Jump to content

Talk:Tartan Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Donations by the Tartan Army

[edit]

Sarajevo, December 2004 - Football fans have handed over more than 800 strips and other football kit to children in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Gifts were collected by the Tartan Army and other Scottish supporters after an appeal by the Bubamara football school in Sarajevo.

The appeal raised more than three times the expected amount in just four weeks and had to be closed two weeks early.

Alcohol consuption

[edit]

Actually, I think consuming lots of alcohol is pretty universal football fan behaviour. What seems to set the tartan army apart from the english yobs is that they can hold their drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 December 2005

"World's best fans" ?

[edit]

The 1998 designation must have lapsed by now. I reckon the Koreans must be the World's Best Fans. And no mention of digging up Wembley in the 70s? jnestorius(talk) 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

[edit]

I have heard that the Tartan Army name was given to Scottish supporters by English newspapermen after an exuberent visit to Wembley in the 70s (maybe 77). The name was derived from a fringe pro-Scottish independence Tartan Army terrorist group of the 60s/70s, originally in a disparaging way, however the Scottish supporters quickly adopted the name. I have no idea about the veracity of this and haven't been able to find a reliable source, just stuff on messageboards. Anybody know any more? Caledonian Place 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=BgLwOk79T1gC&pg=PA36&dq=%22tartan+army%22army++provisional+government+scotland&hl=en&ei=qH87TMjsIMP_lgeZ6KD7BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22tartan%20army%22army%20%20provisional%20government%20scotland&f=false

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/ex-tartan-army-man-gave-himself-up-after-robbing-bank-1.760232 68.239.8.194 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no proof from either source that the name of the fans' group was derived from this organisation, which I had certainly never heard of until today. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This article is rife with bias - for example, their track record is best described as "glorious failure"? One can hardly call that a neutral statement. Glorious Failure is a term used by most scots such as myself as well as many media sources such as newspapers and on tv so iis not really biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.220.91 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2007

God Save the Queen booing

[edit]

I am removing the Irish Fooball Association bit about Howard Wells being upset at Scots jeering God Save the Queen. The supporting citation is dead and it's petty anyway to say the least. JScotia (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh references provided. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's at least a SLIGHTLY less biased entry. But I'm changing the word "escaped" which makes it sound like they were criminals and put back in a reference to the insulting verses in the original God Save the Queen. Why wasn't Flower of Scotland played by the way? Everyone knows that is considered the Scottish National Anthem--or should.

JScotia (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but GSTQ was also played because Northern Ireland was the visitor. The opinion piece in explanation of the booing can't be verified. Some folk may have booed it purely for the rivalry with England, rather than any historical reason. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be. The opinion pieces come across pretty anti-Scottish and highly political. But I don't care enough about this to argue the point further. But Wikipedia has a long-standing reputation of being anti-Scottish.

You do realize that right?

JScotia (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

[edit]

Since this has been reverted by the same user for the fourth time inside 24 hours, I think it now merits more serious discussion here. The idea that sociological studies explicitly about Scottish football are "poor" sources is bizarre. When we compare them to the other sources - primary sources/'tartan army' websites - the idea becomes even more laughable.

Please remember that WP is not a 'tartan army' advert or fan website. Notable claims - neutrally worded and attributed to a high quality academic source - should not be censored out of the article. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. Any reverting is equally down to you repeatedly adding the same text without any attempt to establish consensus on it. When you wish to add material to an article and it is challenged it is down to you to justify it. I'm happy to see that you are finally attempting this.
Your addition relies heavily on "Sport and national identity in the post-war world". Could you explain why what it says about the Italian game is not mentioned elsewhere? Or do you have other cites you could share? What makes the example given "notable" and not "exceptional"? "Notable" is not a word that appears in the cite. I can accept that the SFA may have reason to deny everything, but why should the views of the Police be so dismissed? The cite you supply unfortunately omits the footnote that this comes from.
I wouldn't argue that examples of racism and bigotry amongst football fans (of all types) can't be found, and certainly there is much that can be said, and is said, about the Tartan Army's relationship with all things English. But I suspect what you are adding over-states a minority of individuals and historical occurrences. Your other recent edits also suggest that you are pressing a particular point. Which is fine, if supported by good cites. But this comes from a single paper, deep within a single book, which makes me question whether undue emphasis is being given something that is not generally recognised and may be the opinion of a single academic (of Russian/Soviet history, no less). You'll understand that an encyclopaedia is not the place to champion or establish little-known opinions and facts, but a summary of what is already out there. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article as it currently stands offers a good balance between the main issues - there was hooliganism in the 1970s (most notably at Wembley 1977), the fans then markedly improved their behaviour, but they have been criticised for anti-Englishness / anti-Britishness. Booing GSTQ against Northern Ireland was an incident that received a lot of indepdent coverage. Any attempt to establish that the Tartan Army is racist is just not supported by the evidence; the particular incident picked upon by this user (who has a history of pushing controversial points of view) was not followed up by the relevant authorities for whatever reason. It's like making a big deal about an "offence" by somebody who wasn't arrested for it, let alone charged, acquitted or found guilty. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence: Since then, the Tartan Army have won awards from UEFA for their combination of vocal support, friendly nature and charity work.[4][5][6] strikes me as unduly cloying/uncritical. Two of the primary 'sources' (Tartan Army Sunshine club & Tartan Army Charity) cannot be anything other than unacceptable.
I had a quick look but didn't find any more about the Italy match. I did however find a Joe Bradley essay which says the TA taunted Germany with "one Bomber Harris" at Euro 1992. Peer-reviewed academic sources on the subject should probably carry more encyclopaedic weight than home made 'Tartan Army' websites or SFA press releases. Their absence is conspicuous and the desire to exclude them is telling. Reading a few of them has left me even more convinced that the (acknowledged) improvement in behaviour was related to a desire to differentiate from Ingurland fans. The paragraph about booing GSTQ doesn't make clear enough that this is anti-English sentiment. In fact in the circumstances that part is clearly WP:UNDUE and recentism over a relatively minor incident.
Another feature of the quality sources, which is totally absent here, is that until the 80s/90s the TA was comprised primarily of Rangers supporters. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may a number of claims here.
  • Tartan Army composition of Rangers fans. Can you cite this? And even if accurate; so? How is this relevant? What's your point?
  • "desire to differentiate from Ingurland fans" Can you cite this? And even if accurate; so? How is this relevant? What you personally are convinced of is of no interest to Wikipedia.
  • "Peer-reviewed academic sources on the subject should probably carry more encyclopaedic weight" - This is true. However, when it concerns an opinion, rather than facts, and uses an event unrecorded anywhere else as its basis, and even mentions itself that authorities denied it, then you must accept that it can be questioned. What makes an academic in Russian/Soviet history have a notable opinion on Scottish football fans? What does this person notice about their behaviour that the police at the game don't?
  • Taunting German fans over WWII may be distasteful, but I can't see how it could be equated to racism in any way.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you would find most of the answers to these questions if you acquainted yourself with the literature. Would you please answer my actual concerns raised: about the article reading like a sycophantic advert and being full of poor quality primary sources?
Please AGF, I have no feelings one way or the other on the TA, only a desire to properly reflect what is in the more objective sources. They jealously guard and micromanage their reputation and good luck to them - but they (you?) shouldn't use wikipedia as a PR tool. I understand there was significant disorder surrounding the England play-off in Glasgow - which, again, ought to be cited. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, what YOU consider to be more objective sources. It is impossible to assume "good faith" with your persistent history of adding weakly sourced controversy to articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no doubt you will have some objection to the police's comments in response to that "significant disorder". Presumably Strathclyde Polis have some sort of agenda to protect the Tartan Army's reputation as well. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've no objection to putting in the police's comments - properly cited. Let's not sweep anything under the carpet. The only "persistent history" I have is adding balance to fan-written puff pieces, like this. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, you have things around the wrong way. I do not have to acquaint myself with anything. You are the one wishing to add things. You are the one that must justify it and adequately cite it. The onus is entirely on you. I have asked you a number of questions directly regarding what you wish to add, and yet you continue to avoid answering them. Until this happens you have virtually no hope of reaching consensus on what you are intent on adding.
With regards to your questions.
  • Primary sources are discouraged, and can be problematic. But unless you wish to challenge the accuracy of the facts they are supporting, there is no reason to remove either the content or the cite. However, if you have a third party source, it would of course be welcomed.
  • The article appears to be neutrally written to me. Can you give me any examples of where you believe it is not? I do not understand how it can be read as an 'advert', as the article subject is not a commercial entity and is not selling anything.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see some improvements have been made already - I had given an example of cloying/uncritical material which I am glad to see has been toned down slightly. I'm not keen on "well refreshed hordes" - a cuddly euphamism, not particularly encyclopaedic. The 'charity' section is still bloated and full of SFA press release 'sources'. Would it not be better to find a source that says the SFA and TA are skilled self-publicists, and leave it at that?
Your questions were mostly concerned with my opinions on the findings of academic sources. My opinions on them are irrelevant, but I would argue that the sources and findings themselves are self-evidently notable. I had improved the article with them and been reverted - as such it is for those doing the reverting to make coherent objections related to policy. It's no good demanding "what's the point" while excluding/supressing such high quality sources. With respect, who are you to make subjective calls like this on behalf of wikipedia users? If you doubt the relevance of the studies, read them, then take it up with the authors. But whether the content of these studies find favour with you, they have been demonstrably and citably published and should be included. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent reversion

[edit]

My concern is that the ip 90.200.240.178 is not establishing the significance of the incidents. It may be the case that Scotland fans chanted unpleasant things against Germany and particularly Italy, although it may not be a coincidence that there was alleged "F.B." abuse and that the match was played at Ibrox, but there was no great reaction to this — say Scotland being punished by UEFA, or mass arrests. Indeed, to the contrary, the Germany match was played in a tournament (UEFA Euro 1992) where they won an award. Without some wider context or significance, it is basically "some people said some bad things and ran away", which frankly isn't notable. I also note the addition of an article about a Tartan Army member being upset about Mars using England branding in Scotland — so what? Again, it doesn't explain the significance of this. Is this just the view of one guy, what motivates it, what is the lasting significance of this, etc. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable enough for these academics, the leaders in their field, to write about and get published. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything to suggest it is anything more or less than their viewpoint, which gets us nowhere. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest it is considerably more notable than a losing nomination in "the international Scot award," whatever that is. In a way we are lucky that these high quality academic sources exist - we would be doing wikipedia users a disservice to exclude them in favour of SFA press releases etc. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you've heard of the Scottish Politician of the Year awards??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor's argument appears to boil down to "it was published by an academic therefore it should be here and it should not be challenged". This is a misguided argument. Wikipedia is an an encyclopaedia. As such it must summarise, it cannot hope to list all possible knowledge and every possible opinion on any one subject. It is therefore up to editors, as guided by policy and guidelines, to determine what is notable and appropriately weighted. Our viewpoint on the sources is therefore very relevant, despite what the IP editor claims. How else are we to determine if an opinion added is not that of a single person of little authority, expertise or relevance? As long as the IP editor declines to argue a case for his sources, we will all reach the conclusion that the sources are not being backed up because they cannot be backed up, because the IP editor is all too aware just how shallow they are.

I remain unconvinced that the opinion of a single academic in Russian/Soviet history, alone in the whole internet, self-confessingly disputed by the police actually at the game in question, is significant to the article subject. And the IP editor has made no effort to change my view. The academic is free to hold this view, and I am not questioning his research or factual accuracy (I don't know enough about the supposed incident to tell), but it is clear that no notable authority or expert shares it. Ergo; I call WP:UNDUE. What else is there to say? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tartan Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tartan Army. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

Just started looking. I'll expand this list as I run across stuff.

  • O'Neill, Megan (2005). Policing Football: Social Interaction and Negotiated Disorder. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781403941183. – Has material on the TA. This is an expensive academic volume, best obtained through inter-library loan.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tartan_Army&oldid=1229248841"