# Talk:Rangers F.C. signing policy

Regarding "In 1976 following the abandonment of a friendly at Aston Villa which drew criticism from the Orange Order", what was the nature of the criticism by the Orange Order, did they criticise the fixture itself for some reason or its abandonment, what was the reason for the abandonment, did the matter have a sectarian nature and was it related to signing policy, did Waddell oppose their criticism? Depending on the answer to some of these questions, others may be irrelevant but I'd be interested to understand the matter more clearly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I have clarified it from the source. It was basically because the Orange Order were disgusted by the Rangers fans attacking a pub previously bombed by Irish republicans and singing songs in their name while doing it.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rangers F.C. signing policy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  15:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"Prior to the First World War, Rangers did not have any policy regarding religion dictating if they could be signed or not. Prior to the war" - repetition of "prior to the"
The lead should be expanded more to summarise the article
"While he denied the existence of the signing policy, he stated that "no religious barriers will be put up at this club" - replace with "said" to avoid repetition
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I don't see any reason to put this on hold, so I'll pass it now. The lead should be expanded somewhat though JAGUAR  19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Hippo43: (!), that this is a kind of false balance. Celtic having only Catholic directors was at least as much to do with the two families who controlled Celtic (Kellys and Whites) refusing outside investment from any source (see how long they resisted Fergus McCann) as any sectarian motivation. Likewise, saying that the lack of a Catholic manager before Stein infers a sectarian policy is a kind of non-sequitur because Celtic had only had three managers (Maley, McStay and McGrory) in ~75 years of history. The only (major) Scottish club who had an explicit "Catholics only" policy was Hibs, who were essentially a sporting arm of a Catholic Young Men's Society during the 1880s. Although that arguably did not have the negative connotations it would have later. [1] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't added that sentence but I had seen it around so I left it in there. With this new information which I wasn't aware of before I think it is fine not to have the mention of Celtic's directors and managers being Catholic. However I think it is reasonable to keep in the claim from Gemmell that Celtic players at the time wanted an all-Catholic team despite the club having no policy on it because it shows that there was sectarianism on both sides.  What do you think @Jmorrison230582:?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, there were allegations of that kind of bias (e.g. McNeill said it about their initial reluctance to recruit Stein), but it's difficult (if not impossible) to substantiate anything stronger than that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
C of E, I think you've got this wrong on a number of points -
1 The article isn't about Celtic. Trying to establish a false equivalence is not appropriate.
2 There wasn't "sectarianism on both sides". Rangers banned Catholics for almost a century, while some Celtic players gave Gemmell (who was obviously not banned from Celtic) a hard time in the dressing room.
3 The Scotsman picked out and sensationalised a story from Gemmell's book. If you read Gemmell's book, this is what he actually said about the issue:
Celtic were not a catholic club
the club made donations to charities of other religions
they had a lot of protestant players over several decades
before Gemmell arrived at the club, they had Protestant captains - Evans, Peacock, Stein
Bob Kelly (who ran the club) was a devout Catholic but not a bigot
no Celtic director ever said anything against another religion
"a handful"/"a small minority" of older players were real bigots - everyone else was alright
they resented Gemmell when he first arrived, taking their mate Jim Kennedy's place in the team
once the team was winning regularly, the comments stopped
Gemmell received much worse abuse from Rangers fans because of his religion.  --hippo43 (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
celtic were formed to feed poor hungry irish CATHOLICS this started the sectarian divide. The fact of matter is that it wasn't just Catholics that came over hungry 154.47.111.122 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)