Talk:Rangers F.C.

Sectarianism

The sectarian tit for tat and obvious bias needs to go. At the very most a brief paragraph linking to further wiki pages on the subject, biased agendas are crawling all over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiconicman (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the most wildly biased article I've read on Wikipedia regarding the section on sectarianism.

If citation is not given for "Even before Celtic's formation Rangers had ties to the Orange Order" then it should be treated as the biased misinformation it is contrary to everything I've learned elsewhere.

Is this a reliable source? http://books.google.com/books?id=CJxIbXQfE1IC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=rangers+1888+orange+order&source=bl&ots=cGNM2LmrO7&sig=FsoOj4wvwHAYAGjF8Y_3O8YbvFM&hl=en&ei=FKteTtvyBZC5hAfH_djZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=rangers%201888%20orange%20order&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.hogan.2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The link above is to a book with its own agenda, riddled with inaacuracies, hearsay evidence, poor definition of sectarian terms, biased contributors, and untruths. This section is nothing more than a mouthpiece for bigots and opposing fans to bad mouth opponents. It stands out as an example of exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia as a credible source of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.106.207 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Both this and the Celtic FC page should be locked from anonymous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.132.177 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Manchester 2008

I cannot conceive how the only event in the entire history of the club that is deemed worthy of a mention in the lede paragraph is the number of people who made a fairly short journey. What an incredible insult to the victims of the Ibrox disaster, and what a blatant case of "I remember it, so it was important". Thoroughly disproportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not the only event mentioned in the lead, is it? However, you may have a point. This would probably be better mentioned further down the article where the match is discussed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree you may have a point, but like EO said it is not the only event mentioned in the lead. Perhaps you could apply your eagle eyes to This articles intro.Monkeymanman (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it probably is undue to include how many Rangers fans travelled to Manchester for the 2008 Uefa Cup final and how many had tickets in the lead. But if it's going to be included, it seems bizarre to exclude any mention of what the day was most notable for, the riot. Haldraper (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

yet another example of a bigot using wikipedia as a mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.106.207 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Glasgow Rangers"

I always thought the phrase "Glasgow Rangers" was somewhat of a misnomer, or at least a form of disambiguation from other clubs called Rangers, but here's an example of its use in a fairly official capacity. Is this just a really common colloquialism? --BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers cull

it seem gregg wlude was not made redunent he choose to leave and give the money he was owed to the club in the hope the club will survive once a link is available ill post here but ill update the page as i find out who is gone, as my ntoe said there is now suggestion all first team players will be gone at the very least the high earners--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

confirmation gregg wlyde has left http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17221172--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)