Talk:Millwall F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millwall F.C. article.
WikiProject on Football The article on Millwall 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Millwall F.C., or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
"Leadenhall Market" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

Contents

[edit] Warning

Please, discuss any re-reverted edits here, or a page protect is likely in order. karmafist 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FA Cup

Okay then, Lion King. If noting that "Millwall qualified for the final from the lowest league position in the history of the competition, and took to the field in Cardiff 25 league places below their opponents. They were only the 24th team from outside of the top flight to play in the final." is relevant to the topic, would you care to explain why adding that they didn't face a Premier League team is not? SteveO 20:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I backed down on edits you made to the Dennis Wise page with the proviso, that you didn't touch the Millwall page. We faced a Premier League team, in the Final, end of. Lion King 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. That fact is just as relevant as the ones currently included and helps to balance the "positive" facts. After all, Wikipedia is neutral, in theory. I haven't touched the disputed edits from the Dennis Wise page. I agree that they're relevant to the Millwall page. This is about an extra part. SteveO 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break- you "touched" the disputed edits on 1st December. This artcle does not need an extra part, I simply cannot understand, your almost pathological need, to add anything else to this part of the article. Lion King 02:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

By that I mean I haven't touched the disputed edits from the Dennis Wise page that are also here because they are relevant to this topic. I cannot understand your almost pathological need to remove one line that adds balance and perspective to the paragraph. SteveO 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You did touch this edits on the Dennis Wise page, because you checked this history, after posting. It seems to me that you are completly obsessed with football, and your motive has nothing to do with balance. There is really no NEED for your proposed addition, you WANT to include it, using "balance" and "persective" as your cover. It is my contention, that the disputed paragraph, is accurate and balanced as it stands- you are the only one disputing it Lion King 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The edits related to Millwall's FA Cup run on this page I did not touch. I did touch the same one's that are on the Dennis Wise page, because they were not relevant and seemed to be trying to exaggerate the achievement. I've already said I have no issue with the FA Cup stats that are here (and you'll notice I never removed them). My issue is that you seem to be trying to emphasise (and overstate) the achivement in getting to the final, while not wanting any facts that highlight the limitations of it because they don't suit your own allegiances. You cannot have your cake and eat it as well. SteveO 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reference to Millwall's or Utd's run to the final in this article, nor does there need to be. I could go into the 1937 semi, and add that the ref awarded Derby a pen. with the score at 1- 1. I could then add, it was discovered that he had a twenty quid bet on Derby to win, and he never took charge of another game as long as he lived, I could fill the whole article with stats. Ad Infinitum. I could start an article about about the skinny bint who wins all those distance races, and say that she only wins, because she dosen't fall over! stats are stats, and belong in an article called STATS. I also have cake and eat it- it's the object of the exersise.Lion King 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Primus Multorum- Optimus Ullorum.

There is no reference to Utd's run to the final, quite simply, because Utd's run is completely irrelevant to a Millwall article. Noting that Millwall were the 24th lower-division team to qualify for the final is a stat; as is the fact that they took to the field 25 places below Utd; as is noting that they qualified for the final from the lowest league position and as is the fact that they didn't face a single Premiership team. All the above are of a similar nature and somewhat pedantic. The first three are, apparently, acceptable to you but the last is not. Why? The only reason you can give for accepting those but rejecting the final one is your own allegiances. If stats of this nature are going to be in the article, then both positive and negative should be used. Btw, if you want to mention the 1937 semi-final then by all means do, this article is a little bare pre-1980. SteveO 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Seeing as where I come from we call this sport soccer, I have no idea how the FA Cup works. However a cursory read of FA Cup says that the Premier League teams don't even start playing until the third round, which seems like opponents wouldn't even have an opportunity to play a Premier League team until late in the Cup... Also playing a team 25 places higher seems relatively rare, how often has that happened? And is there any information on how often teams have made the final without playing a Premier League team? --bainer (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Premiership teams enter the FA Cup in the third round, as do team from the First Division (Millwall's division). From there, there are six rounds to play up to the final, which means the chances of meeting at least one top division team are fairly high. Numerous lower division sides have reached the final, such as Sunderland in 1973 and 1992 (winning the first one), West Ham in 1980, Southampton in 1976, QPR in 1982, Fulham in 1975 etc. SteveO 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • there has been only 24 (numerous?) teams from outside of the top flight, to reach the final, in the history of the competion- first final, 1871/72 season. Lion King 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)P.S.NONE of the above mentioned teams, played in the final, 25 places below their opponents.Lion King
  • It is my contention, that SteveO is manipulating this "statistic", to state his point of view, that if Millwall had met a Premiership team, they would have not reached the final. Lion King 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was very busy over Christmas and didn't have the time to continue this debate. However, I must set the record straight. It was not my contention that Millwall would not have reached the final had they faced a Premiership team. To do so would be pure conjecture. I merely added one fact that was as relevant as all the others in that paragraph.
Now, I have a contention of my own: Lion King objected to that fact because he is a Millwall fan and because it adds more perspective (or undermines, if you like) to the achievment. His own personal bias and alleigances prevented him from accepting such a fact in the article, though as for facts which big up the achievment, the more the merrier. Now go forth and make the Millwall article as partial and as biased as possible. Ad nauseum.

PS I'd say 24 is pretty numerous in that context. If it were 2 or 3 teams you might have a point.

PPS Sunderland were 25 places below Leeds in 1973. SteveO 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Millwall F.C. are named after the place from which they originate- Millwall not the owners. They were then, known at the time of foundation as, "The Millwall Rovers Football AND Athlectic Company Ltd" It is alleged that, the AND Athlectic Co. Ltd, was added to make the club a Limited Company, so that the board didn't have to produce a ballance sheet. Now, what is your opinion of a statistic being manipulated to express a point of view? Lion King 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)PS. If you have a comment, please leave it on Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Millwall F.C. Lion King 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) SEE BELOW.

[edit] Ok, This Isn't Working Here

I'll make an rfc in a bit, let's see if we can resolve this dispute there. Until then, nobody touches the article. karmafist 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, head over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Millwall F.C. Go nuts, guys. I'll try to wrangle up more people. karmafist 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this page - please do not resort to revert wars if you still don't see eye to eye over everything. If there is a dispute, try one of the established dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. Izehar 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few edits, especially re supporters

Much of this article is really good (especially the club history and so forth), but the supporters section is maybe a bit unencylopaedic and could perhaps do with some editing. I think it is reasonable to say that Millwall are famous as a football club for two main reasons: 1) the hooligan element present in their fanbase at times in the history of the club; 2) the recent amazing run to the cup final. It is a bitter pill to swallow of course, but the fact remains that an encylopaedia article on Millwall FC cannot gloss over incidents of hooliganism as glibly as this one does. Rightly or wrongly, MFC's supporters were generally considered to be amongst the most active perpetrators of football violence in the 1980's, and to some extent more recently. The way this section currently reads makes them sound as if they were/are a bunch of angels set up to look bad by some kind of media conspiracy; although it may well be that their notorious reputation has been exaggerated, the fact remains that they DID(/DO) have a bad rep and that this is to some extent the result of past misdeeds. The section as it stands glosses this over almost completely (no specific instances of violence or disorder are given or even hinted at) and much of it sounds very much like POV and/or original research (e.g. the Huddersfield incident). Most likely, the primary notability of MFC (especially to international readers) in my view (contrary comments of course welcome) stems from the connection to football hooliganism, given that their competitive standing in the game at the moment and throughout their history has never been consistently high (I do not say that to be in any way derogatory, it's just a fact- I support a minor club myself, and we just aint Man Utd no matter how much we may wish). The article should reflect this in a more balanced and encyclopaedic way, imho, and a part of that would of course include the great strides made by the club in recent years towards addressing the incidence of the kind of thuggery and violence that have blighted Millwall and other teams in the past. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that you can cite specific instantances of violence or disorder involving fans of Millwall, in an accurate, dispassionate and true manner, then by all means do so. Lion King 15:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I am not an expert in this subject, and my knowledge of source material (especially printed) is limited. It may be better for someone more familiar with the history of the club to step in. However, there is plenty of material on the web (e.g. here [1], here [2] and especially here [3]) for one of us to at least have an initial stab at it- I will do this over the next few days- unless you feel up to the job. I feel it is important to include this material to round out the article. There is no need to worry about accuracy or POV- I have no real interest in the subject having stumbled across the page by accident. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to you including the above links into this section of the article, the first link in particular, as all the guys on the pitch at Luton are my heroes, because if they had not gone over the fence that night, I and many other Millwall fans would have been crushed to death. Would'nt The Sun have loved that one- "South London Scum Commit Suicide At Luton" Best wishes, Lion King 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)BTW when you've finished with my team, you might like to go to the Liverpool F.C. page where the deaths of 39 people, caused by Liverpool hooligans, is described as a "Tragedy", and that English clubs, were "withdrawn" from Euro Competions! No "glossing over" eh? Lion King

You need to calm down. If you are not an objective wikipedian, you should not be editing this page. I am not having a pop at Millwall or anyone else. I am not a contributor to the LFC page and have only just glanced at it as a result of your comment above, but if as you say it does not detail the events of Heysel in an objective and accurate way then you ought to get on that talk page, discuss the problems, make some edits and do something about it (the only thing I would say as an aside is that English clubs were in a sense 'withdrawn' from European competition; this local action (by the FA or the league or both, I can't remember) preceded the later UEFA edict. In a sense, the English football authorities 'withdrew' their clubs, but of course a simple statement of that nature is ambiguous and needs elaborating, as you say). I think the important thing for you to consider as obviously a keen contributor to this page is to make it as good as you can, and not worry about what others are doing wrong on other pages. I sense from the earlier comments that you may be having problems with someone inserting their own POV into this page- the best response to that is to keep your cool and exemplify what good wikipedian editors should be- calm, objective, rational and responsive to constructive comment and criticism. Any Millwall article that skips over the hooliganism issue is unencyclopaedic and should be updated. I will make the necessary edits over the coming days if I get time, but it is a shame that you don't feel able to do it yourself since your knowledge of the club and its history is obviously superior to mine. Sorry for any upset. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise, you've not upset me, nor do I need to calm down, i'm perfectly calm thank you and appreciate your concern. Best wishes, Lion King 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenock!

Whoever posted the paragraph below is seriously misinformed!

"Their traditional strip consists of blue shirts, white shorts and blue socks. The club was founded in 1885 as Millwall Rovers, by Scottish dock workers from the town of Greenock, where the local Scottish Football League side Morton F.C. share the clubs' colours. The club's name comes from where it was founded, at the Millwall Docks on the Isle of Dogs, across the River Thames from where the club now plays."

Millwall Rovers had no connections with Morton FC, except a co-incidence in that the firm the players who founded Millwall worked for was called JT Morton!

I suggest the paragraph is replace along the lines as follows:

Millwall Rovers was founded by workers of JT Morton in Millwall on the Isle of Dogs. The firm had its origins on the East coast of Scotland in Aberdeen and Dundee. They opened their first English cannery and food processing plant on the Isle of Dogs at Millwall Dock in 1870. They attracted a workforce from across the country including Scotland. The group of Tinsmiths, who formed Millwall contained a predominance of Scots, but was certainly not exclusively Scottish. The Club Secretary was 17-year-old Jasper Sexton, the son of the Landlord of the Islander pub in Tooke Street where Millwall Rovers held their meetings. The First Chairman of the Club was Irish International and Local GP Dr William Murray-Leslie, who suprisingly never played for the club.

Gazza (Millwall History)

I agree that your version of the club's history makes more sense than the present one, but how do you explain the nickname of "The Dockers?" Cheers, Lion King 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lion King, Millwall's first nickname was Rovers, the dockers nickname developed from the occupations of the fans who followed Millwall.

Makes sense to me mate, off you go Gazza! Cheers, Lion King 13:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Waited for you to change the article, I have inserted your version myself. Any problems, message me on my page. Just click on my user name, and go to my discussion page. Cheers Lion King 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


The link between Millwall and Morton is a bit tenuous, but in a roundabout way Morton F.C. take their name from James Morton, Iron Merchant and owner of the JT Morton cannery and bottling plant. James Morton was Town Provost of Greenock from 1868 to 1861 and laid the foundation stone of a social housing project undertaken by The Greenock Provident Investment Company in 1868. The street in the East End of Greenock was called Morton Terrace, and was home to the founder members - James Farrell, Robert Aitken, Matthew Park, Alistair Ramsay and John Barry - who founded the football club in December 1873 called Morton FC after the street where they all lived.

Hope this helps.  :) Taxloss

  • Thanks for the info, but as you say the link is indeed tenuous, as there is no doubt that Millwall Football Club's name, emanates from the place they were founded - Millwall. Cheers, Lion King 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Taxloss, are you sure that we are talking of the same James Morton here. I've not seen mention of any Greenock or Glasgow connections before. I'm looking to see if I have a Date of Birth for him, but what I've read seems to have Morton as an East Coast Scot. Gazza

  • What is it that you have read, and from which source does it emanate? Cheers, Lion King 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The origins of the name of the club is not what we are disputing here, merely the origins of Millwall's Scottish heritage.

  • There is no doubt that Millwall's founders were predominatly Scottish. Best wishes, Lion King 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very interesting info regarding Provost Morton. Cheers, Lion King 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International supporters

I ve got to say, I ve always kinda linked the MFC with the legendary Only fools and horses and the Sheringham and Cascarino era. Although I ve just had a glance at this page, it seems to me that there aren t enough things for a foreign supporter, or a potential one to be precise, to identify with. It s only cos I support the Lions, too. Encyclopaedic parts are important, but a section which could show why we really support them wouldn t be too subjective-it would provide a background for understanding of what is MFC all about. I am currently some 2000 miles away and never been to Peckham or England, but there are some qualities that each human being can recognize in the spirit of the real MFC supporters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.147.101.146 (talk • contribs).

Encyclopedic "parts" are indeed important, Wikipedia is an Encylopedia. Best wishes, Lion King 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equal first?

In the current version it says "In 1974 Millwall were the first team to play a game on a Sunday", but shouldn't this be "first team to play a home game on a Sunday?", or "took part in the first Sunday match" ? There are usually two teams on the pitch :-) Ttwaring 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good piont:) How about "the first team to host the first game to played on a Sunday"? Lion King 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wot no copy edit? Lion King

[edit] A note on British English

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMillwall_F.C._b9ee.html"