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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is considered a major trophy?[edit]

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[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United football rivalryLiverpool 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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

UEFA Champions league cup[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[1] and LFC Trophy Count[2] 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[1] that a distinction is being made. Also, Liverpool FC Official website [2] makes the distinction equally clear by leaving the "other honours" out of the main LFC Trophy Count table completely. According to [3] 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[4]. 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[5][6], 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Heavily Biased Edit[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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [7] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

1992-present section. Source 36 needs removing[edit]

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 [1] 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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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