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

message: I'd always been vaguely aware of this goalkeeper who made a single appearance for United in the 1980s, but I didn't know that he also had a spell at Liverpool (August 1995 - June 1996). He never played a first-team game for them, but was a full squad member (number 27) and I assume third choice (after James and Warner). Can/should he be added to the list, or does not having played a first-team match for Liverpool disqualify him? There are so few players who have signed for both clubs that I think he warrants inclusion in some form - perhaps a mention in the text if not the table - but I wanted to see if anyone disagrees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiresman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be worth a mention for having been owned by both clubs as it's still relatively niche. And he was second choice for Liverpool after injury to No.2 Michael Stensgaard. Warner was (at least on paper) no.3 that season. Koncorde (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Pears 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is considered a major trophy? 

message: "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)
replies: text: The Sheriff of London Charity Shield is as much a trophy as the Texaco Cup or the Watney Cup. No one is disputing its existence or the fact that Liverpool won it, it's just that it's a very minor part of football history, and people who include it in lists of honours are usually just trying to bloat Liverpool's trophy haul. It's not the same competition as the FA Charity Shield, it just has a similar name. – PeeJay 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed opinion  

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: When did Peter Beardsley play for Manchester United??????????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.134.89 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FA source confirms this (see under "about"). Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beardsley 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Hooliganism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: What table?, what do you mean?   – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA Champions league cup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organising the article 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Heavily Biased Edit  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issue  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further source concern  

message: 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.
thumb|right|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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebuilding in progress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Honours/trophies.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=33161/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=27959/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1992-present section. Source 36 needs removing 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723160733/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/fans/membership/aib-association-of-international-branches to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/fans/membership/aib-association-of-international-branches
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club%3D33161/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club%3D27959/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712112221/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1892-1917/liverpool-football-club-is-formed to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1892-1917/liverpool-football-club-is-formed
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041303/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/past-managers/bob-paisley to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/past-managers/bob-paisley
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are these seperated in the honours section? They are essentially the exact same league title, just with a newly branded name after a while. There is no need, imo, for a divide between them. Davefelmer (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are different. Although both are the de facto (or even de jure) English top flights, the Premier League was set up as a separate entity. When it was founded, the 22 First Division teams all resigned from The Football League and all the other teams were moved up a division. It simply isn't factual to say they're the same competition. – PeeJay 09:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premier League and First Division Titles 

message: Have seen labels like M60 derby and the 'battle of Lancashire' as alternative names 
the cities themselves have a strong rivalry regardless of team (everton against man utd/city would be fierce too) but rivalry transcends sport like in economics and culturally. first railway line opened connecting the two cities and manchester ship canal undermined the port of liverpool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.115 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you seen these alternative names? If you have reliable sources for them, of course they should be added to the article. – PeeJay 13:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derby name

message: Looking at the article history, this is obviously a contentious issue. The article as it stands now is subjective in choosing one method, total. I added both perspectives: trophies that are widely considered as major, or “leading” as The Times put it, followed by the total. I then omitted any labels (so no “major”, or “leading”) by stating, “When league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, European Cups, UEFA Cups and European Cup Winners Cups are totalled, both clubs are level on 42 trophies won.” I then sourced this with The Times, and talkSPORT (the latter i used for consistency as it’s  also used for the total). Dave felmer then argued, “you dont get to pick and choose what to count and divide trophy haul”, yet talkSPORT, a source that covers both (considered major, and total), only one is used. Furthermore, Dave felmer contradicts themselves having made this edit on 3 June, “United have won more total trophies than Liverpool, while the two clubs are level in terms of so-called "major" honours.” They cover both perspectives, which I have done, but it’s not wording I’d use so I removed the subjective terminology and just listed the trophies followed by the sources. 
The issue is the article is cherry picking by choosing one method, and in doing so also chooses a source that has total trophies while leaving out the same source that also has the other method. Rather than subjectivity, why not just list both perspectives, and in the process leave the reader with clarity. Nampa DC (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy haul comparison issue 

message: Should there be a separate article for the women's teams? LC1829 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I started such a discussion over here to discuss what is the correct action for this and other rivalries. Koncorde (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for the women's teams 

message: Change: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63."
To: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Liverpool lead in major trophies with 47 to Manchester United's 45. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63." Marciano118 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously discussed. The issue is there is no official definition of a "major" trophy, and just because supposed bigger trophies have an increased profile it does not mean the historic significance of other trophies has been diminished per WP:RECENTISM. As the season opening match of the football league it was historically a high profile match between the two main champions of England, the cup winner and league winner. That it has lost some of its polish due to the rise of European football post European Cup becoming the Champions League and regularly 5 or more clubs now playing in both that and the UEFA League is another sign of WP:RECENTISM. It is also clear that the significance of such trophies depends on your clubs perspective or valuation of such competitions. The obvious example of this is the Football League Cup. This was until very recent memory called the "Mickey Mouse Cup" because of how little it was valued by big clubs (seen as largely detracting from the league) but it is almost always included in these lists as is the UEFA Super Cup which is little more significant than the Charity Shield. Even the Club World Cup in England was largely viewed derogatorily, and only with recent successes has it become kind of significant. Koncorde (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020 

message: This article should be renamed to the "North West derby" as it is a commonly used name for the rivalry and where the derby has a name that should be the name of the page. Mn1548 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually see much evidence that it is known by that name very much in the English-speaking world. I just googled the term "north west derby" – the first result was this article, the second was a Quora page asking what the rivalry between United and Liverpool is called, and none of the rest were from particularly high-profile media sources. It took until the second page to find a newspaper source talking about this specific rivalry, and that was the Independent, who titled their article "Liverpool v Manchester United: The greatest north-west derby encounters". It seems to me that the term "north-west derby" is more descriptive than nominative. – PeeJay 19:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For my Google search the Quora page was 5th, this article 2nd, and latest results 1st. I also found quite a few pages describing the match as the North West derby, some are of questionable reliability, but other include 90min.com and The Independent:
*https://www.90min.com/amp/posts/manchester-united-vs-liverpool-the-north-west-derby-that-defines-english-football-01e93d21cqj1
*https://www.sports-nova.com/2019/10/20/the-north-west-derby-past-and-present-of-the-manchester-united-vs-liverpool-extravaganza/
*https://cherwell.org/2017/10/24/what-has-happened-to-the-north-west-derby/?amp
*https://sites.google.com/site/manchesterunitedruba/home/north-west-derby
*https://ubvia.com/liverpool-vs-manchester-united-the-north-west-derby/amp/
*https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2564327-manchester-united-vs-liverpool-picking-a-combined-north-west-derby-xi.amp.html
*http://www.soccer365.com/a-brief-history-of-the-northwest-derby-liverpool-vs-manchester-united/
*https://shekicks.net/fawsl-liverpool-women-host-north-west-derby/
*https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting-blog/man-utd-v-liverpool-north-west-derby-history
*https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/liverpool-v-manchester-united-the-greatest-north-west-derby-encounters-1807274.html?amp
Don't know if this is sufficient or more is needed to justify a name change. Mn1548 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

text: You say that like you think it’s just a matter of numbers to decide whether the title is changed. Please look closer at the quality of your sources and you’ll see it’s not good enough to justify a change. – PeeJay 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if there isn't already a redirect but one wouldn't hurt probably. However I do overall agree with Peejay. One issue for me is that as it is a "regional" derby rather than a local derby it is likely to be very much unclear to which teams it refers (even more so than very specific London teams involved in the North London Derby). It neither refers to the country, nor the county, which also leaves it with weaker connotation that Derby's such as the Black Country Derby. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Just looking at the first link from 90min.com, it's unclear whether it means that the rivalry between United and Liverpool is the north-west derby or if it's say there are multiple north-west derbies (e.g. City v Liverpool, Burnley v Blackburn, etc.) and it's the one between United and Liverpool that defines English football. Similar concerns could be raised about the others. It's simply not that prominent a name for this rivalry; you wouldn't know these were the two teams involved just from this name. – PeeJay 10:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: I have made this change to the article, effectively reducing the Old Trafford 5-0 Liverpool win to a paragraph in the 'other notable games' section in line with the other games mentioned. My reasoning behind this is that all the citations given for the paragraph were from one twitter account. Furthermore, I dont believe the citations demonstrate lasting signficance of this match to elevate its notability above the others in the 'other notable games section'. I'm sure it was covered extensively (as the others were) but it would need a reference like the one above in the Independent 'x classic Liverpool FC-Manchester United' ie. a citation that its notability is that much greater than the others in that section Vanteloop (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Trafford 5-0  

message: Change trophy counts following Liverpool’s FA cup win 2022.  Most clubs now on 66. Jamirowikee (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: - this apparently is a content dispute, see the section above to provide more input. — xaosflux Talk 19:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 14 May 2022 

message: Please update to reflect FA Cup won by Liverpool in 21/22.
Also, how on earth can the Charity Shield be counted? Sad that United rely on this. 81.101.145.100 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: see two sections up, there is a content dispute on this that needs to be settled by discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 14 May 2022 (2) 

message: Liverpool have won 67 trophies compared to Manchester United 66. Please correct this. 82.20.42.125 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: read above, and also you would need a reliable source reference. — xaosflux Talk 12:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 15 May 2022 

message: FA Cup Kcyster (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be added when the page is unprotected. – PeeJay 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2) 

message: Should the SoL Charity Shield be added to Liverpool's total, giving them 67? (United fan!!) BRACK66 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See multiple prior discussions. The SoL is never mentioned by any reliable sources when discussing trophy totals. In many cases other trophies are excluded also. The 66 remains reliably sourced to those articles that have compared trophy totals and basic maths. Koncorde (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Both teams have won a lot of trophies other than the ones included in this article, but we don't include them all because the line has to be drawn somewhere. United used to include the Manchester Senior Cup and Lancashire Senior Cup in their list of honours, particularly from the period when those competitions were contested by the first team and not the reserves, but they don't any more, so we don't include those here. – PeeJay 12:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheriff of London Charity Shield 

message: This was historically sourced to some articles that seem to have been removed during prior edits, and have become victims of  linkrot. As such, following a recent prompt, I sought out additional reliable sources explicitly to cover the requirement. This wasn't hard because it's a routine matter of discussion and there are others using variations of the phrase (I used simply the word for word example). All evaluations of rivalries and otherwise are "subjective" and sourced to the articles included, so the subsequent revert by Amakuru is redundant and very odd given the users experience. If we want to change the wording to "one of the biggest fixtures" or similar qualification then we would need to present that POV as a point of discussion in reliable sources, but given the wealth of discussion about the fixture in reliable sources this is presently indisputable accurate representation. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biggest fixture in English football" 

message: Had the scoreline been 7-0 to United, I would have suggested the same thing. Beatdowns like the one that happened yesterday happen once in a century, the last time United lost by 7 goals, my nan was 9.  Results like these do not usually happen in such a high-profile match, that's why Barca 2-8 Bayern has an article, that's why Brazil 1-7 Germany has one, that's why Man United 8-2 Arsenal has one.  Xxmadaraaxx (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the 7-0 game have an article of its own? 

message: The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should be included, as it was the forerunner to today's FA Community Shield. BRACK66 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should not be included as it is not recognised as part of the history of the FA Charity/Community Shield. The Charity/Community Shield as it exists today began in 1908. No one but Liverpool FC recognises it as one of their honours. – PeeJay 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  SoL Charity Shield  

message: change that remark, its now 68-68 .. get in United . 2A00:23C5:F1A4:F100:B8C7:67CC:6F5A:A2E9 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: already done Red Devil (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  united just won FA cup