Talk:Celtic F.C./Archive 1

message: Master of Ninja, please refrain from your factually incorrect subjective prejudice, when speaking of Celtic and Rangers. For instance, Celtic also sing bigoted songs, as "IRA" chants and "F the Q and Davie Cooper" chants, as well as others have been well documented even this season. Also, MON is from Northern Ireland whether you wish him to be or not. This is a VERY CLEAR abuse of Wikipedia. Please stop this immediately. (Your spelling and grammar is also terrible.)
:Reply: I completely disagree with your analysis - I merely reverted a change which in itself was biased, with a revision comment I hoped would allow the author of the changes to try again, without taking out the major portion of the history that he did. I do not know, and do not particularly care, what the actual situation 'bigot-wise' between Rangers and Celtic is at the moment: I believe that is for other contributors to decided as long as they do not disrupt the article.  The situation about MON being Northern Irish was part of the previous revision, and it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater unfortuantely as I do not have the time or expertise to vet the correct factual changes, along with the subjective changes.  Maybe once this protection has been lifted you can change it? - Master Of Ninja 20:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From an outsider's perspective, vandalizing this page is utter lunacy. I'm a San Francisco Giants fan, but you don't see me (or my fellow Giants fans, for that matter) vandalizing the Los Angeles Dodgers' page. I'm just doing a little research on soccer, and when I see that people would do this, I find it hilarious. A word to the person(s) vandalizing this page: Get a life. User:R'son-W 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to R'son-W, the long and complicated history of the Old Firm is incomparable to the rivalry that exists between San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers, or any other American sports teams, for that matter, which by comparison are totally free from the sectarianism and ethnic conflicts that tarnish Scottish football.--Nicholas 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As the author of the previous anon comment I had assumed that the page was protected as any editorial changes I had made were removed on subsequent viewings. A number of points are incorrect and offensive, In particular the failure of the Irish Scots to integrate. Would someone please point out to me how this non-integration is apparent in day-day Scottish life? 195.92.168.177 20:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry -- I think I may have been overly hasty in reverting other changes and catching yours at the same time (if you were 128.240.229.65).  I have just reinstated your changes. --stochata 20:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse 

message: I notice that "Rangers would not sign Catholics" is continually changed to "Catholics would not sign for Rangers".  While undoubtedly Catholics may have been averse to signing for Rangers if they could, the fact remains that Rangers barred them from doing so -- for example, see this report . --stochata 11:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way it's a fact that's irrelevant, this page being a NPOV piece about Celtic.
How does stochata's point violate NPOV?  It seems to be a fact-based point.  City 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rangers revisionism keeps returning 

message: Hi - I think we need everyone involved to actually have a discussion of what should be on the article page.  The amount of reversions is quite unbelievable. I personally feel that the edit on 27 March, at 13:18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celtic_F.C.&oldid=11577398) is quite acceptable. Any ideas on this? - Master Of Ninja 18:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Master Of Ninja.  I am actually in favour of the style of changes made by 217.42.x.x (I am assuming this is a session based IP address, and the person is the same).  217.42.x.x is gradually toning down and removing some of the more strongly vocalised discussion of sectarianism.  However, I do think he/she goes too far in attempts to remove all references.  At times it is important to note the differences with Rangers (particularly, the long standing acceptance of protestant players).  This time I have actually tried a compromise rather than a blind revert.  Of course, it would be preferrable if 217.42.x.x were prepared to discuss rather than slowly change the article, and to avoid misleading edit summaries. --stochata 13:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war March 2005 

message: RE: Celtic Quick News. This section of the article looks suspiciously like an advert. Is it absolutely necessary? Maybe add the link to external links at the bottom of the article?--Nicholas 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has objected I'm gonna delete that link.--Nicholas 11:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic & the Media 

message: Surely someone could bring a digital camera to the stadium??? SeanMack 16:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Images

message: It has been proven that no song that Celtic supporters sing whilst watching their team at Celtic Park contain any sectarian lyrics whatsoever
I take it you've never attended a Celtic match. If you have, then you'd know that Sectarian rhetoric can be heard eminating from the stands at Celtic games. These include "North men, south men, comrades all, soon there'll be no protestants at all" and "We're off to Dublin in the Sun, F*ck the Huns!" Hun being a derogitory, disparaging and Sectarian term for a Protestant. Plus, let's not forget that Celtic supporters can be often heard chanting "Dirty Orange B*stards" at, not just Rangers fans, but fans of many other Scottish teams as well. Bazton
Those aren't the words to those songs - "North men, south men, comrades all, Dublin, Belfast, Corke or Donnegal" and "We're all off to Dublin in the Green, in the green, where the helmets glisten in the sun". You clearly don't know anything of what you're spewing. And Rangers fans are Dirty Orange Bastards - an instrumental version of "Hello Hello" plays before every homegame at Ibrox. Isn't that just a song about how brilliant it is slaughtering catholics?
Sadly there are a few (thankfully it is only a few) that engage in this sort of chanting but to be fair it has largely been eradicated in recent times. I attended last week's OF game and didn't hear any sectarian songs or chants with religious content. 'Go home ya Huns' was belted out at one stage but that was the extent of the directly aimed derogatory stuff and it's debatable I suppose if the word 'Hun' is in itself sectarian. Offensive yes but sectarian I am not sure. Sectarian or republican songs are in fact banned today by Celtic and this seems to be having the desired effect. Early days but the signs are promising. In fairness to Rangers, they have also improved somewhat in moving away from this stuff too. The sooner this ridiculous side to the OF disappears the better. It has no place in today's world. Palx 08:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic are not sectarian? 

message: By no means of imagination could Eyal Berkovich be considered a great celt. He was rubbish at Celtic. Also, why is John Hughes listed here? Okay the boy had fire in his belly, but he was pretty mince!--Nicholas 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i was thinking about the wrong John Hughes (silly me).--Nicholas 08:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Celts 

message: The flowery section about fans travelling to Seville (and so on) was removed because it meandered and discussed unsubstantiated anecdotes that don't really belong in a general article about Celtic Football Club - otherwise, we'd be here for the rest of our lives recounting all sorts of memorable Celtic matches, which probably belong on some other website. This item is supposed to inform people about the club, its history, the players, achievements, records and so on - not individual accounts or personal experiences about the club. If you want to start a "Celtic in Seville" page, go ahead - but I don't think overly long items about what was ultimately a failed enterprise on Celtic's part belongs here any more than stories about fans travelling to the San Siro for the 1970 European Cup Final do.
User:Copydeskcat 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seville

message: I have made several edits today - all, I feel, with good reason. Copydeskcat, if you disagree with anything you find 'frivolous' please feel free to take your own advice and discuss removing others' work before blindly undoing several edits at once. Hippo43 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: Celtic park is a football stadium, it is widely regarded as one of thew most famous in Europe - please refute thse facts before re-editing the page.
Copydeskcat 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Park 

message: Celtic's victory agains St. Mirren in 1985 to snatch the league from Hearts was a historic win, not a "memorable" one. Historic means it takes its place in Scottish football history - memorable would mean it's not easily forgotten.
Copydeskcat 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic victories 

message: Why would "away goals" be capitalised? I can't find any reference on the Uefa site to suggest capitalisation. Emphasis would be more appropriate. I've linked to the WikiPedia page for away goals - which doesn't captialise the reference either. 
Copydeskcat 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Away Goals or away goals 

message: It's a fact that Jansen was the first foreign head coach appointed to a professional team in Scotland, therefore it forms part of Celtic's history and their part in the history of the game in Scotland.
Copydeskcat 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wim Jansen / Jock Brown 

message: The Caley Thistle match was due to take place on a Saturday, but was postponed around 1pm on the day of the game because of guttering breaking loose at the stadium due to a bad rain storm (Chick young "exclusively" broke the story on BBC Radio Scotland that afternoon).
Copydeskcat 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caley Thistle game and roof guttering 

message: Let's discuss the facts here: Farry was found guilty of misconduct for witholding Jorge Cadete's registration papers. He could give no valid reason why he had done so, therefore his actions could only have been deliberate (or absent-minded). Additionally, almost every newspaper and observer of the game - neutrals included - recognise that Celtic's below-par performances were the result of a lack of a quality striker, which changed when Cadete was eligible to play. 
Why was this section of the article edited? 
Copydeskcat 19:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Farry 

message: Removed redundant 'allegedly' from Fergus McCann/8 minutes sentence and cleaned up.
Also changed SPL reference in Burns era to Scottish Premier Division - SPL didn't exist until 1998 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Premier_League  
GrammarPolice 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More minor edits 

message: Could someone here please take a look at the article Patsy Gallacher. The article was created a week or so ago by someone on a vandalism spree, and seemed intended to make fun of this Celtic player. I would have had the article deleted, but it seemed to be about a real and notable person, which makes the article viable. I removed the smears, but what facts remain are doubtful, given their source. It would be helpful if someone who knows something about this player could take a look at this article and at least make sure that what is there is accurate. Even better would be to improve and expand the article. If the article is not viable, submit it for deletion or let me know and I'll do it.--Srleffler 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the article with verifiable info. Camillustalk 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patsy Gallacher

message: I have nominated this article for peer review so express your views using the comments at the top of the page. --Chazz88 15:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: My feeling is that you should make a new section for this, if you think it important to have. Not in the current squad table! Guinnog 21:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. There are a few players that have signed but are not currently part of the squad and so don't belong in the squad section. It would stop the constant addition and removal of them from the squad section. --GraemeL (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to insert Kenny Miller and Gary Caldwell in the section titled Transfers 2005/2006, alongisde the details of the transfer: "Free - Joins Celtic at the end of season (2005/2006)". However certain wikipedians have continually removed this information, for some reason. This 'Transfers' section is the most appropriate section for these players; once inserted please do not remove until the end of the current footballing season.--Nicholas 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How can they be "Future signings" if the signings have already been concluded? These transfers have already been done and dusted. Maybe you would like to rename that section? Personally, I think that including them in the section titled "Transfers 2005/06" is better, with the caveat stating further details such as the joining date.--Nicholas 13:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are future signings in that they have been signed now for the future. Will they be playing for Celtic this season? No. I've made a further small edit in the section title anyway. Guinnog 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future signings

message: Currently listed here as a Celtic fan. I'm not going to change this (I'm a Bluenose, and I have no intention of starting an edit war, or of being thought of as vandalising this page)  this but you might want to look at Talk:Rangers F.C. for a quote from Connery in which he discusses both Rangers and Celtic. You may also want to look at the Champions League section of uefa.com for the profile of Brahim Hemdani "He was persuaded to join Rangers by James Bond actor Sean Connery, who took Hemdani to visit Scotland at the prompting of club owner David Murray." Make up your own mind as to which club (if either) Connery supports. Neil Leslie 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sean connery 

message: ...from the famous Celtic Supporters? Need prove that he is?
Picture of Wayne Rooney at the Celtic V Rangers Match on Sunday, 12 February 2006 at Ibrox —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs) 
:That's just a tiny picture of some guy who appears to look like Wayne Rooney (it may be him) surrounded by some people wearing Celtic scarves. It proves absolutely nothing. Information should be verifiable. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Wayne Rooney deleted? 

message: There are some pretty dubious looking entries here:
*Martin Scorsese ??????
*Snoop Dogg ?????????
*Arctic Monkeys ??
*Kasabian ??
*Ziggy Marley ????
*Alan Shearer ???
*Michael Owen ???
*Peter Beardlsey ???
*Ryan Giggs ???
*Wayne Rooney ???
... to name a few. Without any verifiable evidence I think these, at a minimum, need to be removed. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with deleting the entire section. But let's get some more input here first. I would be intrigued to see a photo of Snoop Dogg wearing the hoops though :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just did a quick sample of articles for teams in the SPL and the Premiership. The only other article that I found with a "famous fans" section was Rangers, and some of the entries there look pretty dubious as well. This section probably should go, as Nicholas says it's pretty much unverifiable. It's also not supported by precedent, and the WikiProject Football MOS does not include this as a recommended section, so let's give it a day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Celtic fans

message: I've checked at WP:GOOD and found that the  template (the green dot at the top-right corner of the article) was not applied in accordance with the proper procedure, and therefore have removed it for the time being.  The proper procedure would be to first apply  to this talk page and add it to WP:GA/N  --Pkchan 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status 

message: Looking at this section, it looks a slightly random selection of choices, particularly in the 2000's - Bobo Balde a Famous Celt? Zurawski & Nakamura? Is there any agreed definition on 'Famous'?  Until they came to Celtic most Celtic fans would have never heard of these players.  Each of these players will have been well known in their own countries, but that does not seem enough to constitute fame IMO. In questioning their inclusion I am not making any comment on their value to the club, but merely highlighting the difficulty in including this section at all.  There are names there that are unquestionly famous (as the recent coverage of Jimmy Johnstone's death demonstrated, for example), but as there is no way of quantifying fame in any way the section generally appears to be a bit subjective. Gourlg9a 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Celts - who decides? 

message: A full tally of the history of the Celtic Football Club, its sectarian underpinnings and its strident allegiances to the/a unified Republic of Ireland despite political events which make such allegiances tantamount to disloyalty or fifth columnism, make it impossible to dismiss the claims of sectarianism which loyal Scottish and British people have levelled against the club.
However, ultimately, the fact that such clubs continue to exist is the fault of loyal British and Scottish teams for continuing to compete against fifth columnist football clubs (Glasgow Celtic, Edinburgh Hibernian, and Dundee Harp aka Dundee Hibernian), and the fault of loyal British and Scottish people for patronizing Parkhead and the other fifth columnist "stadia". Had such teams and stadia been ostracized as they would have been anywhere else in Europe, they would no longer be a problem.
Regrettably, the lack of leadership (particularly from the Labour Party) mitigated against such a principled stand, as of course, did fears of being labelled "anti-Catholic", for far too many years.
Brandubh Blathmac 08:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating insight. However, would you - in the guise of your numerous proxy IPs and sockpuppets - please stop inserting non relevent POV comments on Scottish-Irish relations in this article about a football team. Thank Rockpocket 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again. This continual vandalism is irritating, and makes us less likely to accept your (very specialised) POV Guinnog 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis re sectarianism by Celtic F.C.

message: I have removed all of the crap from this page which doesn't relate to Celtic FC by reverting to an earlier edit.--TheMadTim 12:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same person changing IPs and using multiple registered accounts. One of his accounts has been blocked indefinitely and I blocked the latest IP for evading a 3RR block. There has been an arbcom case started and it has been mentioned on WP:AN/I. I've had a look at several of his IPs and as far as I can tell, they are not open proxies, he's just changing IPs within those allocated by his ISP. --GraemeL (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: I am going to remove this section from the article, as I feel that it has no place.  While it is certainly the case that some sections of the Celtic support have in the past felt that there was an anti-Celtic agenda within the SFA and media generally (and some may continue to feel there is), unless the argument is based on more than a single incident 10 years ago, the claim (or suggestion) that any such agenda exists just seems ridiculous to any casual reader. Gourlg9a 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I find it embarrassing. Guinnog 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded (or thirded). Its subjective and, quite frankly, borne out of traditional sectarian paranoia in the West of Scotland. Rockpocket 05:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to disagree. The Head of the SFA was sacked for Gross Misconduct because he wilfully delayed the registration of a Celtic player. I can't think why this wouldn't be mentioned. --TheMadTim 01:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is that section smacked of paranoia. The head of the SFA incident tells you one thing: that he was guilty of gross misconduct. It doesn't tell you anything about supposed institutional anti-Celtic agenda then or now. Mentioning it in that context simply gives it significance it doesn't merit. Rockpocket (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, can't it simply say that some Celtic fans point towards the incident of Jim Farry being sacked for Gross Misconduct, beacuse he wilfully delayed the registration of Jorge Cadete, as evidence of there being an anti-Celtic agenda? --TheMadTim 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it could, but is that any more justifiable than adding that some celtic fans point to the decisions of some referees / articles in some newspapers / comments made by policitician are evidence of an anti-celtic agenda? As there are plenty of fans the believe than nonsense too. Football fans are notorious conspiracy theorists and Old Firm fans are no different. Is the paranoia of the Celtic fans any more notable than any other team's fans? Rockpocket (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that point.  Every football team (especially big football teams) and their fans love to think they are victims of a grand overarching conspiracy and Celtic are certainly not exceptional or unusual in that respect. Al17 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a question of being 'justifiable', it's simply a question of stating the facts. --TheMadTim 10:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What Hippo43 is suggesting is somewhat different that the proposal that we use the Farry incident to illustrate that there is (or may be) an anti-celtic agenda. If there is independant, verifiable information out there that Celtic fans are notable in their paranoia or perceived systemic victimisation then i have no problems with that being mentioned (as it certainly is related to the wider social context the club operates within). Citing the Farry incident as an example of that is perhaps appropriate, but i think there is a subtle, though discrete, difference between the contexts proposed. Rockpocket (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.--TheMadTim 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While i'm not adverse to a more definite assertion of Celtic's Catholic associations here, i would have thought a detailed examination "that the club and its fans are viewed by many as Catholic" would be more suited to the Old Firm article. The religious connotations of being either a Celtic or Rangers fan is firmly entrenched in the eyes of the other. Without Celtic, Rangers Protestant associations would be inconsequential and vice versa. What assumptions a rival fan someone may make about me, as a fan, from their own sectarian perspective isn't particularly encyclopaedic. If those assumptions are widespread enough to warrant a mention, then surely Old Firm is the place for it. Rockpocket (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. And i agree that it is odd that there is not a clear statement that Celtic is strongly associated with Catholicism. Regarding the symbiotic nature of Celtic and Rangers' associations with religion - I think their iconic status is very much feverently maintained by the existance of the other. Other clubs were born from religious and social associations (Spurs, Coventry, Hibs and Dundee for example), but none have maintained those to the extent of the Old Firm, because they do not have a polar opposite rival to reinforce it. Its a bit like an arms race - the religious association is notable in relative, not absolute, terms. I have no objections to briefly mentioning the points you make in this article, i just think the details of the religious associations are so wrapped up in both Celtic and Rangers that anything of substance may as well be the Old Firm article, leaving the club articles more focused on football. Rockpocket (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Whilst it is important that we mention sectarianism and Celtic's historic association with Ireland and Catholicism, it is also crucial that we remain impartial in our choice of words. We should avoid reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating the illusion that football fans from either side of the Old Firm have irreconcilable differences. We should use the type of language that is commonly used by reputable sources, such as the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Parliament, the Protestant and Catholic churches in Scotland, the popular press, and the Old Firm themselves. If it is absolutely necessary to mention religion, in the sectarianism section, then maybe we could replace the first sentence in that section with a sentence that reads “Celtic have had a historic association with the peoples of Ireland and the Catholic church. As a consequence, the club and it’s supporters have been embroiled in issues surrounding sectarianism. At its worst extreme this sectarianism has manifested itself in sectarian violence; the reproduction of cultural prejudices; and a perceived anti-Celtic bias (see History of Celtic F.C.), which many perceive to be a part of an anti-Catholic bias in Scotland (see Scots-Irish)”. I dunno if this makes things any better? --Nicholas 22:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very nice, Nicholas. That gets thumbs up from me. Rockpocket (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'An anti-Celtic agenda?' section adds nothing to this article. 

message: What in the world has Charles Haughey's college education got to do with Celtic Football Club? Whoever changed the article is just a time-waster. Dogfood 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Section 

message: Can someone add a line explaining where this name came from (Gnevin 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are few conflicting explanations, and no-one really knows for sure. The most widely accepted theory is that the team was originally referred to as the "bold boys" back in the late 1800s and, at some point, the "h" was used to phonetically indicate the soft Irish pronunciation of the word. Rockpocket (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Bhoys 

message: I was thinking that it may be worth detailing Celtic's past European exploits, much like Barcelona's are in FC Barcelona in Europe, in a seperate article so that this article can be kept to the point, concise (obviously covering the very important points, ie. 1967) and so that those who want to find out about Celtic's history in more depth have the opportunity to do so without having go offsite.
   
I would be happy to research the article myself if need be and if anyone is willing to pre-empt me (assuming of course others would be happy about this) then I believe quite a bit of information is available on the Celtic website.
Would like to know your thoughts. :)
:Sounds good to me. If you start the ball rolling, I'd be happy to help.--Nicholas 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic in Europe 

message: I notice the famous players list is expanding rapidly. We could end up with a list of every player that has ever played for the first team. That "fame" is essentially arbitrary notwithstanding, might it not be prudent to establish some sort of criteria for inclusion here. For example, i would suggest the current players need not be included (seeing as they already listed) and surely players without a current article of their own could also be excluded. Thoughts? Rockpocket (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current players need not be included, but red links serve as a reminder of work needing done. --Nicholas 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then where do we draw the line per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information? As one could (and might) add a red link to whichever ex-Celtic player they wish with the argument: they are notable and so can also be considered famous. I would propose - in an equally arbitrary manner - that if they are genuinely famous (as opposed to simply being notable) then they should already have an article. Rockpocket (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Players 

message: Why is there dispute over the flag representing Neil Lennon? This isn't a political issue, it simply represents the country of his birth and/or his nationality. This clearly is Northern Ireland (based on the fact that he played for their national team). Please stop reverting the flag to the Irish flag. Thankyou Rockpocket (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player Nationalities 

message: I have hidden this player from the recent transfers and squad tables, as i can find no Ghits, reports in the press or at Celtic's website confirming the existance of this player. Thus i'm assuming it might be a hoax unless anyone can provide a verifiable source. If there are no takers, i will delete the info presently. Rockpocket 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Ward 

message: Currently, the articles on Celtic and Rangers both claim they won the League Cup in 1970, 1975, 1983 and 1998. What's the score? In the Scottish League Cup article, the years listed for the finals don't match the years listed by club below. I know some seasons' finals were played in the first half of the season, but surely there should be a consistent scheme. I can't think of anything better than listing seasons in full everywhere - ie 1998/99 etc. Hippo43 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Cup Years / Seasons 

message: Worth mentioning? I don't see many other friendlies listed. --Awiseman 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think it's worth mentioning.--Nicholas 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it was simply a preseason friendly, hardly notable in the grand scheme of things. Rockpocket 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you mean by that, but the fact that various people have now reverted your additions suggests that your opinion is not shared. Please consider whether a single, meaningless pre-season friendly result is notable enough for this encylopaedia article. Thank you. Rockpocket 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC United match?