Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Sectarianism Section Continued

Proposal(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Old Firm and sectarianism [proposed by Monkeymanman]

The club's most distinct rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888). Rangers came to be identified with the Scottish Protestant community.

Until Graeme Souness signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston, in 1989, Rangers were said by him to have had an "unwritten policy"[42] of not signing any player who was Catholic;[43] although Johnston was by no means the first Catholic to sign for the club,[44] he was the first openly Catholic, high-profile player to sign for them since World War I.[45]

Over the years there has been documented incidents involving sectarianism and the club ranging from fines and warnings by Uefa to fans singing controversial songs at matches. The clubs fans are also disparagingly nicknamed Huns, which is regarded as a sectarian insult.

In recent times, both Rangers and Celtic have worked alongside the Scottish Parliament, church groups, pressure groups such as Nil by Mouth, schools and community organisations to educate and combat sectarianism. In August 2003 Rangers launched its 'Pride Over Prejudice' campaign later renamed 'Follow With Pride' to promote social inclusion and education.

In 2006 William Gallard, UEFA's Director Of Communications, commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination.[69] Further, in September 2007, UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.

Monkey, I reformatted this so it's readable - hope you don't mind.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with any of your proposal. On sectarianism, you have proposed one sentence on not signing Catholics, and one bland, generic sentence on "incidents". Then one sentence on a nickname used of Rangers fans, one sentence on both clubs taking action, one on Rangers' programmes, and two on Rangers being praised by UEFA. So just two sentences which cover the sectarian history and behaviour of the club and its fans, and five showing the club in a more positive light.

This is an unacceptable whitewash. To an uninformed reader, it is worthless and misleading. While I am entirely open to having fresh eyes involved in this discussion, it is also very important that well-informed editors - intelligent, fair-minded people who understand this situation in detail and are capable of critical thought - are able to shape the content of the article. It is clear that you are a fan of the club, and this proposal reflects that - it is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. The consensus version, before it was shortened by Seeker, which was shaped by many editors and much discussion, is much better.

I do broadly agree that this section could be reduced, though not nearly as much as you want. I also think it needs to be moved to a more prominent place in the article, in particular it should be before the sections of trivia on colours, badges and kit sponsors. If you want to remove large amounts of this, similar to how the History section is covered, it would need a much more accurate, less mealie-mouthed summary. I would support it being moved to a main article on Rangers and sectarianism, not the existing article on Sectarianism in Glasgow. There is simply too much material on the sectarian aspects of Rangers (with more needed on their signing policy) for it to be shoved into a generic article of equivocation. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This might be a more appropriate account, but I doubt you'd agree -

The club's main rivalry is with Celtic F.C, the other major club in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant Unionist community. During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland. This was around the same time that both Old Firm clubs were founded (Rangers in 1873 and Celtic in 1888).

For decades, until Graeme Souness controversially signed former Celtic player Mo Johnston in 1989, Rangers had a policy of not signing Catholic players.[sources and additional detail to be added] Although Johnston was by no means the first Catholic to sign for the club,[44] he was the first openly Catholic, high-profile player to join since World War I.[45] Unlike almost every other British club, Rangers have not had any players from the Republic of Ireland since the 1930s.[ref to be added]

Rangers and their fans have a long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish behaviour. (See main article Rangers FC and sectarianism) In recent years, for example, the club's vice-chairman was forced to resign after being filmed singing sectarian songs, the club was widely criticised for its decision to sell an orange strip, profiting from the sectarian element of its support, the club has been punished by UEFA for sectarian chanting, and their fans caused a diplomatic row by singing the 'Famine Song', condemned as racist.

The journalist Ian Archer wrote "as a Scottish Football club they are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This country would be a better place if Rangers did not exist".[ref] In 2008, Graham Spiers described Rangers as "A club with a poison at its core".[ref]

The club and its fans are disparagingly nicknamed Huns, which is regarded by some as a sectarian insult.

In recent times, Rangers have worked alongside the Scottish Parliament and other organisations to educate and to reduce sectarianism. In 2002 the club banned the popular fanzine Follow Follow from its stadium on account of its sectarian content.[ref] In August 2003 Rangers launched its 'Pride Over Prejudice' campaign, later renamed 'Follow With Pride', to promote social inclusion and education. In 2006 UEFA's Director Of Communications commended the SFA and Scottish clubs, including Rangers, for their actions in fighting discrimination,[69] and in September 2007 UEFA praised Rangers for the measures the club had taken against sectarianism.

--hippo43 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Over the whole article about the football club many aspects have been shortened and reduced as per Wikipedia policy. Other neutral editors also stated that this section could be reduced by up to 50 percent.

it is also very important that well-informed editors - intelligent, fair-minded people who understand this situation in detail and are capable of critical thought, It is quite clear that you have a point to prove against rangers football club and a chip on your shoulder about them, every edit you have made about this section including this proposal reflect that and I do not think that you fall into the category that you have stated.

If you had bothered to read the transferred material onto the Sectarianism in Glasgow article you would have noticed that it was in great detail and any neutral would have been able to gain more information there if required.

This is a football clubs article, there is more information on it about sectarianism than the clubs greatest achievements for example the cup winners cup, 9 in a row. And now you want to add more? Is that fair weighting? Is that correct to policy? Or is it just more propaganda?

It is high time this article and in particular this section had arbitration look over it.(Monkeymanman (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

You seem to have misunderstood - this version is a considerable reduction of what is currently in the article, even allowing for the changes you have refused to revert, despite consensus.

The problem I have with moving stuff to the Sectarianism in Glasgow article (and obviously I did read the material you moved) seems lost on you. If all the detail about Rangers and sectarianism was added, it wouldn't be an appropriate name for the article any more. (As I've said before, there is considerable material that needs to be added about Rangers' signing policy, an aspect far more notable than any of the individual incidents detailed.) This material in this article isn't about Sectarianism in Glasgow, it's about Sectarianism in Rangers and their fans. Although Sectarianism in Glasgow needs its own article, as it's a notable subject, it would be ridiculous if that article were swamped by reams of material on Rangers specifically. We should avoid euphemism and equivocation in article titles - we don't create an article called 'Political violence in Central Europe' then fill it with lists of Nazi atrocities, for example, unless we want to fudge the truth. We should either keep the detail on Rangers' sectarian elements here, or leave an accurate summary here and put the detail in its own article - I don't really mind which.

As I said, I didn't think you'd like that version, but if you think there are inaccurate parts in the passage I suggested, can you point them out? --hippo43 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we will not agree. I have been asked to wait and be patient from a third party.

Your proposal for having an individual article about this would only heighten the idea of bias within Wikipedia for the fact that you have denied any other sectarian activity within any other Scottish football team. The inclusion made to Sectarianism in Glasgow did not just show sectarian activities with Rangers. Sectarianism with Rangers football club has roots in its rivalry with Celtic football club and vice versa. Sectarianism in Glasgow is rooted in the rivalry between the two clubs. Perhaps transfer of material to the old firm article would be more appropriate.

Your comparison of this and nazi atrocities as an idea of fudging the truth …..well.

I will look to raise this with mediation in the next few days.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

To be clear, I entirely support the inclusion of verifiable unstances of sectarianism in other clubs' articles, where that material is consistent with policy. If there are instances that you have reliable sources for, and which meet NPOV etc, I suggest you add them to the relevant articles, and if they are on my watch-list I will respond there.

Given that there are 6 examples of sectarianism listed in the text since 1999 alone, with the diplomatic fuss over the Famine Song still inappropriately left out, it is clear that there is a huge amount of material that could be included in a new main article, and this article could still include appropriate information on rivalry and other sectarianism to give context.

My reference to Nazi atrocities was meant to be a sarcastic case of reductio ad Hitlerum, and wasn't meant to suggest an actual comparison. The point of logic, however, still stands.

You wrote "Sectarianism in Glasgow is rooted in the rivalry between the two clubs." Says who? Is this the consensus view of serious reliable sources, or just a thoughtless cliche? It is not "bias" to publish the truth, supported by good quality references. --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I did not bring this initial debate / argument up it gradually unfolded and developed into this. I was told to go for it and could have possibly gone about things slightly differently.

This argument has got heated again at times which does not help things at all.

This argument will just drag on and on and I have other articles which I would like to focus a bit more on other than this and I am sure that you probably do as well.

You did say the article was relatively stable before and I would agree to a point.

We will find it very difficult to agree and perhaps it is best left to the long standing version for now.

I am willing to offer a truce to this. If I revert the article back to before the famine song info was removed (apart from recent edits) We could agree to leave the article as it is, to end this. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll change the article now. --hippo43 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, for the reasons stated earlier. Recentism and Undue Weight and that a separate article exists, it has all been covered. Hippo43, back to the Rangers page, why was the section about the pitch invasion not included on the Celtic page ? still pushing your agenda ? I would suggest a conflict of interests exists on your part and i will not tolerate any further derogatory comments about myself in relation to this article, I will pass to admin for comment on your disruptive behaviour.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I don't see any disruption from hippo. You need a much stronger consensus to remove a section which has been in place for four years. --John (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that you taking the role of admin on this matter may lead to a conflict of interests and with the close ties you have with other editors of the same view, may lead to a non NPOV which will slant the article and s would like to ask for a another Admin to intervene. For these reasons I intend to flag the article as POV-chk. The content of the section has not been place for 4years and Recentism and Undue Weight still apply regardless.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is disputed:

In 1980, fans fought an on-pitch battle in the aftermath of Celtic's 1–0 victory in the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden. This remains the worst invasion onto a football pitch ever reported

The article cited makes no such claim, there is no allegation of a sectarian nature to the pitch invasion, soccer hooliganism was rife at the time, not only in Scotland, there is no mention of the fact the invasion was sparked by Celtic fans spilling onto the running track after the majority of Rangers supporters had left. I would also ask why John as an Admin, allowed this to be restored, when it was removed. I saw no mention of it on any other ARTICLES regarding sectarianism.

Also the following is very sloppy and perhaps, if tidied, should be on the Sectarianism and Glasgow article;

The Old Firm rivalry has fueled many assaults and many deaths on Old Firm Derby days; an activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, admissions to hospital emergency rooms have increased ninefold over normal levels

Which group, who and when was the statement made, where are the citations, the reference to Franklin Foer, gives a page number, no tile, no ISBN, no publisher ? This is an acceptable citation to some ? It is sloppy and detracts from the article and should be removed to a more specific article. How are some editors allowed to get away with this ?

The Famine song section is given Undue Weight in relation to the article as a whole and within the 137yrs of the club's history and also falls under the Recentismn rules and as such should also be removed as it has it's own article on WIKI for a fuller explanation.

Hippo43 states;

It is entirely spurious to seek "consistency" with any other club's article. As I've stated before, this section is maybe too focussed on recent events,

Whilst the sections creator,John, states:

Of course, nothing stays the same forever on Wikipedia, but I'd say the onus to remove or drastically reduce referenced info from the section would be on someone who is looking at the bigger picture across these related articles.

So it looks like you both accept Recentism is reason for updating, yet you differ in how much "consistency" across related articles there should be. There should be more consistency across the related articles as John states, a quick look at the related articles show this to be obviously not the case, especially now there are articles devoted to some of the issues raised in the Sectarianism Section. If hippo43 has his way, the Sectarianism Section will be the majority of the article, which I feel is his aim, despite there being an article dedicated to this very issue.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeker, please don't misunderstand. It is entirely appropriate for articles to be treated consistently in terms of policy. In this case, NPOV dictates how much weight should be given to the issue of sectarianism. Rangers' problems with their sectarian aspects receive considerable coverage in reliable sources, so the article needs to reflect that. In the case of another club - Derby County, say - if reliable sources give that club's sectarian elements less coverage, the it needs to receive less coverage in the wikipedia article. It would not be appropriate to decide, in the name of 'consistnecy' that the Rangers and Derby articles should both have 12 lines of material about sectarianism. Does this make sense?

Likewise, I think you've misunderstood how policies are applied and how consensus works. You've explained your opinion of how UNDUE and RECENT should be applied here, but it is just that - your opinion. The current state of the article has evolved over a long time and through considerable, thorough discussion involving many committed, intelligent editors. If you want to persuade editors that your view is correct, you need to stop being so incivil, and engage in constructive, collegial discussion. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing that, I suggest you find a new hobby. A positive first step would be to apologise for your personal attacks on myself and other editors. --hippo43 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a view on the actual points I raised above ? SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No replies ?, This is an article about a football club, the sectarian element of the support do not warrant such a large section and as such the section should be removed to a seperate article. Similar footbal club articles have no such section, why only this article ?06:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)SeekerAfterTruth (talk)

You're just re-stating your opinion, please back it up with reference to policy. Perhaps the reason this article contains a significant section on sectarianism is because of the widespread coverage this aspect of the club has received in reliable sources? If you really have to ask why, you're probably not competent to contribute to this article.

And if you are unable to sign your posts, it perhaps indicates you are not competent to understand the complexities of the issues being discussed. Perhaps a separate article would help you and equally confused others understand the issueSeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You raise a very serious point. Unfortunately my current keyboard does not have a tilde, so I figured my comments would eventually be auto-signed. Given that I have positively contributed to Wikipedia on a range of topics, unlike yourself, I do generally know how things work. Very sorry to have inconvenienced you.

If you had read my earlier contributions here, you would know that I support including a wider article on all aspects of Rangers' sectarian history. If you want to start a separate article, keeping an appropriate summary here, you have my support. Then perhaps you would be able to explain the "complexities of the issues" for the hard of understanding. --hippo43 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read your contributions to WiKi on numerous issues and have seen your disciplinary record with regards to edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Fair enough, I may not have the experience which you have accrued on Wiki however this does not mean I have less to contribute than you. Further I have contributed positively to a number of articles on WiKi, granted perhaps not as many as you, but then again I do not have disciplinary record as long as yours.

I would be happy to work with you on a separate article showing the history of sectarianism in Scottish Football and the role of Rangers and other clubs in its development as well as the steps taken to eradicate it. A separate article is required to explain the many cultural and historical reasons for sectarianism with regards to Scottish Football, this article can then focus on being about a football club. I bow to your experience on wiki so if you wish to educate me on how to prepare and write such an article I would be willing to give it a go.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I welcome your willingness to engage in discussion more civilly. I'd be happy to start/help with an article on Rangers' sectarianism if I can find the time. However, I fear we might not be quite on the same page with regard to content. The sources I am aware of, by my understanding of them, do not support the disingenuous idea of sectarianism "in Scottish football", but rather describe a history of anti-Catholic sentiment and behaviour by Rangers - the club, their employees and their fans - and within Scottish society in general.

As you can see from the number of instances of sectarianism (orange strip, famine song, Donald Findlay singing, discriminatory chanting x2 etc) already listed just since the late 90s, there is a significant amount of ground to cover. In addition, not currently in this article, there are the roots of anti-catholic attitudes and behaviour (Irish immigration, Harland & Wolf etc), the club's links to the Orange Order and freemasonry, the 'no catholics' signing policy, increasing condemnation and pressure to sign Catholics in the 1970s and 80s, the reaction to the Johnston signing etc. If there is consensus for a separate article and a summary here, as I proposed somewhere else in this discussion, I'd be keen to contribute to both. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Famine song dispute

This section has come under discussion recently. The discussion really needs neutral outside opinions. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the Famine song, containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song, and warned they could be arrested for it.[53] Rangers' chief executive Martin Bain also warned fans they could be arrested for singing the song, but would not condemn the chanting.[54][55][56] He also said "Clearly some supporters feel aggrieved that a song they believe to be no more than a tit-for-tat 'wind up' of Celtic supporters should be singled out in this way and merit the attention of police, governments and anti-racist organisations".[57] The song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card[58] and described as "vile, vicious and racist" by Celtic chairman John Reid[59] and complaints prompted Irish diplomats to contact the Scottish government.[60] The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST), however rejected claims that the song was racist, saying : "Racism is not a wind-up, however distasteful, aimed at Scottish Celtic fans".[61]

In November 2008, a Rangers fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine Song during a game against Kilmarnock.[62] In February 2009, sectarian chanting by some Rangers fans during an Old Firm match at Celtic Park was reported to the SPL by the match delegate, again relating to the chanting of the Famine Song.[63][64]

This section has come under discussion recently. I made a proposal which is shown in bold below this reply. It summarises the section / paragraph, with a wiki link to the paragraphs own article on Wikipedia.

Recentism: ‘Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective’

This can be applied to the section in question

Undue Weight: ‘An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.’

This can also be applied to the section in dispute

Summary: ‘The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic.’

This can also be applied here Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

==Proposal==

In 2008 controversy surrounded The Famine Song, complaints prompted Irish diplomats to contact the Scottish government regarding the song.

In November 2008, a Rangers fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) by singing the Famine Song during a game against Kilmarnock

I am not sure about the proposed wording but i do fully agree the article currently goes way over the top in talking about an incident involving some of its fans and one fan that faced charges. This is an article about a football club, not the football clubs fans and a much shorter mention, if mentioned at all is certainly more reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these changes seem necessary to downsize the article. If users visit the Famine Song page, they can read about legal battles over the song if they so desire. --Karpify (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree these changes should be implemented for the valid reasons given. In relation to the article, there is a case for both Undue Weight and Recentism SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and worry that this is an attempt to expunge relevant material. The section does suffer from recentism - but that is a reason to expand it, not whittle away at it. Eliteimp (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'attempt to expunge relevant material'

The article as a whole was deemed ‘too long’, and vast quantities of the history of the football club were removed due to it being repeated elsewhere. ‘The Famine Song’ has its own Wikipedia article where the information is principally repeated. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Having glanced through the talk page and history it seems you have failed to gain consensus for your program of fairly extensive re-writing. You are now presenting isolated examples, selectively and out of context, to the RfC board (presumably) in order to achieve consensus and bring about your re-write in piecemeal fashion. That's my take as a neutral outsider who came here through the RfC board, apologies if this is not the desired response. Eliteimp (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are geniune concerns over recentism perhaps Rangers' sectarianism prior to the 1980s might be addressed in the article. Also the 'efforts to eliminate sectarianism' section has WP:UNDUE and recentism issues since it appears to appertain only to the last 10 years. Perhaps a less POV section entitled 'response to sectarianism' could set these alleged efforts in context with the previous century? Eliteimp (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

‘You are now presenting isolated examples, selectively and out of context’

This discussion / dispute about this isolated section was brought up by another user in another area here, and I opened a new talk section solely about this. I am tired of endless arguments on this article discussion with certain users that go no where when no compromise will ever be found so I made the step to take this to the project to try to get others responses as per.

This dispute is solely about the ‘Famine Song’. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Absurd over foot-noting

Both the club and its fans are disparagingly nicknamed Huns by some fans of other teams.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

This statement hardly requires more than one footnote, much less seven. Come on, people. john k (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The seven footnotes were because certain users disagreed with this being included on the basis of not having a reliable ref. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was something like that. That doesn't mean it's not absurd over-footnoting. Wikipedia is written to be useful to readers, not to stymie irritating POV pushing editors. One source ought to be sufficient, if it is a reliable source. john k (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

John K, I completely agree. IIRC, I added the footnotes because some editors refused to include this. You can read all about it in the archives if you are bored. --hippo43 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise that you applaud its inclusion, despite rulings in the Scottish courts that its use constitutes religiously aggravated breach of the peace. Another example of your sectarian agenda within this article as well as a complete disregard of Scottish Law.

If there was a derogatory term used to disparagingly to describe other ethnic or racially defined groups, ie Jews, Irish, Africans etc, would you be so keen on its inclusion in thier respective articles, I wonder ? SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On your last point - yes, I would, if it was reliably sourced that a derogatory term was widely used. See the coverage given to nigger for example. Wikipedia is not censored - rude words might be rude, but they can still be included. Although of course Rangers fans are neither a racial or ethnic group.

As to Scots law, your understanding is flawed. According to the act, any language which refers to a group associated wtih a particular religion can be seen as grounds for religious aggravation - this judgment seems to show that any reference to Celtic or Rangers could be seen as a reference to a religiously-linked group, therefore any term such as bluenose, Ger, bear etc could be taken as religious aggravation. But don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda. --hippo43 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So you now feel yourself to be in a position to interpret Scots Law in spite of the fact a Scottish Judge, in a scottish Court of Law ruled the use of the term "Hun" as "religiously aggravated breach of the peace". Don't let the facts get in the way of your sectarian agenda.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a position to read the law, and intelligent enough to understand it. If you have access to the judge's ruling, can you point out where he explicitly states that the word 'hun' is sectarian? In any case, can you point out the wikipedia policy which prevents unpalatable words being included?