Talk:Celtic F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on Celtic F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Celtic F.C. has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Celtic F.C. is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 UEFA Cup run 2003 2 Too many external links 3 Stock Exchange 4 The Old Firm and sectarianism 5 How to fix the hoops?? 6 Notable players 7 Homegrown talent 8 Captain 9 "Glasgow Celtic" 10 Article ban

[edit] UEFA Cup run 2003

It is often stated that an estimated 80,000 Celtic fans were in Seville. Is there any documentary evidence of these numbers? Jimbo79 23:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian - "More than 50,000"

UEFA.com -"With up to 70,000 Celtic and 30,000 Porto fans expected in town, the headline in Tuesday's El Correo de Andalucía ran: 'The invasion has begun'."

CNN-SI - "In the bleachers at Seville's 52,000-seat Olympic Stadium, the green-and-white colors of Celtic far outnumbered the blue of Porto. Tens of thousands of fans, mostly Scots, who traveled to southern Spain without a ticket watched on giant video screens in the city center." -- Arwel 00:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty well documented that they took 80,000 to Seville.

Mine is only an eye witness account but I would say that 80,000 is perfectly plausible. The whole city was jammed with tens of thousands of people wearing hooped shirts. They were noisy but well behaved. PalX 11:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So where do you get 80,000 from "up to 70,000"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.66.194 (talk • contribs) .

See the sub-article [1][2] Rockpocket 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is 'at least' 70k and I would say a lot of papers said it was 80k so it is debatable but rounding it up it is probably 80k IMO.

[edit] Too many external links

There are way too many external links at the bottom, can somebody get rid of some of them? I don't know enough to know which ones are useful and which are just spam or advertising. --Awiseman 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if someone who knows which are worth keeping can trim out the others, that would be ideal. Otherwise I will do it. --Guinnog 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I suggest keeping the official site and the BBC, binning the others.Hippo43 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stock Exchange

Is Celtic Football Club still a publically traded company and if so what is their ticker symbol? Thanks John R G 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Celtic PLC shares are traded on the Alternative Investment Market. Their ticker symbol is CCP. Rockpocket 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I made the update which took alot of time. The Alternative Investment Market and the London stock market look almost the same but I did put Celtic under Alternative Investment Market which I had to make a new site for which I do not mind. I found some other football clubs but they all say LSE for london stock exchange and some might be for Alternative Investment Market which I do not know the difference. Can you tell me of anyother football clubs or sports teams that are publically traded and wheather they are lse or aim so that I can add the information to their sites or do you want to. Thank you. John R G 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Old Firm and sectarianism

Currently this section says "At its worst extreme this sectarianism has manifested itself in sectarian violence;..." What sectarian violence are we talking about? This reads as though Celtic's fans have been guilty of sectarian violence, which seems wrong to me, though I may be mistaken. Any suggestions for how to improve it?Hippo43 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you never seen the images of Celtic and Rangers' "fans", wearing football shirts as "colours", in Northern Ireland throwing petrol bombs at each other? This used to happen weekly in the 70s and 80s. Rockpocket 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind the 70s and 80s, a quick image search reveals this article (look at the images) [3] [4].

I think we need to clear this up in some way - maybe clarify that we mean sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, not Scotland, and perhaps, as Rockpocket says, emphasise that these "fans" are simply wearing their football shirts as "colours", and that this kind of violence is not in a football context. PhilLeotardo 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not just Northern Ireland. This link was sourced from Sectarianism_in_Glasgow. andychambers

[edit] How to fix the hoops??

Does anyone know how to sort the image of the strip in the infobox? Right now both strips have a plain green left arm [or right arm] but I am too much of a tard to fix it. Thanks. PhilLeotardo 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable players

Please note that this section is not reserved for players who are popular with Celtic fans. Mo Johnston is highly notable for his infamous u-turn that, at the time, was almost unthinkable in Scottish football. Thus i believe he should be included in this section. Would the editor(s) who keep removing him please justify their reasons for doing so? Thanks. Rockpocket

I agree - he is notable.Hippo43 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget Rafael Van Der Schidt - he was what his name says

[edit] Homegrown talent

This has surely been discussed here before. Can someone find a source for it? I'm talking about the statement that Celtic are the only team to have won the cup with home-grown talent? I'm too busy to find it myself at the moment, so I'll restore the tag for now. --Guinnog 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On closer examination, the refs there clearly verify the 30 miles from Glasgow claim. Is there a better form of words we need to clarify the "home-grown" claim? --Guinnog 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Born in the country the club is based in or something? I still haven't seen a source saying that they were the first. Archibald99 21:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a source that uses "homegrown" to confirm that statement. We could always put it in quotes if it is considered unencylopaedic. Rockpocket 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Archibald99, would you like every word sourced? The sources states (my bold):

...not only were they the first British side to win the trophy, but the achievement of both reaching the final and winning the European Cup with a team comprised entirely of home-grown, local players (they were all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park), has never been repeated in European football.

If a first hasn't been repeated, it is the only time it has occurred.Rockpocket 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the BBC quote, I would suggest that "home-grown" is misleading and an unsuitable term to use. As I understand it, to state a player is "home-grown" is to imply that the player has been trained and developed through the club's youth system. Nationality is not a factor. (For example, due to EU anti-discrimination law, the recommendations UEFA are currently considering for "home-grown" quotas would class Irish Diarmuid O'Carroll as home-grown but not Glasgow-born Mark Wilson.) 2 of the Lisbon Lions (William Wallace and Ronnie Simpson) started with other senior clubs and were already well established footballers before their respective moves to Parkhead - Wallace was a Scotland international and Simpson was 35! Obviously the Lions were all Scottish and born within the 30-mile radius - would there be any problem with merely saying a team composed entirely of local players, or Archibald99's born in the country the club is based in? Caledonian Place 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a team made up of all local players

[edit] Captain

On the current team list someone should put whos captain and vice

Done. Captkrob 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Glasgow Celtic"

I cleaned this up a bit - extended it to English and foreign commentators, although some in Scotland make the same mistake. If anyone can find a source for David Hannah or Tommy Burns using "Glasgow Celtic" please add it to the article!PhilLeotardo 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. There are other "Celtic" named clubs out there, most notably the Boston Celtics. Furthermore, "The Celtic Football Club" doesn't really provide much more information and I haven't met anyone that is offended by the club being referred to as "Glasgow Celtic". Most Scottish clubs in the SPL are named after their town, so referring to the team as "Glasgow Celtic" is just a convient way to refer to where they play (especially considering the word Celtic makes people think of Ireland). I definitely don't believe that even a short discussion of who "incorrectly" and unoffensively referring to the team as Glasgow Celtic merits to be in the second paragraph of the article. Captkrob 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It ain't called Glasgow Celtic. No original research please. --Guinnog 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what the original research is a reference to in my post. I'm just saying I disagree with going deeply into detail on who refers to it incorrectly shouldn't be done at the top of the article. I merely objected to PhilLeotardo's edit. Simply stating that people refer to it as "Glasgow Celtic" despite the fact that is not the team's real name is fine. Captkrob 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Captkrob, which change do you disagree with? I don't think my edit to the article aadded any extra guff, just cleared up what was already there. As Guinnog says, the club is not named Glasgow Celtic, just as Everton are not Liverpool Everton. It's not a question of anyone being offended, just clearing up a common misconception - surely one of the uses of an encyclopedia? By all means move it to the end of the opening section. Perhaps we should clarify that other clubs have been named after the original Celtic - Belfast/Blantyre/Bloemfontein Celtic etc PhilLeotardo 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm easily convinced on this one. I guess I really just thought that what was already there before the edit was sufficient to make the point that the official name was not Glasgow Celtic. Going into who actually uses the term correctly and including sources seems like a distraction from the opening section, and seems to suggest that there is something really wrong with calling the club by the non-official name. If you want to add any more detail on it being called incorrectly, it should likely go in another section of the article. Captkrob 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article ban

I'm pretty fed up with reverting the bullsh*te of those who write insults and other trash in the article.Shouldn't we consider about a ban for non registered writers?I've already talked to a Admin (whose name I unfortunately forgot).In his opinion the IP writers had some good additions that were worthier than the destroyings.What´s the editors' opinions?-Lemmy- 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't mind doing reverts. Its a daily reminder of just how energetic some people are about Scottish soccer, Celtic in particular. But I also don't think it is unreasonable to ban non-registered users (many of whom, in my opinion, seem to have Wikipedia accounts but just aren't always logged in). The article is pretty well developed and maintained by the registered users, so I don't think we would lose anything by giving it some kind of semi-protected status. Captkrob 17:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)