Talk:Rangers F.C.

Rather bizarre reference to zoologist Adam White playing football for Rangers

Please see:

• Talk:Adam_White_(zoologist)#Rather_bizarre_reference_to_White_playing_football_for_Rangers.21

Can anyone knowledgable about the early history of Rangers help? Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can inform you that nobody named Adam White has ever played for Rangers FC I would also say that considering the fact that Rangers were founded in 1873 adam white would have been 63 when the club was founded way to old to have been a player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.135.208 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JunkersUK, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It is rumoured that Rangers' first team kits will be manufactured by Vandanel, though for an unknown length of time

JunkersUK (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The edit request doesn't state what should be changed and therefor cannot be actioned. Also, Wikipedia is not meant for rumors. All content should be based upon reliable sources Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion that Glasgow Rangers were the first British club to appear in a European final

The article states that Rangers were the first British team to appear in a European final - the 1961 European Cup Winners Cup. But this is not true - Birmingham City lost to Barcelona in the 1958-1960 Fairs Cup final - source information is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Cities_Fairs_Cup

Would it be fair to remove this assertion?

Martincolloby (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Inter Cities Fairs Cup article you point to states; "UEFA do not consider clubs' records in the Fairs Cup to be part of their European record." So why should Birmingham City's appearance count? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because while it wasn't a UEFA competition, and irrespective of what UEFA claims about clubs' UEFA records, it was European, and it was a final? What UEFA says about competitions does not determine factual accuracy - the Fairs cup was not under their auspices, so why would they be an authority on it? What do reliable sources say? --hippo43 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's true. But does that mean if I go on holiday to Spain and play a couple of games against invited European pals, calling them "finals", does that mean, irrespective of what UEFA may think, I've played in a European final? It would appear that the Inter-City Fairs Cup at the time Birmingham City played wasn't much more than this. UEFA is the authority on European football, and we need to work to what they authorise as a 'European Final'. Perhaps we could tighten up the definition on the article? But a cite on the actual fact on the article would certainly help. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't as organised as UEFA competitions became, but I think it had more in common with a "proper" competition than with your lads' holiday! :)

UEFA is the governing body for European football - it is not an authority on historical facts, especially about competitions that it did not control. It is an authority on its own competitions, but nothing else. UEFA's website repeatedly uses the wording "Matches in the Inter-Cities' Fairs Cup and the 1972 Super Cup are included only for information as these were not held under UEFA auspices." (emphasis mine) It doesn't say anything about clubs' "European records" or that the Fairs Cup was not a European competition. We absolutely don't need to stick to what they say about European competition - it's far more important that we get information from reliable, third-party sources.

So Rangers were the first British club to play in a final of a UEFA-run European competition, and the first to play in the Cup Winners Cup final - we should maybe mention one of those? --hippo43 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, when birmingham played in the final the matches were basically friendly games like the summer tournaments that are played now. Would it be correct to say that celtic won a european trophy this season because they won the 'wembley cup'(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Wow, you managed to finish one whole sentence before mentioning Celtic! ;) Whether you like it or not, within football the Fairs Cup is widely considered a European competition. Let's rely on reliable sources for this. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem intent on trying to downplay the achievement of being the first british club to reach a european final. You could perhaps put in a footnote that it was the first 'official' final involving a british club(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Not trying to downplay anything - just trying to stop fans pushing exaggerated info in an encyclopedia. Rangers were not the first British club to reach a European final. --hippo43 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is funny how the original user who brought this up has somehow disappeared, you are pushing a pov, you have a biased view against Rangers F.C. and are clearly sore about something, a footnote to state it was the first official final including a british club would have sufficed, this is not the first time you have pushed your 'authority' on Rangers F.C. articles.(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

What biased view? What POV am I pushing? The facts? It wasn't the first "official final" - Birmingham played in the official final of the Fairs Cup. Rangers were the first Scottish team in a European final, but not the first British team. You have edit-warred to restore unsourced and challenged material. You have now reverted 3 times in 30 minutes - I suggest you revert yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need just a bit more than the fact it was played in Europe to call it a "European Final". Fact is it was a by-invitation-only tournament, that happened to be conducted on the continent of Europe. Calling it a "European Final" is a stretch when the conditions for entry were so limited. No matter, our opinions and analysis of what the Fairs Cup was, or wasn't, doesn't really matter, the fact about Rangers being the first British team in a European final should be cited or at least clarified.

Either way, edit warring over it isn't going to resolve anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right - the statement needs to be sourced, so I've removed it per WP:V. Please don't restore it without a solid reference. I changed it to 'first Scottish team', which is obviously true and seemed uncontentious to me, but Monkeyman didn't like that. --hippo43 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have a footnote to clarify the issue, it was the first 'official final', the fairs cup was an unnoficial final.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Because your distinction between 'official' and 'unofficial' is pure original research. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hows this for original research http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090227/a-classic-team_2255467_1571369 3 paragraphs down from second picture and with that evidence i propose that the article should be reverted back to the way it had been with the link given as the source. User:Escape_Orbit do you concur?(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Except that is not an independent source. Or if we are accepting clubs' websites, how abouth this - "Last Monday was the 50th anniversary of when Blues became the first British club to play in a European final." --hippo43 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

here happy now if the words are changed to 'major'(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm confused by why you want to include inaccurate information. Rangers were the first British club to reach the final of a UEFA club competition. This is not in any doubt, so this is what should be included, with a footnote explaining Birmingham's appearance to prevent any confusion. Using unencyclopedic qualifiers like 'major' is the sort of writing fans would propose, not serious editors. --hippo43 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you have changed your tune now, is that not a reliable source then?(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

seventh paragraph down two thirds down the page next to 1961 third paragraph second paragraph i tried to find a great variety of sources for you to satisfy the 'Reliability'(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

What 'tune' are you talking about? I want the article to reflect the facts, not serve as an inaccurate fan site - that is all. The Citizendia and Argyll Hotel sources are not reliable, as they are copies of wikipedia. My objection to the word 'major' is not that it is not reliably sourced, but that it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - it is a peacock term which does not explain the matter to readers. The fact that something appears in a reliable source means that it can appear in wikipedia, it doesn't mean it must appear. There is all sorts of journalistic hyperbole which has no place in an encyclopedia, although it appears in otherwise reliable sources - this is an example. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'tune' i am talking about is the fact that originaly you seemed to think that this could not go in the article because it was 'unsourced'. Your own words not mine. And since i have provided numerous reliable sources You have completely changed your argument. Any 'serious editor' would have come to an agreement on this a long time ago and not simply continually reverted sourced information. I would like to see what User:Escape_Orbit has to say on this matter.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

No, my objection from the start has been that it is quite obviously untrue. (The only time I used the word "unsourced" was when I referred to your edit-warring.) Rangers were not the first British team to take part in a European final. They were, however, the second British team to reach a European final, or the first Scottish team to reach a European final, or the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition. Do you see the difference?

Although there are clearly sources which say various things about Rangers' final, there are plenty others which refer to Birmingham's as a 'European final' - FIFA here for example (aixth paragraph), or this source, used as a source for the same claim in the Birmingham City article, or the Guardian here (first paragraph). --hippo43 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Other editors will want their say on this, but by just having a quick look at some of the well known teams articles on wikipedia and UEFA competion articles on wikipedia your 'peacock' word major appears more than you probably think to represent the value of the competition in question. You forget it was yourself that started an edit war by removing something that had been on the article for some time and not even attempting to alter it to suit reliable sources or gain concensus first but battered on regardless. Other editors who have contributed here i am sure will want their say but if there is no word from any within a couple of days i am afraid we will have to come to some agreement.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to gain consensus before removing patently inaccurate info - removing it is not edit-warring. I replaced it with a factual version, but you didn't like that.

You may be right that the word 'major' is used elsewhere, but in general I disagree with it. It might be appropriate in some cases, but not in a situation where there are more detailed, factual alternatives. It is ridiculous to argue for including "major European final" in favour of any of the three factually accurate examples I gave above. Unless you want to make it sound like a more impressive feat, of course. --hippo43 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, lets end this now. Seeing as no one else either cares or cant be bothered we will make concensus ourselves, anything else can be taken to my discussion page for an explanation. the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition put that in and end this, if you had altered the text at the beginning to something like this then it would have ended all this nonsense, now could you read my reply on my discussion page, thanks.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The only nonsense here has been you arguing for including something that is clearly untrue. I don't see a reply at your talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be now(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes, thanks. Let's move on and try to work together. --hippo43 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

the first British team to reach the final of a UEFA club competition your words that i now agree with to end this?(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Looks good to me. --hippo43 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Kit

The kit manufacturer for the coming season is Umbro, so could someone add it? I read it on a sportswear company, and previews are starting to go around (http://i40.tinypic.com/2hdtut2.jpg). I'm looking for the source now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.27.151 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

probably best to leave it just now until some more 'Reliable Sources' become present(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Physio

I read somewhere recently teh physio's name was Jeremy Von Baumseex but he's not on the wiki page? (User:HermanGelmet)