Jump to content

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Current season

Could someone do a section on Rangers current season? If not I dont mind doing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.96.86 Gcoombe (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)(talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. season 2008–09 chandler ♠ 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Chairmen

List of the men who have been chairman of the board of directors at Rangers Football Club. Any help getting this list complete would be great, it is needed for the List of Rangers F.C. seasons. Johnelwaq (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

President
  • 1890-1891 James Watson
  • 1891-1896 Dugald Mackenzie
  • 1896-1898 John Robertson Gow
  • 1898-1899 James Henderson
Chairmen
  • 1899-1912 James Henderson
  • 1912-1923 John Ure Primrose
  • 1923 William Craig (June 1923-November 1923)
  • 1923-1932 Joseph Buchanan
  • 1932-1934 Duncan Graham
  • 1934-1947 James Bowie
  • 1947-1963 John F. Wilson (died in office, February 1963)
  • 1963-1973 John Lawrence
  • 1973-1975 Matt Taylor (died in office, September 1975)
  • 1975-1984 Rae Simpson (as late as 1983)
  • 1984-1986 John Paton
  • 1986-1989 David Holmes
  • 1989-2002 David Murray
  • 2002-2004 John McClelland
  • 2004-2009 David Murray
 2009-

Sectarianism

Can you please make this a separate article?

It shouldn't be on the main page of Rangers.

Jodie kennedy (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should, it alreadys has it own article, but what on the article is to do with what happens with rangers, it part of the club and has to be meantioned.--Andy Chat c 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not own the article, I also feel this section should be removed to it's own location. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeker, you are right. Noone owns this article. However, consensus has evolved over time that a section on sectarianism is appropriate here. I would support a lighter section here, still giving appropriate weight to the various sources on the subject, and a more detailed main article on 'Rangers and sectarianism'. However, I don't think that would be very well-received. --hippo43 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

hippo, you made the point that consensus evolved, why should it not continue to evolve ? I am glad we appear to moving towards our own consensus that this section needs to be addressed. I too support your idea of a lighter section and a more detailed page, where the issues can be discussed\addressed in depth. That is the very point which has drew me into this debate. By trying to condense a very emotive and thorny issue into a page which should be primarily about a football club, we are doing a disservice to both subjects.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, consensus does evolve - my reservation here is that this will no doubt attract more opinions than our own, given this page's history, so we need to tread carefully. I don't agree that 'sectarianism' and 'a football club' can be so easily separated. To me, a club of Rangers's size and history is much more notable for its place in the context of Scottish society and culture than for its results on the pitch. An article about Rangers which listed all manner of trivial records and statistics but failed to properly address the issue of sectarianism would be a very poor one. --hippo43 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but sectarianism existed in Scotland long before either club was founded, and Rangers are about more than sectarianism and not all fans are sectarian, yet there was nothing good said of the club or the supporters before I edited this section. You say Rangers are notable for it;s context in Scottish society, yet you removed a large section on how they are addressing the issue. Please remember, sectarianism was not caused by a football club, nor is it Rangers problem alone, it is society's problem too. We can not hope to explain how this cancer grew amongst us, without exposing the roots, that involves an enormous amount of debate. You say "sectarianism and a football club cannot be easily separated, then why does the Celtic and sectarianism section run to only 12 lines?

As for attracting more opinion, good. Let folks come to this page to find out about Rangers Football Club, give them the option to find out more with related articles on whatever related subjects. Singling out one club page on WiKi for the behaviour of a minority of fans must surely go against any kind of natural justice.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Sectarianism in Scotland existed before football clubs, and exists outside football clubs. Likewise, Rangers is certainly about more than sectarianism. When you say "nothing good was said of the club ..", you need to consider that the sectarianism section is about an issue that doesn't exactly make the club look good. Conversely, the sections on Rangers' history don't generally dwell on games they lost or competitions they didn't win. Moreover, this section did always include the sentence "In recent times, both Rangers and Celtic have taken measures to combat sectarianism...."
I trimmed some of the stuff you added about fighting sectarianism because I thought some of it was badly written, lifted from Rangers' own site etc. However, I agreed with the general intention of adding more info on this. Again, the article has to reflect the amount of coverage given to different aspects, per WP:UNDUE. At the moment, I'd say the section on Rangers' efforts to eradicate sectarianism is given more weight than its coverage in other sources merits.
I don't think anyone is singling out anything. Sectarianism in Scotland is widely covered in other articles, but it obviously needs to be included in this article. As for why the section about Celtic and sectarianism runs to only 12 lines, what else are you suggesting it should have in it? If you think we should include more for some reason, this isn't really the place for that discussion. --hippo43 (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Smith's Return

Suggest editing the following:

The 2008–09 season saw Rangers make a below-par start to their UEFA Champions League campaign as they drew 0–0 at home to the Lithuanian club FBK Kaunas. The away leg ended in a 2–1 defeat, having taken the lead through Kevin Thomson Rangers were beaten by a free-kick from Nerijus Radžius and a late header from Linas Pilibaitis.

reason: Undue Weight/Recentism: How important is this in light of a successful season ? How important an event was this in the clubs history ? How important are 2 foreign goal scorers to the history of the club ?

Suggested The 2008–09 season saw Rangers make a below-par start to their UEFA Champions League campaign, losing out in the knock-out stage to FC Kaunas of Lithuania.

comments ?

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree.--hippo43 (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you sir.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Most succesfuly

Ok i kne wi had seen it.

it in the gussiness book of record 2005 page 214

the wording wil have ot be fixed though

it says Most domestic league titles

The most domestic league titles won by a football club is 50 by rangers fc (uk) between 1891 and 2003

The Guinness book of world records is printed every year due to records changing. Do we have an up to date reference rather than one from six years ago? Even then, the wording in the article would have to be changed to something a little less POV. Jack forbes (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence again. The source does not support "most successful", and "52 titles, more than any other team" already appears at the start of the paragraph. --hippo43 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it depends on your defintion of successful it is sort of the most successfully but i agree with what you are saying. however i never noticed the other sentance at the begin.--Andy Chat c 22:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right - it depends on your definition of "most successful". 52 is a lot of league titles, but the source doesn't use the words "most successful" for obvious reasons. --hippo43 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the source for the sentence "They have won the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 25 making them Scotland's most successful club." doesn't describe them as "most successful" either. [1]. I would suggest replacing it with winningest if it wasn't such a dreadful Americanism. Rockpocket 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest "They have won the Scottish cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 25, more than any other Scottish club". Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
[ec] Good point. "Scotland's most successful" is another unresolvable debate waiting to happen. How about "..., both Scottish records" or "..., more than any other Scottish club"? --hippo43 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats not technically accurate either, as Celtic have won the Scottish Cup 34 times. Perhaps "They have won the Scottish cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 25, together more than any other Scottish club". Rockpocket 23:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds good and is more accurate. Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
[ec] Good point. I forgot about Celtic winning 34. "..together more than.." is more or less OR, unless we find a source saying as much. I suggest "..League Cup 25 times, more than any other Scottish club, and the Scottish Cup 33 times." --hippo43 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as good if not a little better. Jack forbes (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe word it in such a way to say most successfully in scotland in ragards to total amount of trophies won or something on them lines, but again the word successful is the main problem here it edepends on your defintion of it and what you count towards it as some would say the likes of the glasgow cup and league cup and nothing more than a pointless cup so shouldnt be counted etc. so the wording will have to refelect how the word successful is getting used.--Andy Chat c 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

and once again we see editors personal agendas being pursued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning? If you have a point to make, make it. Being cryptic doesn't help. Rockpocket 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning that their are editors here who indulge their own agendas, what is cryptic about that? As a result we have non nuetral pov'sand an article littered with recentism, inaccuracy and a section in breach of undue weight.

I suggest you dig a little deeper into editors histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not say this is true in the occassion , i argue with other editor untila comprismise is agree that is accurate and sourced and what was decided i was happy it still gave the accuracy it deserves and was true.--Andy Chat c 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The preceding argument shows it quite clearly. Rangers have won 110 of the 3 top Scottish Football honours(League, League Cup, Scottish Cup)their nearest rivals trail them 20 trophies !! But they cannot be called the most successful club in Scotland ? at the very least, they should be called the most successful club in domestic Scottish football. As for "the what is success" drivel, it;s simple, football clubs' in Scotland primary focus is to compete for major trophies, the club that wins the most major trophies is most successful. In this case, Rangers are demonstrably the most successful Scottish club. To that end it should be included. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editorialising like this is not encyclopedic - if you can show that there is consensus among reliable sources that Rangers are considered the most successful club, then it should be included. If not, then it can't. --hippo43 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the most preposterous statement I have seen from you yet hippoy, If I can get consensus that black is white, does that make it true ? The figures above are the truth, available to anyone from a myriad of sources, and they show quite clearly that Rangers have won more major domestic trophies than any other Scottish club, 20 more than the nearest rival mind you, not one or two, but 20!. You are seriously telling me that the truth of the statistics of Scottish football is not fit for encyclopaedic purposes ?

Also, it is not your article, I am free to edit as I see fit as long as I adhere to the rules, you of course can object to content, but please remember not to delete cited entries, you are not judge and jury. But to keep it civil, here's more citations for you to object to. Go on, surprise me ;-)


http://www.123football.com/clubs/scotland/rangers/index.htm

"Rangers Football Club is among the world's most successful football clubs and are the most succesful Scottish team."


http://www.free-football.tv/articles/Rangers.html

"Since sharing their first trophy Rangers have gone on to win a host of others and to this date remain the most honoured football team’s in the world, having amassed a total of 107 trophies and making their trophy room one of the most famous in the world. Along the way they have achieved many records including having achieved the most domestic League Championships which now totals 51, some of which helped the club to achieve a record 7 domestic trebles.

At the same time Rangers have also made their mark in Europe and hold the record of competing in European competitions 46 times so far, which is more than any other British club. They are also the first Scottish club to progress to the group stages of both the Champions League and the UEFA Cup."

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing with these numbers, and they really speak for themselves. I'm under no illusions that I own this article. The question here is over the words "most successful". There is no debate over "have won more domestic trophies than any Scottish club." The sources you have supplied so far for the view "most successful" are garbage. Can you find respected media organisations or publishers saying that Rangers are the most successful club? As in the "most successful club in the world" debate, there are obvious debates over the value of victories in European competitions. There is simply no point in debating it amongst ourselves, we need to base the article on good quality, independent sources, and if there is no consensus there, we can't really include it. --hippo43 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the most successful club in the world, which indeed has too many complex variables, we are talking about the most successful club in Scotland by virtue of who has won the most major domestic trophies !!

hibo, answer me these three questions: 1. Which team has had the most success in winning Scottish League championships ? 2. Which team has had the most success in winning the Scottish Cup ? 3. Which team has had the most success in winning major domestic Scottish Trophies ?

The answer is clear, so we can include it.

When I provide independent citations you describe them as garbage, when I provide citations from the clubs history, you imply they cannot be trusted. You appear to be using the rules not in the spirit that they were intended, but simply to block a view that does fit with your agenda. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The independent citations you provided were not good quality. Rangers' own material is not independent. These are not just my views, they are Wikipedia policy. If you want to include a statement like "most successful club in Scotland", it must be referenced, and should reflect the consensus among reliable sources. In this instance, that is obviously not the case, so it can't be included. There is nothing wrong with saying "more league championships than any other Scottish club" etc - these facts speak for themselves. When you try to publish your own conclusions, by saying "most successful club..." you are engaging in original research. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


"The independent citations you provided were not good quality" Can you explain this and what makes you qualified to decide ? Seems you are being a bit pedantic here and you never answered the questions above. (Or I may be thick)

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert - WP:RS is the best place to look for a full explanation, but is fairly long. In short, from the intro there: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources ... Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. "
The sites you referred to are not from respected, credible publishers or news organisations. One is a site linking to football coverage on TV online, another is a Hearts supporters club site, while Rangers' own site is obviously not independent. They do not have any statements about their editorial control, fact-checking etc. --hippo43 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

SECTION BREAK 2

Hipbhoy, You missed www.123goal.com, "Rangers Football Club is among the world's most successful football clubs and are the most succesful Scottish team."

what is your problem with them, not based in the East End ?

As for referencing the official Rangers site, I believe it is acceptable under the rules in certain circumstances, ie: there is no reasonable doubt as to it's authenticity.


Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such source

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

rangers own site is FIRST PARTY not THIRD PARTY that why it is not a realible source, they can easily be biased towards themself. as for the other link you provide i will have to look at it to say whether i say it realible, seekeraftertruth you have to understand this is not a fansite or anything about promote rangers fc or celtic fc it about the clubs and anything assicote with them good or bad. and can you please sotp bring celtic fc wikipedia into your discussion wikiupedia is not about copying other articles it abotu making article featured status and that does nto invlovole other one it does nto matter what the celtic fc one has or has not got, so for future reference can you please just give your arguement about why there something wrong and not birng that into?--Andy Chat c 19:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
123football.com is obviously a mirror of Wikipedia, so can't be used. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, but I would like another neutral opinion, as I am prepared to accept go with consensus. Can other editors please check this ?The site is here:

http://www.123football.com/clubs/scotland/rangers/index.htm

have a look and see if think it is a mirror of this article, leave your opinion here. cheers ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That site does have a suspicious amount of content overlap with Wikipedia but I wouldn't say it is a mirror site. However, considering our content is the combination of lots of editors working together it very much suggests they are infringing on our copyleft. That is not the characteristics of a reputable source. Add to that the fact there is no byline, no obvious editorial oversight, the contact detail is a Yahoo email address, and we are left to conclude it is a non-reliable, self-published website. You or I could copy material from Wikipedia, do some rewriting, and host our own site like that, so why should we treat the information as reliable? Rockpocket 06:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
'Mirror' may not have been the correct word, but it is clearly a direct copy of this article, from some time around May 2005. See this version, for example - [2]. --hippo43 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Definite copy. Case closed , 123football.com is out the picture. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source to cite itself, which is what would be happening in this case. It's exactly cases like this that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Someone inserts original research on Wikipedia , someone else copies it onto their website, a third person uses that website to cite the original insert. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it time for wikipedia to close it doors to anyoen editing and change teh way it works, the biggest problem is people see wikipedia are the gospel and do not udnerstand how it works, that unless thera soruce what is in article might not be true. and when i say close the doors i mean close it to only registered users, but new users can only edit and change stub or start articles, then as the articles get up in ratigns the editors that can edit it become less as it has to be more establish users who know the system better, i think that owudl sort a lot of hte porblems here for any article--Andy Chat c 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

History section on the main Rangers F.C. page

I prepose that the sub headings for the history section on the main page be the same as those sub headings on the History of Rangers F.C. page. The sections should clearly be more succinct than those of the main history page however. Johnelwaq (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea and probally better way tpo format it, i also suggest summarise some of the otehr sections in there intop the main article, i say maybe 8-12 lines each--Andy Chat c 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchester

Why does it say 150 thousand fans travelled to manchester for the uefa cup final when there was actually over 200 thousand rangers fans there? no matter what they say we have the greatest fans in the world so let the rest know about it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.81.2 (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No one knows teh exact amount, the offical figures says 150000 but it has been esitamted it could be about 300000 but no one really knows. wikipedia is about realible sources and the surces say 150000 so that what it will stay as, this is about braging about rangers its a article abut the club--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Andrew please remember you do not own the article, If the figure can be cited reliably it will be included. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I never said i owned the article only that the figure can not be changed unless there a realible source to say it, all sources out there say 150000 but it has been estitmated up to 300000 but wha tthe source say is the offical number is 150000 so that is what the number wills tay at unless there a naother soure to say otherwise. as i said before this is not about braggin about the club but to provid einformaiton about the club histroy and events with realible sources ot back it up--Andy Chat c 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Timmy calculator playing up again?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Famine song

There has been a little bit of a revert war going on concerning the Famine song. An editor believes it should be called "the so called famine song". If it is so called that then it is called that, isn't it? If not then I suggest the wiki article Famine song be changed to So called famine song. Jack forbes (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the editor is probally meaning that it so called in the form as its not been offical said it a secterism and secondly that it not been proved to be sung, however the soruce say otherwise so it says until a soruce says otherwise and the other article should not be moved. and any changed reverted. it seems to be there a few rangers fans that do not want the secterism that is goign on to be known to others, personal as a rangers fan i do as it will eventally help get rid of it apart form the minority--Andy Chat c 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It also seems there is a very vocal minority of editors who, in pursuing their own agenda, are preventing a balanced, accurate article. How important will this chant be in 10yrs time ? Not very. then this is recentism. How important is this chant in relation to the clubs 138 history ? Not very, then this is undue weight. I also agree that sectarianism must be rooted out, but it will not be achieved without balance. simply perpetuating myths does not help the cause. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, these incidents will be much more important in 10 years time than trivia about the 2008 season, for example, or who is Rangers' 8th top goal-scorer of all time. I don't know what myths you think the article is perpetuating. --hippo43 (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe it will, other unacceptable chants have come and gone from football grounds, this one is no different, however repugnant. (Aberdeen fans singing of the Ibrox Disaster, Man Utd rivals singing of the Munich Aircrash etc..)

It is not about removing the section, but rather trimming it. Again it can be discussed on a specific article. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

the point is it is important and will be remmeber in years to come and should be remember the bad days so people can fight agains tthis type of thing.--Andy Chat c 14:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the Famine Song was "sung at" James McCarthy of Hamilton. It is a misleading gloss on a misleading article. The article cited, which was written by Graham Spiers (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/scotland/article5019831.ece), says McCarthy's "name was added to The Famine Song". This is imprecise at best (Spiers does not specify what was sung). To then translate that into claiming the Famine Song was "sung at" McCarthy compounds the inaccuracy. What was sung was "James McCarthy, why don't you go home? (confirmed by the Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1028/1225061111678.html). There was no mention of the Famine - it was replaced by the player's name. So it is misleading to allege the Famine Song was sung at McCarthy. Incidentally the same song was directed at McCarthy by Dundee United fans - and Motherwell fans were less polite about it, telling him "You're in the wrong f*cking country". I also agree with statements elsewhere on this discussion page that the song is being given undue weight. This is an encyclopedia article about Rangers as a whole, the whole history of the club - not a messageboard about current issues over particular fans' chants.

BBO (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_9&oldid=1137114236"