Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861)

Link to current club

There is no evidence for the current Palace club being the same as the original; see research by Stuart Hibberd, Mark Metcalf, Clive Nicholson, and Martin Westby, and the 30 year gap between the last 1861 match and the setting-up of the 1905 club. The article however seems to be under vandalism from Crystal Palace fans. In Vitrio (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)InVitrio

There are 3 sources used that make claims of a link, so it is valid to mention it. Feel free to add a referenced statement that others reject the link. Spike 'em (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

All self-published sources though... In Vitrio (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The guardian link is not self-published, and there are plenty more media reports out there that report the claims. As mentioned, feel free to mention others dispute the claims. Spike 'em (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That would involve listing literally every single football book ever published between 1905 and 2020 that talks about a) the founding of the Palace or b) the original Palace. In Vitrio (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of sourced content again. Whatever you think of the claims, they do exist and the current club is making them. I do not support these claims, but it is wrong to remove them completely. Spike 'em (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the clubs are the same, but multiple media outlets have reported on the club claiming the 1861 foundation date. You may not like the content, but it is relevant to this article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And as to your edit summary claim that we don't report on claims made my Putin about Ukraine, how do you explain this then:Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely claimed Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority. Spike 'em (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to cricket club

The cricket club seems to die circa 1860. I cannot find any cricket matches from August 1860 to July 1864. The Palace XI for their last 1860 match is:

Archer, Franks, Sutherland, Curtis, Hobson, Collingbourn, Farquhar, Howick, Syers, Quainey, Frost.

There are two matches recorded in 1864 but no scorecards I can find. The Standard of 27 April 1866 implies that a new cricket club has been founded by Frank Day.

The first Palace football teams do not have any of these names. The earliest contemporary sources for football teams I can find has Palace as:

Allport, Bell, Cutbill, Cutbill, Day, Head, Jackson, Lloyd x3, Medwin, Phelps, Sharland, Turner, Unwick (v Forest School, Bell's Life 23 March 1862)

W.Allport, F.Bevington, W.Cutbill, E.Cutbill, F.Day, T.Jackson, T.Lloyd, H.Lloyd, H.Lloyd jun, W.Noakes, Sharland, J.Turner, T.Unwick, H.Wood, A.Wood (v Forest Club, Bell's Life 13 April 1862)

T.Lloyd, G.Dry, H.Cutbill, G.Cutbill, A.G.Barber, J.Turner, F.Allport, H.Head, W.Allport, D.Allport, F.Collins, G.Grose, W.Farquhar, T.Paine (v No Names, Bell's Life 19 April 1863)

The only names in common with the cricket club are Farquhar and Day - and Frank Day is surely reviving the cricket club out of the football club, not vice-versa.

So what is this source suggesting that the Palace football team had so many members in common with the cricket club? In Vitrio (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC on lack of links to current club

Should the article remove claims that the 1861 club is related to the 1905 club? In Vitrio (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes: there is literally no link between the 1861 club and the 1905 club, other than the name. Certain Crystal Palace fans are claiming that, because the Crystal Palace company rented the ground to the club, and then 30 years later started their own club, then the two clubs are identical. To give an idea of how fallacious this is, on those grounds, Liverpool and Everton are the same club - Liverpool founded by the person who rented Anfield to Everton. Having said that, none of the personnel involved in the 1861 football club were involved in the 1905 football club; those who remained in the game after the 1861 club broke up played for other teams.

The evidence that the 1905 club is not linked to the 1861 club includes the following contemporary journalism, all either confirming there is no Crystal Palace club after the 1870s, or dealing with the formation of a new club:

The Globe, 30.11.1895: The formation of a powerful amateur club, with a ground of its own at the Crystal Palace, is likely to remove a want long felt by supporters of the Association game in London...

Sheffield Telegraph, 29.03.1905: refers in a headline to a NEW CLUB at Crystal Palace - article goes on to say that "at next Friday's meeting of the Football Association, application for affiliation will be made by the Crystal Palace F.C., a new club that has arranged terms with the Crystal Palace company..."

Norwood News, 26.08.1905: Next Saturday, September 2nd, the newly-formed Crystal Palace will play its first home match on the well known final tie ground (NB the Norwood News is the local paper for the area)

Pall Mall Gazette, 02.03.1905: The scheme which Mr W.G. Grace and Mr C.B.Fry had in mind for the establishment of a professioanl football team at the Crystal Palace has, we understand, definitely been abandoned. There is, however, every likelihood of a first-class professional club being founded with headquarters at the Palace.

Birmingham Dispatch, 29.03.1905: A BIG SCHEME - Professional club for the Crystal Palace - the scheme for a first-class professional football club at the Crystal Palace has assumed a definite shape...it is intended to float a company...

Staffordshire Sentinel, 03.05.1905: Mr J. Robson, late secretary of the Middlesbrough club, who has now taken over the management of the new Crystal Palace club...

Birmingham Despatch, 31.08.1905: the new Crystal Palace football club open the season... In Vitrio (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep the article reports the recent claims as claims, not as facts, and says they are disputed. This is valid, sourced content, and to not mention them would not cover the subject with balance and depth. Spike 'em (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, why does one include claims, rather than facts?

Secondly, what IS the source? A self-published book from an author with a vested interest. From 2020. Discovering evidence which dozens of neutral football historians have not found over the previous 120 years and suddenly a Palace fan with a book to sell finds it. I thought wikipedia was not meant to be relying on self-published materials? It's not valid sourced content, surely? Indeed even the source itself has a list of Palace teams at the end which demonstrate they were not the same as the cricketers from the 1850s.

Thirdly, what does the source claim? That the 1861 club was part of the Crystal Palace company, the Crystal Palace club continued as a cricket club until 1900, it then merged with Grace's London County Cricket Club, the CP Company had set up an amateur side in 1895, and the CP Co. and Grace got together to turn the amateur side into a pro side in 1905. It's ahistorical and all disprovable. As stated above, the Pall Mall Gazette shows Grace was not involved; the 1895 side was the Corinthian club under an assumed name for local publicity (again in contemporaneous documentation); the 1861 club was mostly stockbrokers and lawyers, not directors or whatever of the CP Company, they simply hired a pitch and were thrown off it in 1875; and the cricket club was NOT the football club - otherwise I'm claiming that Sheffield Wednesday date back to 1820.

And on that cricket club point...the early footballers were NOT the cricketers. None of Archer, Franks, Sutherland, Curtis, Hobson, Collingbourn, Howick, Syers, Quainey, or Frost - ten of the eleven last-named cricketers - ever seem to have played football for Crystal Palace.

So, the Manning claim is that a football club, which rented a cricket ground at Crystal Palace, and which did not play after 1876, is the exact same entity as a brand-new company set up and described by the entire media as a brand-new undertaking nearly 30 years later, which had none of the original administrators involved, none of the original players, a completely different set of directors, and didn't even have the same colours.

There are many clubs who have taken the name of an earlier club but they do not claim those earlier clubs' histories. Liverpool today are not the Liverpool club from the early 1870s. When Small Heath became Birmingham in 1905, they did not claim to be the Birmingham side formed in 1874. It is mendacious in the extreme if Palace 1905 are claiming to be Palace 1861 and is exactly the sort of thing the Soviets did with the Georgian census to show Stalin that there were more centenarians there than anywhere else. We should be a corrective, not an encouragement. In Vitrio (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have reported that Palace claim to be the oldest club. We follow the sources, not lead them. This is all I think we should mention, giving it appropriate weight alongside the other more detailed history of the club. Spike 'em (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

standard, South London press, Guardian ,sky sports Spike 'em (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Other than the academic paper, these are all reporting one person's erroneous research... In Vitrio (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not here to analyze the validity of research, we are simply here to report. Cessaune (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes (remove). I find In Vitrio's position very well defended (albeit at rather excessive length). WP is not the place for self-published claims that are not given detailed coverage in independent sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, the links (whether they're true or not, maybe not but impossible to tell) exist and are backed by reliable sources. I'd say keep them, but avoid making any definitive statements about the link.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  What are the reliable sources backing the claim? I genuinely want to know because I can find literally nothing. In Vitrio (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Literally Crystal Palace themselves, see here @In Vitrio:. Ortizesp (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's not a source backing the claim; that's a claim repeating the source. It is the reason why wikipedia should put down the truth, as the lie is getting repeated. In Vitrio (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are many sources provided that report on the current CPFC making the claim, which is all that is being added to the article. See WP:V which says Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Multiple sources have clearly said that CPFC claim to be a continuation of CPFC 1861, so it is reasonable that we state the same. Spike 'em (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  It says "claims" in the plural. Is anyone unconnected with the current Palace making that claim? In Vitrio (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, as long as it's reliably sourced the disputed claims should be included. I'm not sure it belongs in the lead though. The claim should be mentioned briefly in the article, but the current summary in the lead is clunky and should be replaced and moved. Nemov (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Factual sources

To 'Catford Massive': Why was there a removal the factual statement that the last entry for the CPFC 1861 club in the Football Annual appears in the 1875 edition?

Also the link to the Times article which has this very relevant quote? An FA spokesman told the Times: "Amongst those historians, the broad consensus is that there is not a clear, substantial and continuous link from the Crystal Palace club founded in 1861 to that founded in 1905. Therefore, we will continue to recognise both the 1861 and 1905 foundation dates of the clubs named Crystal Palace." Norwood Wanderer (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd move the quote out of the lead, but keep it further down the article. The lead is meant to summarise the article and there is no mention of the FA statement in the main body. Spike 'em (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To Spike 'em: It's a good point about the summary, I will move this down.

To 'Catford Massive', you say "They must have got ratification otherwise they could not have changed it". This is an assumption. Do you have a source that supports this? Norwood Wanderer (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What is a historian – do Manning and Martyniuk qualify?

Wikipedia  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian) defines a historian as a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it. The entry highlights the tests put forward by Justice Charles Gray, which have been summarised by Wendie E. Schneider.

Gray/Schneider tests of what is an objective historian

The historian must:

1. treat sources with appropriate reservations
2. not dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration;
3. be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking";
4. clearly indicate any speculation;
5. not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents;
6. weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict their favored view; and
7. must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.

Martyniuk’s and Manning’s works fail many of these tests. Neither can be said to be objective historians. Their books both assert, without providing any evidence from primary sources, that the 1861 and 1905 clubs were connected via the Crystal Palace Company.  

Both fail tests 2, 3, and 5 by ignoring the masses of contemporaneous evidence from 1905 showing that the professional club was an entirely new venture (see also section above RfC on lack of links to current club). Both fail test 3 by omitting any references to the 1883 revival game, or one or both are simply guilty of not researching their subject thoroughly and discovering the match reports of this game.  

Martyniuk fails test 4 in saying that in the autumn of 1861 “the Crystal Palace Company… decided to create the Crystal Palace FC” (see page 41). He provides no source for this implausible statement given the state of evolution of football in 1861. Only seven other clubs were then in existence in England of which four were in the north (Westby page p402), remembering we are still two years before the formation of the Football Association, and ten years before the first FA Cup competition.

Steve Martynuik fails to correctly identify one of the most important, if not the most influential man, in the 1861 club’s history, the man who was on the sub-committee that was tasked with purchasing the FA Cup. He says he was Dennison Allport (pages 205, 226 - 228). Incorrect, the CPFC’s secretary was Dennison’s cousin Douglas Allport.

Martynuik talks of a decade of friendly football being played in Crystal Palace Park by 1871 (page 237). This shows his failure to analyse the club’s fixtures, thereby ignoring completely the Penge seasons and the homeless 1866/67 season, which of course negates the idea that the club was under the control of the Crystal Palace Company. He also tells us that James Turner of CPFC is in the first England team photo in 1876 (page 294). He was not. The Turner pictured was Godfrey William Turner of Slough Swifts.

The failings of Manning’s work are extensively discussed on the Spikesley website in the CPFC 1861 or 1905? paper – see https://spiksley.com/crystal-palace-fc-1861-or-1905/. His work has been rejected universally by football historians other than Guy Oliver, another CPFC supporter, who has provided a few words of support based on an obscure quote that addresses neither the myriad of holes in the lineage argument, nor explains the non-existence of any CPFC between 1876 and 1905.

Manning fails tests 3 and 5 in his interpretation of the 1905/06 handbook. A short reference to the 1861 club on a page of the handbook that lists random football facts he interprets as an acknowledgment of the connection. He ignores other clear evidence in this document that the authors of the handbook saw the 1905 club as a new venture.

As far as the 1861 CPFC Wikipedia entry is concerned saying that historians have found a lineage is misleading, as it does not specify how many individuals are involved. The new wording clarifies it has been two fans who have promoted the lineage both being CPFC supporters. It is questionable given the shortcomings of their work that they can be described as authoritative and therefore as historians. Norwood Wanderer (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think "club historian" is a fair description of them. Could you please give us the credentials of the other "football historians" you refer to above for comparison? Spike 'em (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

And in an article linked in the lead he is described as The Palace club historian and author Peter Manning Spike 'em (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved most of the text into a separate section, as it was overwhelming the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian article described Peter Manning as the club historian. This is incorrect. Ian King has been the club historian for a number of years since taking over from the Revd. Nigel Sands. CPFC in 2020 described Manning as an author, (see CPFC press release in 1861 or 1905? – no longer available on CPFC website https://spiksley.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/01.-cp-11-may-update-1.pdf ) but more recently have been describing him as an historian (see - https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/announcement/crystal-palace-football-club-release-new-1861-crest-for-badge-to-honour-footballing-history/ ). Norwood Wanderer (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The Spiksley team have surveyed football historians – see Spiksley website - Crystal Palace 1861 section. 33 historians, who had written a total of 253 books, said the two clubs are not linked. Amongst these would have been the late Martin Westby, a leading authority on Victorian football and the author of England’s Oldest Football Clubs 1815-1889.

Here is a review of the 1861 or 1905? paper: “I then turned to a document written by Mark Metcalf and Clive Nicholson, two football historians with impeccable credentials. Backed up with copious contemporaneous references, the authors comprehensively demolish Manning’s thesis and the claims of the club” HistoricalFootballKits.com Norwood Wanderer (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer every point here now because I have simply asked Spike em if he can find out how on earth the club were able to sell kits to supporters under the 1861 banner and also how they changed the crest, because the FA must have allowed that. But one question I will throw as an argument against thus, how did Thomas Farqurar(May have spelt that wrong!!) who was known to be part of the Palace Company end up as chairman of the cricket club I believe is there was no connection between the cricket club and the company? Catford Massive (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh they saw the 1905 handbook as a new venture?? Everyone can cherrypick. The handbook also refers to players that played for Crystal Palace in the past as if its "our" players. You can read the handbook anyway you want to suit the narrative you believe. The thing is the club have sold kits, scarfs, books, Mugs (thats us fans! That brought the stuff!) They sold this stuff under the guise that it was the same club. The supporters trust specifically asked the club at a meeting in October last year, did you get endorsement from the FA. They said they did. So someone should be asking the club what is going on before they make the 1861 article the view it is a seperate club. The ambiguity should be left until we get the club to clarify the whole thing! Catford Massive (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Many of the answers as to why the Football Association, the National Football Museum and football historians have concluded the 1905 and 1861 clubs are not connected can be found in the Spiksley website paper 1861 or 1905?

It should be noted that:

a) The cricket club was an independent sports club run by a committee and not by the CPC (see report of 1870 AGM in Norwood News 26 February 1870 or, 1872 AGM in Spiksley paper). Farquhar was not an office holder of the cricket club in these years.

The CPCC was the lessee of the cricket ground. These facts are apparent from the reports of the 1865 negotiations with Kent CC, which involved both CPCC and CPC – see Gravesend Reporter 11 February 1865 p5. When the club folded in 1900 it did not merge with the London CCC as Manning states. Contemporaneous reports, and the autobiography of one of the players Ian Maxwell Campbell, confirm it was an independent club.

b) The 1906/07 handbook, covering the first season 1905/06, clearly describes the club as a new venture/club. This is not cherry picking it is a statement of fact, based on an analysis of the document. The only reference to the 1861 club is on page 63, a page of fourteen random football facts. The eleventh fact refers to the 1861 club and does not refer to them as “our players.” The two sentences mention that there were three players who played for the 1861 club who also played for England in the 1870s. It is not even factually correct, as Chenery has been omitted.

The first sentence of the introductory notes on page 5 of the handbook says:

“The writer of these brief notes in this, the first handbook of the Crystal Palace Football Club, writes with hearty congratulations to the Directors and their Officers for having so triumphantly surmounted most of the difficulties which beset them in the days immediately succeeding the Club's formation.”

Page 8 refers to the "newly-formed Crystal Palace Football Club" and the "new venture." Page 13 says "rarely indeed has a club established a better record in its first season than did the Palace club..."

Every local, regional and national newspaper in 1905 described CPFC as a new club or venture. There is no scope here for cherry picking.

The Glaziers Gazette, the supporters official magazine, in October 1947 said “ to prevent misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that the Crystal Palace Club in existence before 1905, was a purely amateur concern and had no connection with the present Club.”

c) The published minutes of the August 2022 CP Supporters’ Trust meeting could be more helpful. They do not follow the conventions of recording a meeting. The minutes do not say who was in attendance, or who was in the Chair. The minutes are not signed and no comments are made at the next meeting, in October, about their accuracy, points arising, or whether they were approved. The minutes pose more questions than answers. The 1861 note does not tell us the name of the club historian “who supported the position,” nor who was spoken to at the FA and by whom. They tell us nothing about the history of the 1861 club.

If FA approval had been received why was it not mentioned in any CPFC Press Release?

There is no ambiguity or uncertainty as far as football historians are concerned. The two clubs are not connected. Norwood Wanderer (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Norwood Wanderer for this insightful information. No I am being genuinely grateful. But why have the club sold all this merchandise under the 1861 banner. It stinks. The website even quotes it as our history. Saying we were founder members and practically invented the FA Cup. A lot of us have brought into all of this. I am really surprised more people are not asking the club what the hell is going on!!! They even allegedly told the supporters trust that they had got endorsement from the FA. They are still selling these bloody shirts in the club shops!!!! I would to apologise to you personally for changing or editing anything you have put in the 1861 article. I may have to myself unless Spike em can find someone or knows someone in the trust to find out from the club to get them to tell the truth about the FA endorsement or get a quote or something to completely confirm if there is any truth in the connection. Otherwise surely supporters should be asking for their money back!!!!!!

Many thanks for your help on this. Catford Massive (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Catford Massive for your comments. My only interest is historical accuracy in this regard. Norwood Wanderer (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. Yes the club's stance on this is far worse than just saying they trace their origins etc, which the main wiki article says. They think we were founded in 1861. The main article is lukewarm, but worded to respect the claim and those who believe it. But the club actually really want to say our foundation date is 1861. Which has not (as far as we are aware been endorsed! By the FA??). But at least if anyone sees the 1861 article, you have provided the citations and its been made clear from the evidence you have provided that they are seperate. Tracing origins is I guess ok, because they are origins in a sense of the 2 clubs sharing the park and the FA respects there are 2 clubs called Crystal Palace. But the thing that upsets me and others is the fact that an "historian!" has made a lot of money out of a book and the club has subsequently sold merchandise from that. I am still amazed that the FA allowed the club to change the crest because the crest date is assumed to be the actual foundation. Can someone explain that???? That's why someone at the club must know something and they must make some formal statement regarding the crest. Catford Massive (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst i agree with your stance on this Norwood Wanderer, Catford Massive raises a hugely important point on the crest which you want to ignore. The crest is deemed a sacrosanct emblem of the club and the date is official, as all other club's crest. The amount of drive and effort you have put in to disprove the club's claim (your club's claim? i am assuming you support Palace? is quite frankly eye-watering). You make this huge moral stance about historical accuracy, so why don't you now show the same huge drive and effort to investigate Stoke and Watford whose foundation dates are disputed, but their fans are happy for it to be shown on wiki articles and have not kicked up a storm. Their crests were changed to those dates, the same as ours is now shown. Yet somehow ours is wrong! As i said i agree with most of this, i am purely acting as devils advocaat because there is still a question that has NOT been answered properly by anyone on the change of crest. As has been mentioned before, a lot of fans have spent an awful amount of money on club merchandise which in a cost of living crisis is appalling, but have done so because they believed the crest. Alan Horran (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to prove or disprove anything as that is WP:OR, but need to rely on what WP:RS say about this. The club claiming 1861 is a self-source, so does not carry as much weight. Unless someone can provide a source that the FA have explicitly okayed the change of crest and accept its meaning then it does not provide any firm evidence as to the validity of the claim. Spike 'em (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)