (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)no we are not in agreement. The United website does not use the word 'major' to differentiate the honours anywhere on the website, therefore the statement of them showing 40 major honours is a complete fabrication as that is not stated anywhere. It is only Liverpool that show friendlies and youth tournaments as honours just because the club knows that if they list the normal honours, people will see United have more. This honours system is corroborated by the BBC article referenced, the Guardian article from 2004 that you used as a reference and Sky Sports' official website amongst others. To not include it in order to balance any argument is nothing but favoritism and wont be allowed to stand.

Furthermore, the rules of wikipedia clearly state that unless something is clearly defined with all views covered, it should not be published. This page is full of unfactual information and unreliable sources. The FIFA website is admittedly poorly maintained and this is shown by the inclusion of regional tournaments and foreign versions of the Charity Shield as major trophies for some clubs but not major trophies for others. The UEFA website excludes the CWC because it is not in their jurisdiction but this isnt mentioned. The telegraph article referenced for United and Liverpool's trophies contains information that doesnt corroborate what is written while the other telehraph source shows second division titles for Liverpool but not so for United when United have won several. It really is a case of very little to no reliability across the board for judging which club is more successful, however, you have blatantly swung the facts to clearly favor liverpool and have ignored every trophy count by which United are more successful. such rubbish wont be allowed to stand until a truly neutral and FACTUAL piece is submitted.

Personally, I believe any honours that are listed by at least two independent sources (i.e. not the clubs themselves, or their official stats sites, e.g. www.stretfordend.co.uk) should be listed here. You can talk about "major" and "minor" all you want, but it's all bullshit. If two independent sources list an honour, it's clearly worth mentioning here. As for all this rubbish about FIFA and UEFA considering different honours worthy/unworthy of inclusion, we don't have any outright statements about why they don't include certain honours; without those explicit statements, we have no indication of the reliability of those organisations as sources. After all, what gives FIFA and UEFA the authority to consider one honour more worthy than another? All that really matters, per WP:RS, is what any reliable, third party sources think, and FIFA and UEFA are not really third parties, as they are football governing bodies with a vested interest in particular points of view. – PeeJay 20:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Exactly, thus the content page should be removed altogether or reverted back to the original version that was here at the start of August. At the very least, something has to be done about the blatant lies on this page. Agreed?

Davefelmer, there's no conspiracy here. The sources are accurately represented. It was decided not to list the minor honours that appear on the club sites in the mediated discussion. I've added wording to reflect that the clubs list "Other Honours" in tables on their websites away from the main lists hopefully without distracting from the main information. Please stop accusing those of us who agreed to the previous wording as "liars" and read the mediated discussion so we don't have to keep repeating. Chrisuae (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

The sources are NOT accurately presented though. Liverpool do not have an "others" section on their website yet you claim they do. Furthermore, the United website cleary states that all trophies listed are "major" (http://www.manutd.com/en/Club.aspx) thus your assertion that "other" means "not major" is incorrect. This is corroborated by the club going on to say they are more successful, something they wouldnt be true had your assertion about what trophies they count as major been correct (http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2014/March/Manchester-United-Museum-free-access-in-March-2014.aspx). This must be changed to accurately reflect the reality. Davefelmer (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Neutrality Issue

The telegraph sources provided at the end of the trophy count section should be removed as they fail to provide a neutral point of view as per wikipedia guidlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The one summarizing Liverpool's trophy haul includes second division titles to bolster the count while the United equivalent does not (when the club has indeed won 2). Furthermore, the Liverpool one acknowledges that the club won the Lancashire League in their first season and includes it (a regional cup no less) in the official count while the United one, despite acknowledging the Manchester Cup triumph in the club's first season (a similar regional competition), does NOT include it in the count. Hence, the sources blatantly favor Liverpool and cannot be used as reliable evidence. It would be like finding an article that lists all of United's trophies, then finding one that lists all of Liverpool's minus their FA Cup wins and then using them as a comparison. Its not fair and goes against wikipedia guidelines. Davefelmer (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence about 65/62 should be removed, because the two articles appear to be inconsistent. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Further source concern

The sources used to back up the claim of eliminating all super cups to count trophies making it 41-39 is NOT backed by the first source in that list (last time since each club won a major trophy) as it included lower division titles thus making it's criteria unclear.

Furthermore, the guardian source is extremely dated (2004) and refers to not only the major trophy count but also the total major honour count that favours United 62-59. Thus, at the very least, it can be used to back up the United sources as well. Otherwise it should be removed due to its internal contrasting nature making it impossible to side with one claim over another. Davefelmer (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rebuilding in progress

Apologies for the piecemeal approach to the article at the moment, below are some of my plans:

• I am working to introduce a stronger background to the rivalry with less recentism. In particular I want to expand the footballing rivalry to pre-1970, and discuss some of the early successes in the 1900's that must have had some influence on the initial rivalry but are unmentioned. If anyone can provide sources for these events it'd be much appreciated, otherwise I will take a look and see what I can find myself.

Side-by-side comparison of Celtic's and Rangers' final league positions from 1891-2015

• The fan rivalry section is currently just about hooliganism and bad behaviour. It needs some balance. Yes it's a fierce rivalry filled with bad taste (football eh?) but there are positive aspects to the rivalry too.
• I am going to re-build all the tables to auto-size so that they fit into any browser and work on mobile devices.
• I'd like to see a chart of league positions similar to the one on the Old Firm article (see to the right)
• I will import some additional images from the relevant club pages to enhance the appearance of the article.
• Expand on notable matches.
• Expand on notable players.
• Expand on notable managers.
• Included in the above is to introduce some nice quotations from players and managers.

I will introduce full citations for the historical content that I have currently expanded on. I just haven't had time yet to fill out the cite templates. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am migrating over the rebuilt version of the article from my sandbox. There are still a lot of bare references to work through. Koncorde (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Honours/trophies.

Instead of saying honours and major trophies, we should use trophies and major honours. Not everyone understands what an honour is as the official meaning can be a personal distinction and the idea of a so called major piece of silverware will still be understood with the term major honour (as it is widely used in circles that count "major" silverware anyway).72.229.9.167 (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "honour" is commonplace in football parlance and is used on hundreds of other articles. We shouldn't change this one article just because you think people might get confused. – PeeJay 12:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Football Honours may indicate instances were a trophy wasn't necessarily awarded. That just happens to be the section covering one part, rather than the wider section relating to honours. Koncorde (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=33161/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=27959/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

1992-present section. Source 36 needs removing

There are two ways of listing Major trophies. 1. The season-long trophies, which for over 50 years have been called Major Trophies. The 3 Domestic, and 3 European,later morphing to 2( including the old Fairs Cup ) 2. The FIFA and UEFA method which includes prestigious international Titles (Though UEFA ignores the Intercontinental Cup) Pundits on TV often have a caption below stating how many 'Major Trophies' the ex-player has won. With a quick correlative check it is one of these two methods. Under both these methods Liverpool lead by 1. This lead, in all probability, will be lost next season anyway. Source 36 -as I have commented on below the table it has 'produced'-is chaotic and biased. It confuses the ICC with the WCC, it omits Utd's Cup Winners'Cup, and their (abandoned after the first leg) Super Cup of '91, and all 3 of Liverpool's Super Cups. With these put in, Liverpool lead by 1. Now, there may have been a BBC article which listed all trophies and therefore included Community Shields, but this is a one-off, and never implied this was a list of Major Trophies. The consensus over decades has been to never include the Comm Shield. Two reasons; 1. It was often shared. 2. In the event of a Double, another team is provided for opposition, sometimes a representative 11, as in 1961 after Spurs' historic first Modern Double. 3. Though it has some prestige it is considered a pre-season friendly. So, the only 'source' which provides a 'dispute' as to who has the most Major Trophies, has accidentally(on purpose?)left out 3 Super Cups for Liverpool. So all 3 sources have Liverpool ahead. There is NO DISPUTE.

22.02 115/06/2016 Enkayaitch (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Both the BBC and Talksport articles disagree and rank Man Utd above Liverpool. It is therefore a matter of opinion and perspective (as is your entire post where you have established a consensus about the Charity Shield with no evidence). Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote to you on your talk page, firstly, there is no official definition of a 'major' trophy and several countries that do count them tend to count them differently. if you want to continue to say there is some magic definition that has stood for 50 years, please provide sources to prove this. secondly, as sources DO prove many countries do count domestic super cups like the community shield as a "major" trophy. Futhermore, to say it is a friendly is completely unfactual as it is a registered competitive fixture as per the FA, as is any other domestic super cup. thirdly, the FIFA article you linked is completely inconsistent on a club by club basis, including community shield equivalents for french and dutch clubs for example as "major honours" but not english teams. it also includes regional trophies for african clubs such as Al-Ahly but not others. the lack of a general standard for what it deems 'major' added to the fact it is very poorly maintained with several recent club honours for many clubs not even added makes it very unreliable. UEFA's website you linked is biased towards its own competitions, not recognising the club world cup as an honour nor any club's inter cities fairs cup wins (neither compeitition is and was under UEFA jurisdiction). I think if you look closely you'll find everything is fair as is. there are multiple sources proclaiming each club as more successful than the other, and that is what is reflected.Davefelmer (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have explained to you plenty of times on your talk page, there is no point in stocking up the Liverpool side of the argument on major trophies. There are many sources for both clubs but we cannot list them all. Please stop trying to add sources as it will make the article messy. I agree though that some of the sources are out of date in light of Man Utd's FA Cup win, and will find suitable replacements. Davefelmer (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723160733/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/fans/membership/aib-association-of-international-branches to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/fans/membership/aib-association-of-international-branches
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club%3D33161/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club%3D27959/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712112221/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1892-1917/liverpool-football-club-is-formed to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1892-1917/liverpool-football-club-is-formed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041303/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/past-managers/bob-paisley to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/past-managers/bob-paisley

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Premier League and First Division Titles

Why are these seperated in the honours section? They are essentially the exact same league title, just with a newly branded name after a while. There is no need, imo, for a divide between them. Davefelmer (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Because they are different. Although both are the de facto (or even de jure) English top flights, the Premier League was set up as a separate entity. When it was founded, the 22 First Division teams all resigned from The Football League and all the other teams were moved up a division. It simply isn't factual to say they're the same competition. – PeeJay 09:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Derby name

Have seen labels like M60 derby and the 'battle of Lancashire' as alternative names

the cities themselves have a strong rivalry regardless of team (everton against man utd/city would be fierce too) but rivalry transcends sport like in economics and culturally. first railway line opened connecting the two cities and manchester ship canal undermined the port of liverpool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.115 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Where have you seen these alternative names? If you have reliable sources for them, of course they should be added to the article. – PeeJay 13:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Trophy haul comparison issue

Looking at the article history, this is obviously a contentious issue. The article as it stands now is subjective in choosing one method, total. I added both perspectives: trophies that are widely considered as major, or “leading” as The Times put it, followed by the total. I then omitted any labels (so no “major”, or “leading”) by stating, “When league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, European Cups, UEFA Cups and European Cup Winners Cups are totalled, both clubs are level on 42 trophies won.” I then sourced this with The Times, and talkSPORT (the latter i used for consistency as it’s also used for the total). Dave felmer then argued, “you dont get to pick and choose what to count and divide trophy haul”, yet talkSPORT, a source that covers both (considered major, and total), only one is used. Furthermore, Dave felmer contradicts themselves having made this edit on 3 June, “United have won more total trophies than Liverpool, while the two clubs are level in terms of so-called "major" honours.” They cover both perspectives, which I have done, but it’s not wording I’d use so I removed the subjective terminology and just listed the trophies followed by the sources.

The issue is the article is cherry picking by choosing one method, and in doing so also chooses a source that has total trophies while leaving out the same source that also has the other method. Rather than subjectivity, why not just list both perspectives, and in the process leave the reader with clarity. Nampa DC (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I briefly was able to mention to you in the edit summary section, the very term 'major' trophy is entirely subjective, picked out on an arbitrary basis by sections of the English press to better define what is 'worth' winning amongst a total trophy haul. It has no officiality to it, the term is not even used outside of Britain which makes it irrelevant, unhelpful and confusing to the majority of readers, and it is entirely arbitrary plus there is no clear definition for what even constitutes 'major' silverware. For instance, you defined it as the competitions listed above, however other sources include the FIFA Club World Cup for example. The only factual, encyclopedic way to measure who has won more trophies is to count them all without arbitrary attributions of prestige, which the BBC and SKY Sports (the most reliable and authoritative sources on British football) both do amongst others, so they are the sources utilised for the section.

I did previously agree to a small note on 'major' titles in the intro after the total trophy hauls but have since simply agreed to the perspective of and formed a consensus with others like Koncorde and PeeJay who have argued against them. It is simply a project policy not to use the idea of 'major' titles because it is unencyclopedic and not official. Davefelmer (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Separate article for the women's teams

Should there be a separate article for the women's teams? LC1829 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I started such a discussion over here to discuss what is the correct action for this and other rivalries. Koncorde (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Change: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63."

To: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Liverpool lead in major trophies with 47 to Manchester United's 45. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63." Marciano118 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Previously discussed. The issue is there is no official definition of a "major" trophy, and just because supposed bigger trophies have an increased profile it does not mean the historic significance of other trophies has been diminished per WP:RECENTISM. As the season opening match of the football league it was historically a high profile match between the two main champions of England, the cup winner and league winner. That it has lost some of its polish due to the rise of European football post European Cup becoming the Champions League and regularly 5 or more clubs now playing in both that and the UEFA League is another sign of WP:RECENTISM. It is also clear that the significance of such trophies depends on your clubs perspective or valuation of such competitions. The obvious example of this is the Football League Cup. This was until very recent memory called the "Mickey Mouse Cup" because of how little it was valued by big clubs (seen as largely detracting from the league) but it is almost always included in these lists as is the UEFA Super Cup which is little more significant than the Charity Shield. Even the Club World Cup in England was largely viewed derogatorily, and only with recent successes has it become kind of significant. Koncorde (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Article Name

This article should be renamed to the "North West derby" as it is a commonly used name for the rivalry and where the derby has a name that should be the name of the page. Mn1548 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't actually see much evidence that it is known by that name very much in the English-speaking world. I just googled the term "north west derby" – the first result was this article, the second was a Quora page asking what the rivalry between United and Liverpool is called, and none of the rest were from particularly high-profile media sources. It took until the second page to find a newspaper source talking about this specific rivalry, and that was the Independent, who titled their article "Liverpool v Manchester United: The greatest north-west derby encounters". It seems to me that the term "north-west derby" is more descriptive than nominative. – PeeJay 19:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

For my Google search the Quora page was 5th, this article 2nd, and latest results 1st. I also found quite a few pages describing the match as the North West derby, some are of questionable reliability, but other include 90min.com and The Independent:

• https://www.90min.com/amp/posts/manchester-united-vs-liverpool-the-north-west-derby-that-defines-english-football-01e93d21cqj1
• https://www.sports-nova.com/2019/10/20/the-north-west-derby-past-and-present-of-the-manchester-united-vs-liverpool-extravaganza/
• https://cherwell.org/2017/10/24/what-has-happened-to-the-north-west-derby/?amp
• https://sites.google.com/site/manchesterunitedruba/home/north-west-derby
• https://ubvia.com/liverpool-vs-manchester-united-the-north-west-derby/amp/
• https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2564327-manchester-united-vs-liverpool-picking-a-combined-north-west-derby-xi.amp.html
• http://www.soccer365.com/a-brief-history-of-the-northwest-derby-liverpool-vs-manchester-united/
• https://shekicks.net/fawsl-liverpool-women-host-north-west-derby/
• https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting-blog/man-utd-v-liverpool-north-west-derby-history
• https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/liverpool-v-manchester-united-the-greatest-north-west-derby-encounters-1807274.html?amp

Don't know if this is sufficient or more is needed to justify a name change. Mn1548 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You say that like you think it’s just a matter of numbers to decide whether the title is changed. Please look closer at the quality of your sources and you’ll see it’s not good enough to justify a change. – PeeJay 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if there isn't already a redirect but one wouldn't hurt probably. However I do overall agree with Peejay. One issue for me is that as it is a "regional" derby rather than a local derby it is likely to be very much unclear to which teams it refers (even more so than very specific London teams involved in the North London Derby). It neither refers to the country, nor the county, which also leaves it with weaker connotation that Derby's such as the Black Country Derby. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Just looking at the first link from 90min.com, it's unclear whether it means that the rivalry between United and Liverpool is the north-west derby or if it's say there are multiple north-west derbies (e.g. City v Liverpool, Burnley v Blackburn, etc.) and it's the one between United and Liverpool that defines English football. Similar concerns could be raised about the others. It's simply not that prominent a name for this rivalry; you wouldn't know these were the two teams involved just from this name. – PeeJay 10:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing of other derbies in lead

I think the listing of other derbies in the article’s leading section is excessive and unnecessary; none of the other Wikipedia articles about major football rivalries do this, and it would make more sense to insert a link to the list of football rivalries. If total removal isn’t a possibility, I believe condensing the list to just two or three examples would make sense. Also, the inclusion of the Derby d’Italia and Der Klassiker is questionable as clubs from both of these are involved in other rivalries that are arguably more fierce and prestigious (Inter in the Derby della Madonnina with AC Milan and Dortmund in the Rivierderby with Schalke). KevindeAmsterdam (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Checking back the edit history, it was added due to series of disputes over "biggest rivalry" and other claims about largest in UK etc. The original list added was:

It is considered to be one of the biggest rivalries in world and European football along with the Superclásico in South America, El Clásico in Spain, and Derby della Madonnina in Italy, and is considered the most famous fixture in British football with the Old Firm.

At some point other self promoters have added Der Klassiker and changed Madonnina to d'Italia. The original list was intended to give context for the claim of "one of the biggest rivalries". More worrying is that the Telegraph article appears to have been changed by The Telegraph since it was originally added. It was sourced in 2015, but has been rewritten in 2016. It used to be individual pages. Now is a single page. Koncorde (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s understandable, although I do think removal of Derby d’Italia and Der Klassiker from the list is justifiable given the context of how they were added. Also, we may need to find a better source than the Telegraph article if we want to keep the list at all. KevindeAmsterdam (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's excessive which is why I removed it, but it was immediately readded. The thing about it being considered (a very weaselly phrase) the most famous fixture in English football is also I would suggest an assertion which it's impossible to provide with a reliable source as it's so subjective. Haldraper (talk)

That isn't true. There are many different sources that outline the largest / biggest / most famous / most intense etc. However there was a reason that the original wording used "British" and the word "famous". The sourcing backed it up at that time.

In addition a pretty quick search for articles would bring up any number of results discussing biggest game / rivalry or variations thereof etc.[1][2][3][4] Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Those articles back up my point. They're opinion pieces, some of them from blogs. No one is disputing that this fixture is one of the biggest rivalries in English football, but to say it's also the most famous fixture is incapable of being supported by a reliable source, which is why I guess the weaselly phrase "it is considered" was used. Haldraper (talk)

Can you point at any article to refute the statement? [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] etc. etc. I can find one that says Arsenal vs Utd was temporarily the biggest between 97 and 2005, and a few (Marca being one) talking about Liverpool vs City the last few seasons. Koncorde (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde, I don't have to "refute the statement", you have to provide a reliable source for it (which as it's just personal opinion rather than fact, "most famous" being inherently subjective, is going to be impossible for anyone to do). Haldraper (talk)

I just provided 33. Refute the statement. Koncorde (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear from the sources that Man Utd v Liverpool is the biggest rivalry in England, and by extension the most famous. I don't see how this is a controversial statement. – PeeJay 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You both need to read WP:SYN, about not combining what you think different sources imply to produce a conclusion that amounts to original research. Haldraper (talk)

At this point I am really concerned that you don't know what WP:SYNTH policy is or haven't looked at the sources provided.

The Guardian states: "Even before the Suarez-Evra conflagration last October, which led to all this, the biggest fixture in English football regularly generated more heat than light."

Yahoo states: "The biggest fixture in world football has certainly lived up to its billing these past three decades."

Reuters: "The clash promises to be a cracker, even if played in a silent stadium rather than the cauldron of noise which is normally the case for the biggest fixture in English football."

The Standard: "Often hyped as the biggest fixture in English football"

MEN "The two may not monopolise top of the league as they did in previous decades, but Manchester United v Liverpool remains the biggest fixture in English football."

Belfast Telegraph quote Ryan Giggs: "probably the most famous fixture in English football"

Talksport: "Liverpool vs Manchester United is recognised as the biggest fixture in English football"

ManUtd.com quote David De Gear: "It’s the biggest game in England"

Liverpool Echo: "Once again, the biggest fixture in English football will be presented to the masses as Liverpool go head-to-head with Manchester United on Sunday afternoon." and "The biggest fixture in English football has a lot riding on it"

Washington Post (AP): "It would add further spice to Sunday’s meeting at Anfield between Liverpool and United in what is traditionally the biggest fixture in English soccer."

Sporting Life: "It is arguably the biggest fixture in the football calendar between England's two most successful clubs"

Extra.ie: "English football’s biggest game never felt more Irish than it did in the 1985-86 season."

PaddyPower: "The biggest fixture in English football takes on an added dimension this Sunday"

Betfair: "It's the biggest fixture in English football as Manchester United take on Liverpool."

FirstPost: "Alex Ferguson once described Liverpool versus Manchester United as the biggest fixture in club football."

Quest: "Arguably the biggest fixture in English football takes place this weekend"

And so on and so forth. There is occasional nuance in the statement, but there are just as many bare naked statements. Koncorde (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Some of those sources are a bit weaselly (arguably, recognised as, quoting players' and managers' personal opinions) and others aren't reliable, but that's beside the point because the text talked about it being the most famous fixture in English football, which is inherently subjective. Haldraper (talk)

"Biggest" and "most famous" are practically synonymous in this context. – PeeJay 19:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The current text, one of the biggest rivalries in world football, is fine, not sure why we need to add anything to that. Haldraper (talk)

Because it doesn't deal with where the rivalry ranks domestically. It could be one of the biggest in the world and still not be the biggest in its own country, which is why that should be specified. – PeeJay 21:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It used to be sourced to The Telegraph but they removed the pre-amble article which covered the phrasing it seems when they re-wrote or re-published in 2016 (it used to be a multi-page gallery). Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just some more wording specific sources.[34][35][36][37][38][39] Found another Telegraph article using the wording. [40] Koncorde (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the word "famous" is that it means known by a lot of people. I'm not convinced that there are more people in England who know of the Liverpool-Manchester rivalry as opposed to each team's Derbies or other Derbies like the North London and North East ones, and would want to see some hard data that that is the case rather than a bit of journalistic hyperbole in a newspaper article. Haldraper (talk)

That sounds awfully like your opinion matters more than every reliable source. That isn't how this works. Now we have given you a few days now or whatever to give this up and self revert, suggest alternative wording etc, but it is pretty clear you are going to ignore sources. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk about splitting hairs! Why are you focused on how many people know the North West derby in England? What about the rest of the world? If I ask someone to name the most famous football rivalry in England, what difference does it make where they're from? – PeeJay 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the "most famous fixture in football" is most often described as the World Cup Final, or the Barce vs Real derby, and the Old Firm is held up as the most famous in Scotland which is why we don't say it is the most famous in Britain, or Europe, or the World. Koncorde (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"That sounds awfully like your opinion matters more than every reliable source. That isn't how this works."

Not at all. What I'm saying that no one has come up with a reliable source to back up the claim that it is the most famous fixture in English football (unsurprisingly as I don't really see how you can measure that accurately), only journalists, players and managers asserting that in their opinion it is. Haldraper (talk)

How else would you assess something's fame? Fame is a measure of how well known something is, and how would we know well known something is without testimony from pundits, players and managers? – PeeJay 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Easy: public polling. YouGov and similar organisations do it all the time to find out how well known brands, TV shows etc. are by the public. I doubt it exists for this though, which is probably why you're struggling to back it up with actual evidence from a reliable source and merely quoting individuals' opinions. Haldraper (talk)

How is this any different? Polling organisations do exactly the same thing, albeit on a more formal and official basis. You can belittle the sources all you like, but you're wrong on this one Henry. – PeeJay 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Old Trafford 5-0

I have made this change to the article, effectively reducing the Old Trafford 5-0 Liverpool win to a paragraph in the 'other notable games' section in line with the other games mentioned. My reasoning behind this is that all the citations given for the paragraph were from one twitter account. Furthermore, I dont believe the citations demonstrate lasting signficance of this match to elevate its notability above the others in the 'other notable games section'. I'm sure it was covered extensively (as the others were) but it would need a reference like the one above in the Independent 'x classic Liverpool FC-Manchester United' ie. a citation that its notability is that much greater than the others in that section Vanteloop (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Sheriff of London Charity Shield

Guys, instead of going on an editing war , lets try and reach a consensus and agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay so let me start with the proceedings. After an initial google search of the trophy comparison between Manchester United & Liverpool, the first two web articles that popped up was these two https://www.goal.com/en-za/news/liverpool-man-utd-which-uk-club-have-won-most-major-trophies/eq9664p329p619x4ae81f2xff https://themoney.co/en/who-has-won-more-trophies-man-utd-or-liverpool-3/. These two articles show that the trophy comparison is 66-64 to Manchester United. The 2 trophies excluded from Liverpool's tally was the Football League Super Cup ( Screen sport super cup) & the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. With that said, we can assume that these sites could be subjective, so the best source of information is to look at the official page of Liverpool Football club. Upon inspection , I did notice that the Football League Super Cup was included under the competitive honours of Liverpool Football Club, in their trophy cabinet on their website. So that made sense to include that honour in this article.

However, I feel that the Sheriff of London Charity shield is a bit of a sketchy topic. I do understand and respect that it was the predecessor of the FA Community Shield. But Liverpool themselves do not count that honour in their trophy cabinet. It is not included in the trophy cabinet of competitive honours, neither is it mentioned under the club's history , in the club's website. I feel if Liverpool as a Football Club do not officially count that trophy as a competitive honour , it is futile for us to argue about it. If Liverpool did include this trophy on their trophy cabinet, then for sure I would have agreed for the tally to be 66-66. The most authentic source of information is the Liverpool website , so like it is not mentioned on their website, that is why I refute this trophy.

Furthermore, sometime back on this exact talk page, there was a discussion about not including this trophy. Some consensus was taken and it stood for years. I have noticed that only at the start of this year(2 months ago) that the talks of this trophy has come up again and it was included in the tally. When I checked last year, this trophy was not included. So I feel we can logically come to a consensus again, considering there was a consensus reached before to exclude this trophy :)

Link to Liverpool's official trophy cabinet : https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours

The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was the legitimate predecessor to the current FA Community Shield. The latter formed after the Amateur Football Association split from the FA. Similar thing happened with the top flight. In 1992, the clubs from the former first division decided to split-break away from the FL, thereby forming a brand new competition which became the new top flight, ie the Premier League. My argument is that, if we decide to ignore the SoL Charity Shield, using the same logic we should ignore the former First Division, as the predecessor to the current PL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.124.28 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally get what you are saying and respect that and completely agree. But my question still stands , why doesn't Liverpool FC take the same understanding like you just expressed and count this trophy. The fact that the official Liverpool website doesn't acknowledge this trophy , puts the inclusion of this trophy in doubt HMD 1315 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not excluding the SoL because it is a precursor, it is excluded because it isn't included in reliable sources when reliable sources discuss the rivalry. Even the Super Cup and the Charity Shield are omitted in some cases, as are the World Club Cups and other intermittent competitions held throughout history.

This article is not an exhaustive comparison of every single trophy each side has in their cabinet. It is a summary of the Rivalry, and the criteria by which the rivalry is predominately measured.

This doesn't mean the SoL wasn't won by Liverpool, it just means for the purposes of this article it isn't relevant per the reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Liverpool v Manchester United rivalry

This article is incorrect. Liverpool won the 1906 Sherriff of London Charity Shield, and this needs to be included, as I had done yesterday. The Trophy tally is now level at 66 apiece.

If you access the trophies won by club on Wikipedia, you will see that Wikipedia themselves now have the two clubs level onn 66 trophies apiece.

Please amend this article. BRACK66 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there , as mentioned multiple times. A simple google search of "LFC honours" will show you all the competitive honours won by Liverpool Football club.

The top 2 search results are as follows :

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours : The official Liverpool website does not acknowledge the SoL charity shield as a competitive honour. There is no mention of this trophy under the trophy cabinet, neither is this trophy mentioned in the club history. This is the most authentic source of information one can find regarding Liverpool, and this trophy is not mentioned.

https://www.thisisanfield.com/clubinfo/honours/ : A Liverpool fan page even makes no mention of the SoL charity shield.

If Liverpool don't acknowledge this trophy, unfortunately it cannot be included even if other sources mention it. Thank you --HMD 1315 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The text below is the email response from Liverpool Football Club. I could not upload the actual screenshot image of the email as Wikipedia does not allow me to upload such images. However if people want to contact me for the actual email, please privately contact me your email address and I will forward you the email and send a screenshot. I hope this puts an end to this edit war. You guys are more than welcome to contact the official email address of Liverpool(mentioned below), just as I did. You can even use my reference number , to re-query and see that the email I sent was legitimate. I did not spend my free time to go to this efforts for nothing : )

RE: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]

contactus@liverpoolfc.com

Attachments 17:03 (1 hour ago)

to me

Dear ******,

Thank you for contacting Liverpool Football Club.

This fixture was considered a friendly competition for charity and as it no longer exists it was never recognised as a major trophy or as an established competition in the way that the Community shield is.

We thank you for your support.

Kind regards

Matt

Fan Services Liverpool Football Club From: ****** ****** ****** <*******> Date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022, 19:14:17 To: <contactus@liverpoolfc.com> Subject: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]

Contact enquiry About you Name ******* Email address ******* Phone ******* Address Date of birth

Your enquiry Enquiry type Fan Services > Club Information Queue email address Subject Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry Your message Hi there. I would just like to know why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield won in 1906, is not counted under the competitive honours in this website, neither is it mentioned? Reference number(s) : 3ERFnN --HMD 1315 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Critically the "66 apiece" is only based on the interpretation of relatively pointless inclusion on a few wikipedia pages for the express purpose of trying to get one up on the rivalry. It specifically ignores the fact most such early competitions are ignored or excluded from comparisons of trophy totals as being informal, invitational, or having since become redundant or competed for only on an amateur or reserve basis. Fine examples of this is the Liverpool Senior Cup, Lancashire Senior Cup, Manchester Senior Cup, or previously senior leagues Southern Football League or Western Football League (among myriad others). However you will struggle to find any reliable sources that list those as competitive trophies, and even fewer still that will use them as metrics for comparing rivalries. As such they are excluded from almost every such list. So why is the Sheriff of London trophy so coveted?

Lets take for instance Newcastle Utd. Their wiki page includes the SoL trophy in their honours, but their official Honours Page on their website excludes it. However their official honours page includes the Texaco Cup, among a variety of other runner up nods and so on... so Newcastle rank it beneath even qualifying for the UEFA Cup.

Liverpool FC meanwhile mention 4 FA Youth Cups while making no mention of the SoL.

So why are we obsessed with its arbitrary inclusion if no reliable sources are interested, and the clubs aren't either? Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 May 2022

Change trophy counts following Liverpool’s FA cup win 2022. Most clubs now on 66. Jamirowikee (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - this apparently is a content dispute, see the section above to provide more input. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 May 2022 (2)

Please update to reflect FA Cup won by Liverpool in 21/22.

Also, how on earth can the Charity Shield be counted? Sad that United rely on this. 81.101.145.100 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done see two sections up, there is a content dispute on this that needs to be settled by discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Liverpool's tally needs updating plus Sheriff of London Charity Shield

Text says "Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65"

Liverpool now have 66 after their FA cup win yesterday.

If the Sheriff of London Charity Shield is to be included, then Liverpool's total should read 67.

Sheriff of London Charity Shield was an FA sanctioned competition that evolved into the current FA Community Shield. They're more or less one in the same, so i can't see how the current FA Community Shield can be included in the stats but not its predecessor, the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. It's historically the same trophy. Would we exclude e.g. the old First Division from the stats as the predecessor of the current Premier League? Or would we exclude e.g. the old European cup as the predecessor of the current Champions League? I don't think so. IMO, either we exclude BOTH the current FA Community Shield and the Sheriff of London Charity Shield from the stats, or we include BOTH.Koppite1 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the status of the Sheriff of London Shield? Previous discussions have shown it to be more minor than you’re claiming, and even Liverpool themselves don’t include it in their list of honours. – PeeJay 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sheriff of London Charity Shield is the predecessor of the Community Shield. [41] So they are both on the same level. From this alone, I agree with the poster that both have to be counted or not counted together. It doesn't matter whether Liverpool acknowledge this competition. Independent sources should acknowledge it not the subject itself. Ae245 (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources do not acknowledge it, and there's the issue. There were a lot of competitions in the formative years of the football league that died out or didn't progress, or were ultimately changed into another thing. Not least competitions such as the Football Alliance and Lancashire League were just as relevant as The Football League at the time who excluded all but 12 teams, but nobody makes the argument those formative years trophies should count towards their totals today even though they were the most senior competitions they could compete in. Koncorde (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

SoL for me needs removing from the other trophy count and including with non-competitive victories. The current justification of its inclusion because the FA was involved is incredibly weak OR and SYNTH.

The inconsistency with how certain reliable sources treat trophies causes needless headaches. Koncorde (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous sources explaining that it's the earlier version of the current FA Community Shield. So, BOTH need removing or including because they are historically the same trophy.-regardless of how major or minor one regards it. Koppite1 (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Being a precursor doesn't mean it confers any significance. That the SoL continued in an altered form all but debunks the idea that they are contiguous competitions, rather than the FA deciding beating up on Amateurs was boring for the viewer. There are also plenty of other such competitions included / excluded depending on the whims of the reliable sources. The sources also do not make an argument of the relevance of the SoL, and modern sources universaly exclude it from lists. Koncorde (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The relationship between the SoL Shield and the Community Shield is even more tenuous than the relationship between the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and the Europa League. – PeeJay 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Using your logic, we shouldn't include e.g. the old European Cup in the stats because the Champions League continued in an altered form. See where we are going with this? You have to be consistent with your logic. As for the jibe about amateurs, the first Charity Shield that Man U won in 1908 was against a semi- amateurs. I feel you are twisting yourself up in knots about this. Either we include the FA Community Shield in ALL it's forms, past and present--or we exclude it in ALL it's forms. And no, the link isn't tenuous.The history of the FA Community Shield Koppite1 (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That link doesn't prove what you think it proves. The FA themselves claim the Community Shield started in 1908. That was the first Charity Shield. It took inspiration from the SoL Shield, but it's not the same competition. – PeeJay 12:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"The FA Charity Shield, as it was formerly known, was first played for in 1908. It evolved from the “Sheriff of London Shield” fixture that had been played annually between a leading professional club and a leading amateur club."

It really couldn't be clearer. It's the same competition evolved over time. It's historically the same competition. Include both or exclude both. Koppite1 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If it was the same competition, why aren't the SoL Shield winners counted among the winners of the Community Shield? It's not the same competition at all. I feel like you're trying to argue that it's a similar situation to the European Cup and the Champions League, which was really just a rebranding. This was an entirely different competition, like the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup. Besides, Liverpool themselves don't even count the SoL Shield among their honours (see here). – PeeJay 12:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel you are trying to ignore the history of the FA Community Shield, how and where it started. It started as a competition between professionals and amateurs and continued as such until 1921 when it was first contested between 2 professional sides for the first time. So that means any of Man U's Community Shield won prior to1921 (and included in their stats) was won against semi-amateurs.

Also, the European Cup and Champions League wasn't just a case of rebranding. There was a major change in format. In the old European Cup form, ONLY League Champions could compete and it was a straight knock-out contest. In the Champions League, sometimes up to 4 runners up are also allowed to compete and there are various group stages. Very different from the original European Cup format, but the old European Cup stats are included because it's the predecessor to what has evolved into the current Champions League. Koppite1 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Champions League was a major rebranding, but it was still a rebranding. And you know runners-up weren't allowed into the Champions League until 1997, right? Also, the last European Cup season in 1991-92 even had a group stage, so it very much was just a rebranding from the European Cup to the Champions League.

But again, that's beside the point because the European Cup and Champions League are considered the same competition, starting in 1955. The Charity Shield started in 1908, and is not considered the same competition as the SoL Shield, in the same way that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not considered the same competition as the UEFA Cup. They may be spiritual successors, but they are not the same competition.

And again, Liverpool do not list the SoL Shield among their honours. – PeeJay 13:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Champions league was a change in format to what had gone on before, so no, it wasn't pure rebranding. There was an actual evolution into what we know to day, Doesn't matter if Lpool list it or not, it's still a legit cup won under FA sanctioned rules and it was the predecessor to the current Community shield. So BOTH need to be included, or neither Koppite1 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You're making things up now. Even friendly tournaments like the Emirates Cup are played under "FA-sanctioned rules" (whatever that means), but no one would include that competition in a team's list of honours. And no, there was no change in format from the 1991-92 European Cup to the 1992-93 UEFA Champions League; both had a first round, a second round, an eight-team group stage and a final, both allowed only national champions to compete. You have no leg to stand on here. – PeeJay 13:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Emirate Cup isn't the predecessor to any current cup so your point is moot. And there really wasn't much change in the format of the Sherrif /Community Shield 1908-1920-still professionals v semi amateurs. The point is, you can't pick and choose which predecessors to include or not to include. Koppite1 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not picking and choosing, I'm reflecting the way reliable sources consider the two competitions. The FA does not consider the two competitions to be the same, Liverpool don't list the SoL Shield among their Charity/Community Shield victories, it's not even the same trophy! – PeeJay 14:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The FA state the two evolve from one another. Therefore, it's the predecessor. Koppite1 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If they consider them to be the same competition, why do they say in the very first sentence of that page, "The FA Charity Shield [...] was first played for in 1908"? I'll give you a clue: it's because they're not the same competition. – PeeJay 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

They clearly state one evolved from the other. Both predecessor and current form should either be included or excluded, imo. We are are going round in circles. Perhaps this needs to be referred for inputs. Koppite1 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

We're going around in circles because you're refusing to accept the truth in order to push your pro-Liverpool agenda. Have a good day. – PeeJay 15:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Take a look in the mirror Koppite1 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hilarious, good joke. You clearly can't see the truth here, you're so blinded by an obsession with Liverpool being the best. No one is denying they won the SoL Shield, but to consider it among the major honours of any club is truly laughable. – PeeJay 19:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The challenge is really easy Koppite. Provide a single reliable source that includes the SoL in a definitive list of trophies won by both teams. Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, ten whole days later and still nothing from our mutual friend! – PeeJay 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Evolved from, simply means that the FA took the idea for the FA Charity shield from the London Shield. The two competitions are counted differently. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Liverpool have won 67 trophies compared to Manchester United 66. Please correct this. 82.20.42.125 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done read above, and also you would need a reliable source reference. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)

FA Cup Kcyster (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It will be added when the page is unprotected. – PeeJay 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sheriff of London Charity Shield

Should the SoL Charity Shield be added to Liverpool's total, giving them 67? (United fan!!) BRACK66 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No. See multiple prior discussions. The SoL is never mentioned by any reliable sources when discussing trophy totals. In many cases other trophies are excluded also. The 66 remains reliably sourced to those articles that have compared trophy totals and basic maths. Koncorde (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Both teams have won a lot of trophies other than the ones included in this article, but we don't include them all because the line has to be drawn somewhere. United used to include the Manchester Senior Cup and Lancashire Senior Cup in their list of honours, particularly from the period when those competitions were contested by the first team and not the reserves, but they don't any more, so we don't include those here. – PeeJay 12:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Biggest fixture in English football"

This was historically sourced to some articles that seem to have been removed during prior edits, and have become victims of linkrot. As such, following a recent prompt, I sought out additional reliable sources explicitly to cover the requirement. This wasn't hard because it's a routine matter of discussion and there are others using variations of the phrase (I used simply the word for word example). All evaluations of rivalries and otherwise are "subjective" and sourced to the articles included, so the subsequent revert by Amakuru is redundant and very odd given the users experience. If we want to change the wording to "one of the biggest fixtures" or similar qualification then we would need to present that POV as a point of discussion in reliable sources, but given the wealth of discussion about the fixture in reliable sources this is presently indisputable accurate representation. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the 7-0 game have an article of its own?

Had the scoreline been 7-0 to United, I would have suggested the same thing. Beatdowns like the one that happened yesterday happen once in a century, the last time United lost by 7 goals, my nan was 9. Results like these do not usually happen in such a high-profile match, that's why Barca 2-8 Bayern has an article, that's why Brazil 1-7 Germany has one, that's why Man United 8-2 Arsenal has one. Xxmadaraaxx (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

SoL Charity Shield

The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should be included, as it was the forerunner to today's FA Community Shield. BRACK66 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should not be included as it is not recognised as part of the history of the FA Charity/Community Shield. The Charity/Community Shield as it exists today began in 1908. No one but Liverpool FC recognises it as one of their honours. – PeeJay 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Football League Super Cup 1986

Could you explain to me why you removed the Football League Super Cup title won by Liverpool in 1986? It is an official title as it appears on the club's website, before Liverpool won this year's league cup it appeared on the honours table.

Source: [42]https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours Eros 87 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Liverpool claim the Lancashire League title on that page too, but I wouldn't list it here. Just because something is listed there doesn't mean it should be listed here. Can you find any independent sources that talk about the FL Super Cup? – PeeJay 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

An article in The Guardian and inFourFourTwo could serve as independent sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/oct/26/forgotten-story-english-super-cup

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/football-league-super-cup-liverpool-everton-englands-least-loved-competition Miria~01 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That competition was organized after the English teams were suspended by UEFA, when they were banned from participating in UEFA competitions for a while. Liverpool and Manchester United also took part in it and it is fully justified to be included in this table. It's certainly bigger than the Community Shield, then drop that competition from the table or the Intercontinental Cup. Only if you are a Manchester United fan then I understand why you didn't include him in this table, but that doesn't change the fact that Liverpool is the most trophy-winning and biggest English club. 31.223.135.153 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was organized by the EFL, as were the FA Cup, Football League Cup, Premier League and other competitions. 31.223.135.153 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is, the Community Shield has been played pretty much every year for over a century, as has the Intercontinental Cup for over half a century. This competition was played once nearly 40 years ago and barely anyone remembers it except Liverpool fans who are desperate to count one more trophy that Man Utd didn't win. – PeeJay 15:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be the opposite case that Man Utd. Fans don't want to fall behind. But it actually does not matter. It is important to note that this is an official competition and not some other unofficial friendly tournament. If you still don't want to have this in the table, then you have to record it in the table with an asterisk and a note,which tournaments are included.(like here in the source: https://www.livescore.com/en/news/five-most-successful-english-clubs-liverpool-manchester-united-arsenal-chelsea-manchester-city-2024022611164493635/)

--> Excerpt from the table what this could look like

Honours

Domestic honours
Competition	Liverpool		Manchester United
	Titles	Year	Titles	Year
Premier League	1	2019–20	13	1992–93 ...
First Division	18	1900–01, 1905–06, 1921–22 ...	7	1907–08, 1910–11, 1951–52, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1964–65, 1966–67
...
Worldwide total	1		2
Combined total
Combined total	68		67

^† Only Major trophies: First Division/Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Charity Shield/Community Shield, European Cup/Champions League, UEFA Cup/Europa League, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, European Cup Winners' Cup, UEFA Super Cup, FIFA Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup.

Miria~01 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter that it was organized only for one year, it is an official competition, which was organized by the official football organization in England, 18 games were played and if UEFA had not withdrawn the penalty, who knows how many more years it would have been played. The Shield and Intercontinental Cup have a longer tradition of being competitions involving only one match between two clubs. If by some chance that Super Cup was organized for several years, it would be classified as a major trophy, which is not the case with the Shield, even though it has a long tradition. 31.223.135.153 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree it was official, but I have the same problem with it like with Football League Centenary Trophy on Arsenal-MU rivalry, where Gunners take it into account for cumulative trophies. It's like one-off and no one even calculates appearances in it as official (at least I haven't seen any United players having it in their bio) - or maybe only teams that have won it take it seriously.

So I'm opposite, but if you insist it could be in the bottom of the table, like "Other trophies/tournaments". Red Devil (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So for me the only thing that matters is a note on the table itself, if not all official trophies are counted. This is the only way it becomes clear to others that there may be other minor titles, that are not taken into account here and have not possibly been forgotten. Other trophies/tournament is never optimal because it is never clear what is included. However with a corresponding note, as in the example, the need would also disappear. Miria~01 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

They have shown you 2 sources relating to the 1986 Super Cup was an official competition organized by the EFL. There is no difference whether this tournament was only 1 edition or 4 like the league cup in Spain, the point of the matter is that it is an official tournament and you are removing it from the trophy table.

Do you need another source? Here it is: [43]https://taleoftwohalves.uk/featured/post-heysel-1-football-league-super-cup/ Eros 87 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As this is a list of competitive trophies representing the rivalry between Liverpool & Manchester Utd, it doesn't have the same criteria of Major / Minor that other articles might (a criteria that is different depending on media source, and how close the two clubs have been at various times). As such, the use of the lead and the trophy count as a barometer of just whose club has the biggest dad from year to year is very much a tribal WP:RECENTISM. Very few people are seemingly anywhere near as animated to contribute anywhere else in the article. We are free to include Lancashire League, Reserve League One and similar competitions if we wish - but to the average reader they are unlikely to be viewed in the same light, and any attempt to provide contemporaneous sources about relative trophy counts specifically exclude them. In contrast reliable sources either categorise Major / Minor (often disagreeing which goes in where), or create their own synthesis of a list (such as dropping the Charity Shield, or World Club Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or Super Cup or similar) such as Goal.com's most recent article (67 apiece), or TheAnalyst.com (46-43), or last years Mirror (68-67) or this years SportBible (68-67) many of which aren't entirely clear as to which Trophies it is including. Problematically, there's a high chance wikipedia itself is becoming an unattributed source for some of these trophy counts creating a risk of circular sourcing. Amusingly, some websites like Livescore aren't even internally consistent, publishing a count after Liverpools recent League Cup win of 67-67 "Major", but 46-43 "Major" on their Facebook page within a few days, while a year earlier they were at 68-67. Almost like the whole thing is contrived. Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)