Talk:Liverpool F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Liverpool 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.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
A Wikipedian removed Liverpool F.C. from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 4 January 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liverpool F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject on Football The article on Liverpool F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Liverpool F.C. as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Liverpool F.C. as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Liverpool F.C. as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Chinese language Wikipedia.
Liverpool F.C. was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve football (soccer)-related articles to featured article status.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2005 – May 2006
  2. June 2006 – July 2006
  3. July 2006 – March 2007

Contents

[edit] Good article?

I'm confused as to why this has been nominated to be a good article. Clearly the way to go is get a peer review and go for featured article as it has enough content (quoting What is a GA) "A good article may be of any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic. However, the authors of very short articles might consider whether it is more appropriate to merge them into larger articles. For articles longer than about 20Kb, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is generally more appropriate than the process here." SenorKristobbal 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, new comments go at the bottom. Secondly, the article is severly lacking in references at the moment, and this would prevent it reaching FA at the moment. Alexj2002 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Then put some references on it. Getting Good Article status generally means it can't get FA status which with work this article clearly can. SenorKristobbal 11:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Delisting

The article does not follow a logical order of progression. It does not have an encyclopedic tone. It has multiple citation needed tags. It was put up for review on 21 December and it was voted to be delisted. There are reasons outlined on the Good Article/Review page linked above as well as the history section comments above last month. ChrissMari 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In order:
  1. The logical progression of this article follows the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs template.
  2. Some sentences do not have an encyclopedic tone, most do.
  3. I see no citation needed tags.
aLii 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In short there are a few minor problems with the article. I fail to see how your "It's a festering pile of shit" description fits in any way. I notice that you've just censored your above comment. Sadly you can't remove it from the history Chris. aLii 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It went under review.. and it was delisted not only by me.. do not change the tags or risk banning --ChrissMari 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Handbags! Someone needs a tissue!

Also can someone post the url of this delisting review so I can peruse it.

Jamie 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GA/R#Liverpool_F.C. - the link of the last heading would have brought you there - but it wasn't explained. The review seems a bit harsh - but at least User:Homestarmy has actionable points. Cheers. SeanMack 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

People who delist articles should make sure they follow the procedure, which is there for a very good reason- that is to help people IMPROVE the article. Specifically, Chris, I feel it is a shame you did not follow points 4 to 7 on WP:GA.

If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. I don't see that you made any effort to do this. "until it's logical and written well" is not helpful and useable criticism.

Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article. If I had an idea what the specific problems were, I certainly would have done this.

If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the GA tag on the article's talk page and put in its place DelistedGA|4 January 2007. Do not use FailedGA. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. We STILL have no explanation on this talk page as to what the specific problems are and what steps we can take to meet the criteria.

Look, if this article isn't up to scratch, then I for one am keen to help improve it. But the fact of the matter is, this process has done nothing to aid us in that process. Having someone coming along and saying "it's a festering pile of shit" (even if he later censored himself on that) and then delisting it without following proper procedure is really not the way to go about helping editors with their work. Robotforaday 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the discussion seems to stand at a clear majority to relist. While I still see some of the comments I was talking about on the review page, (Although the one I cited in particular isn't there anymore, it still doesn't read very neutrally in the same area, a quick read through should be enough to see what I mean, I don't think it would take too long to fix.) its like 4 to 2, that's definently a majority to relist the article. Chriss did violate the rules by not giving time here to let editors fix any problems before delisting, but really, the tag isn't the objective so much as the feedback with GA reviewing. At the current way things seem to be going it will probably be relisted soon anyway. Homestarmy 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The simple solution is to put the article up for Peer Review and satisfy all critera ensuring you post on WikiProject Football that it is up for peer review. SenorKristobbal 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

After the work I just did, mostly organizing the article according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs template, I think this article can be a candidate to become a featured article. That is, if noone objects to my edits. The only question I have is what to do with the Takeover section? Leave it or move it to the History article and shorten it to one sentence in the LFC article. But if you ask me it looks like a featured article. Timpcrk87 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's great to see someone helping to get this article up to scratch! I think in the main the article has been improved, although I would argue that the notable former players section for this article should be placed after the history of the club rather than where is suggested in the wiki football template. This is because our notable former players section consists of prose rather than a list of names (the list of names just got longer and longer and names such as Antonio Nunez were added...) I am of the somewhat subjective opinion that it looks messy to have a prose section in the midst of some tables, and would prefer to see it flow from the history section, where I believe it follows on naturally (i.e. we've just discussed the great moments of the team, here are the people that helped make them happy).
I agree with you with that the takeover section could be shortened to a sentence and the rest moved to History of Liverpool F.C. (see above in this talk page). I have to go shortly, but I'll try and do that later today if nobody's done it already.
However, as for Liverpool being a featured article, it's not that long since the article was stripped of good article status (although I could never quite make out what that was for!) Perhaps the route to take would be to put it up for peer review to see what else is needed. A lot of people have put a lot of work into it, but I think it could still be improved. Robotforaday 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the notable players section should be exactly where you just put it. I'm also beginning to think the records and statistics section should follow the notable players section since it is also prose. Good work on the takeover edit.
Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Article_improvement_drive#Liverpool_F.C., we might get more help.
Timpcrk87 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Well to start off this football improvement drive I've archived the talk page and put the article forward for a peer review, see here. Hopefully we'll get some useful responses. It'd be a good idea for people to watch the peer review page so as to be able to converse with anyone who happens to be willing to help us out. aLii 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LFC and religion

I notice that earlier someone removed the sentences in the article which discussed the earlier links between the football club and protestant movements. While I can fully understand someone removing this on the grounds of relevance, I personally think that this element to the club's history gives an insight into LFC's early orgins, and places it in the cultural context of Liverpool at the time - the history of the club, after all, is not just a sporting history, even for those who would like it to be, it's a history tied up with politics (responses to the disasters in the 80s) and economics (the foundation of the club, the recent takeover). If the article is going to be as good as it can be, I think it's important that these contexts are given consideration, and I would say that the question of religious affiliation (even if the question is no longer something most fans care about) is part of that. I remember growing up that older people would often accuse me of supporting the 'wrong' team, and that Liverpool was a protestant team. I never could quite find out from them why that was the case - well, now here I can see a little about about the historical basis of such beliefs, and the person who added it provided a full citation. Robotforaday 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

meh. It certainly shouldn't have been randomly in the middle of the history section, and it was poorly written, and I could see no good place to put it. aLii 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well I've moved it and edited most of it away. It needs a new reference too, as the I can't check the one given [1] due to it being a subscription-only article, costing £13 to view. The abstract gives no details of any religious affiliations. Saying merely that "a significant proportion of directors were involved in influential socio-political organizations on Merseyside." As far as I'm concerned the religiousness or not of a club chairman doesn't have much is any bearing on the club culture. If the Dubai group had taken over the club would hardly have become Muslim, would it? I'm tempted to remove it entirely again as in its current state it seems a little pointless. aLii 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is sensible for the moment to move it to the culture section (although I maintain that the reduction of the history of a major football club to a series of sporting results is to miss the point of the massive impact of these institutions), however I think your removal of the reference on the grounds that it requires a subscription is unfair. Institutions/ libraries etc would have access to the journal, and it gives an option for logging in through athens, which is the major portal for university/ academic access to journals. It's not as though the only people in the world who could read it are the ones who'd pay 13 quid to view it. I think that in the absence of a freely accessible alternative, a subscription required reference is quite acceptable. References to books, journal articles etc are plentiful elsewhere on wikipedia, if we were restricted to just what can be got hold of without any restrictions, the encyclopedia would be greatly impoverished.
Now, of course, having said that, we need to know what the article actually says in order to see whether it is usable and how best it might fit into the article. I do, in fact, have an athens password and so can get hold of it. I will try and have a proper read later, as it is my impression that it is not just based on the religious orientation of the chairman, but talks about certain institutional ties between the club and protestant bodies (perhaps arising from the religion of the chairman/ directors). Once I've read it properly, I can give my opinion on whether it's fair to include, and in what way. I can then make an attempt to better integrate it into the article. Robotforaday 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, my last edit summary got cut off when I accidentally struck return. To say "Liverpool F.C. has never been particularly associated with either Protestantism or Catholicism" is itself an assertion that would require some form of verification. I would not argue that Liverpool has any particularly religious affiliation today, and the arguments of Glasgow sectarianism are irrelevant to us (thankfully), however, if there is actual historical evidence of past religious associations (and as I have said, I intend to check this up), then I don't think we can ignore this, although it would probably be done more in the manner of "some historical evidence points to the early association between the club and certain protestant associations" rather than "LFC is a protestant club", which would just be silly. Robotforaday 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly part of Everton's history that they were formed out of St. Domingo Methodist Church, but Liverpool has always been simply a football club. There's an interesting Everton-centric article here. The same infomation can be found in this article (or this one) on The Guardian. Both could be used as sources for "Liverpool F.C. has never been particularly associated with either Protestantism or Catholicism." Infact, I'm going to delete what I left in the Culture section anyway. The board's religious affiliation is completely irrelevent to a non-religious sports article. aLii 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Please don't put back the same ridiculous text again. I believe that your edits are in good faith, but having the text in the form that you are insisting is misleading at best, and plain incorrect at worst. Also note that you don't want to fall foul of the Three Revert Rule — something that's had me banned in the past :(
aLii 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading what you said at the start of this conversation, "growing up that older people would often accuse me of supporting the 'wrong' team, and that Liverpool was a protestant team." Well I hope you've just learnt that both Everton and Liverpool are "Protestant" teams if you want to give labels due to the affiliation of their founders. aLii 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I'm sorry this is becoming a bone of contention, as you've done so much to improve the standard of this article. I will hold off all further comments on the content of the article until such time as I've had an opportunity to read it fully, however I will then report back and if it is appropriate include a section in the article. To say that the article on Liverpool F.C. is a "non-religious sports article" is of course true on one level, but you cannot consider anything in complete isolation as though religion, economics, politics, the law etc. has no part to play. Liverpool F.C. is a non-political sports article, but includes reference to the Taylor report. It is a non-business related sports article, but includes reference to the businessmen who paid money to take it over. I fully accept the point you are making about the sentence previously added to the article, but if you are going to blindly delete sections based on Liverpool F.C. being about "sports" and so nothing else mattering other than "sports", when even sports are situated within the history of what goes on off the pitch (and haven't we learned that in the history of Liverpool in particular), then I'm sorry, but I will not agree with that. You do not own the article, I would urge you to seek consensus about what it is appropriate to include or exclude. Robotforaday 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were an article about Celtic or Rangers, then I would agree that reference to the religious affliliation of the club should be noted. However, those are very rare and distinctive cases. Liverpool isn't and never has been a church team. I seriously do not care whether the founders were religious men or not. The same goes for whether they were freemasons or not. I also don't care whether they were closet homosexuals. It just isn't relevent.
Most people in the 1890s were church-goers. When we talk about long-established businesses we never talk of the religion of their founders unless it's relevent. The same should be true of football clubs.
One thing that is far more famous than any supposed sectarianism is that many families in Liverpool would be split between Liverpool and Everton supporters. The only talk of a religious divide that I've ever come across is the ramblings of a few seemingly demented over-50s. If you can find me one good source for either Liverpool or Everton being a Catholic club, then we can start to discuss the relevency (I've already provided two to say that there is no such divide). Until then, there is none. aLii 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In as far as a wikipedia article must be properly sourced, I accept your point, and given that we haven't read the particular article in question, it is a little silly to argue as to its relevance. However, I think you are attributing some pretty bizarre motives to me. I have no interest in claiming Liverpool (or Everton) as a Catholic team, or as a protestant team, or as a scientologist team. I merely sought to defend a reference which another contributor had put onto wikipedia in good faith, saying that removing it just because you personally can't get to it is not in and of itself a reason for calling it a bad reference. I personally think that if that reference (or another good reference) can be used to say that some have attributed protestant historical origins to the team, then that should probably be used, but balanced by the other (non-scholarly) references you have provided which indicate the clear understanding of fans (including myself) that there is no religious affiliation to today's Liverpool F.C. Robotforaday 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just realised that my Guardian link above was actually not linked. Well it is now. The relevent part is:
Sam Johnstone of the Football Research Unit at Liverpool University says those speculating on the origins of the Liverpool-Everton, Protestant-Catholic thing are talking nonsense. "Both clubs were founded by the same people (essentially the wealthy, protestant middle classes of 19th-century Liverpool) from the same church (St Domingo's, a protestant church)," he says.
"The story of Liverpool's formation is familiar to all. Everton were formed in 1878, team falls out with John Houlding (the guy who owns Anfield), Houlding forms Liverpool FC in 1892, the rest we know about. What is more interesting is the involvement of the Masons. The guys who formed LFC and EFC were wealthy, middle class, protestant, businessmen and, importantly, pillars of the political and religious establishment (Houlding went on to become Lord Mayor of Liverpool). Freemasonry attracted these very people (for many reasons) and it is known that Houlding and his friend W. Barclay were in the Lodge.
This is basically the information that I took out of the article. The point is that whenever anyone talks about religion with Liverpool and Everton, then one of the two clubs is always "the Catholic club", and sectarianism is involved. If neither is actually a Catholic club, then there is no story other than baseless rumours, and I don't see the point of including information that is solely intended to refute rumours. aLii 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair point, but if it gets to the point where, in the words of the Guardian "half of Merseyside writes in to have their say" (!) then I do think we're getting into the realm where this is not just invented speculation, but a relatively common (mis?)conception which should be explored if (and I suppose here is the crucial part) this can be done with decent material. Robotforaday 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
True, but the main point seems to be that there is a lack of any real evidence. There isn't even good evidence (on the internet) of rumours! I guess the whole thing has grown out of sectarianism in Liverpool city, of which there was some. On a small scale there probably was a sectarianism between clubs, but it was as likely to be one way around as the other. Then this weird urban myth sprung up from somewhere.
Looking at the fan-written evidence it would seem that there is some claim for Everton being "the Catholic club". I can see a way to integrate a sentence or two about Everton, having in the past, been considered, by some, as "the Catholic club", into the Everton article. However it's hard to formulate a good way of saying that Liverpool FC, during the days of sectarianism in Liverpool, were considered, by some (Everton fans), to be "the Protestant team".
The oddest thing is that Everton seemingly have the stronger ties with Rangers (i.e. Catholics befriending Protestants) and the perceived wisdom is that Celtic and Liverpool have a history of friendliness. If nothing else dispells this myth then that should. aLii 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time on the Everton page in a successful effort to get it featured. This issue obviously came up while I worked on it. The stance I took was that people who do label the teams on religion are idiots. The Merseyside derby is the best in the world and is based on so much more than religion. I know Liverpool fans who are Catholic and Protestant...similarly I know Everton fans who are Catholic and Protestant too. Lets not give any attention to the people who attempted to divide merseyside football supporters by religion and concentrate on the facts...Everton was formed from a church and Liverpool was formed from the people in Everton who wanted to stay at Anfield. SenorKristobbal 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are all very interesting but the question is really not about what any of our opinions are - it is about what to do with referenceable material which deals with the issue of religion - hence the reasonableness of Ali's position that given the lack of referencable material it seems inappropriate to include any comment on the matter, and my position that seeing as a contributor did add an reference on this matter, it would be inappropriate to remove this simply because we don't like to think about the fact that some people have considered LFC in terms of religious affiliation. There are lots of things I wish people didn't think, but I'm not going to just discount any mention of it on the article just because I decide to call them 'idiots'. Robotforaday 15:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave opinions yes but then I finished it with fact. This is how I worded it (refined by others) on the Everton page

Everton's biggest rivalry is with fellow Merseyside team Liverpool, against whom they contest the Merseyside derby. This stems from Liverpool's formation after a dispute with Everton officials and the owners of Anfield (the ground Everton were using at the time). Religious differences have been cited as a division, though both teams stem from a Methodist origin, undermining the notion of a Catholic–Protestant split.[1] The Merseyside derby is usually a sell out fixture and tends to be a scrappy affair; it has had more red cards than any other fixture in Premiership history.[2]

[edit] Staff section

What happened to this section? I think it's a useful bit of info that people will want to know. ArtVandelay13 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some form of staff list should be provided, but perhaps more concise than the form that the list had previously balooned into. I think essentially it should be limited to key coaching personnel (I don't see what place a full list of the board, etc., would have.) Robotforaday 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International caps?

Recently someone has added bold to the names of people with international caps in the squad list. Frankly, I think this is not particularly relevant, and makes the squad list look a bit messy (it's also wrong; Jamie Carragher has been capped). What do other people think of it? Robotforaday 09:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided. It looks a bit messy, but at the same time shows quite a lot of information very succintly. I'm tempted to put it forward for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. aLii 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

I am proud to announce that this article has just been voted as "featured article" on the Italian Wikipedia. As I used also sources mentioned in the English article, I wish to thank all the people who have contributed to it, and wish you good luck. Blackcat it 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound bitter, but it must be so much easier to get featured articles on non-English wikipedias. This English article isn't even GA standard apparently, and yet seems superior to the Swedish, Chinese and Italian FAs in many respects. I do like some of the details on the Italian article though... There are definitely some ideas worth pinching. Are those two photos from the 1970s really public domain? Can they be used here or only in Italy?. I also quite like the little tables of top appearances and goal-scorers.
Both the Swedish and Italian articles seem to have huge history sections, which is to be frowned upon here. Also the total number of references over the three foreign language FAs is less than there is on this one article, and apparently we don't have enough! ha. aLii 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was wondering that about the images myself. The tags they have contain the following - Warning: this image is public domain in Italy, but in other countries it might be considered differently. Please verify if italian public domain is compliant with your country's law before using it. However, this image cannot be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Any lawyers around? Robotforaday 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. To answer to your questions:

  • I've been a longtime LFC's supporter - since 1977 - and I saw them play in Rome for their 1st European Cup's final against Borussia Mönchengladbach, that's why I was able to write a quite detailed story of the club - at least of their last 30 years.
  • Public Domain. Debated and hot question. According to the law any non-artistic photo either
  1. Taken in Italy or
  2. Produced in Italy or
  3. First published in Italy

more than 20 years ago (or better, more than 20 years before the latter 1st January) are in the Public Domain and this is valid worldwide. But some say that the Italian law cannot limit anyone's copyright out of their borders so is debated whether the author of a non artistic photo taken i.e. in 1984 is able to claim their rights out of Italy (in Italy they can't). That's why for example Shilton's (or Clemence's or even Grobbelaar's) picture could be published on it.wiki even though it's copyrighted anywhere in the world: Shilton's and Clemence's photo were taken during the EC 1980 that took place in Italy more than 20 years ago and thus in the Public Domain.

Anyway we were lucky that many of European wins of LFC were in Italy, so we have free material to choose from :) I also read the English article, it doesn't seem an article unworth to be declared "featured". Why has it been delisted?

Blackcat it 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like the Italian wikipedia's style for handling the squads, managers, most capped players. Nicely done. I suppose though that it would be a very long haul to get that mirrored in English wikipedia Steve-Ho 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because en.wiki is American, not British. I had an arguement with an American just because I wrote down that New York Red Bull ARE an association football (soccer) club from New York, and he corrected me writing that it IS an American soccer team... There's no agreement between the two opposite Atlantic coasts :) Blackcat it 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could I add an External link

I would like to add a link for http://www.lfconline.com/ --06cat 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours and crest

Following the referencing drive (which surely makes us the best referenced/ most overreferenced football team article?) I have been trying to add some references to the Colours and Crest section. However, I could not find anything concrete for the adoption of red in 1894 (everything I've read has said that the dates are unclear). I recall there being a lengthy discussion on this, and so thought I'd ask here to see if anybody has the reference that this date comes from. Also, looking at the other FAs, I was wondering whether we could have a little more on the crest of the club? I'm going to look around for some decent sources for another sentence or so on that. Robotforaday 12:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking for this part of the talk archive. From looking there at the work I did, this seems to be the link you're looking for. aLii 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice one- you're right, on the second page of that history: "Unable keep the Everton F.C. name he then thought bigger and finally acceded to his secretary's proposal, and named his club after the entire city rather than one of its suburbs, even adopting by 1894 the City's colour of red for the playing shirts and by 1901 the Liverbird as the crest." Robotforaday 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
On a trivial note, I think Feyenoord may be the most referenced article, with a massive 155. ArtVandelay13 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rivalry

It says in the article that Liverpool's biggest rivalry is with Everton. It then gives a whole paragraph on the topic. No mention goes into in my opinion, the biggest rivalry in English football, let alone Liverpool's biggest rivalry. I am of course talking about Liverpool and Manchester United, the most watched club football game in the world consistently. I think that the unsourced statement about Liverpool's biggest rivalry being with Everton removed, and something about Liverpool's rivalry with Manchester United in place. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Liverpool v Man Utd is far more important to Liverpool fans and there is arguably more rivalry between the two than with Neverton. Jamie 08:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. On a day-to-day basis for fans in the Liverpool area the rivalry with Everton is far more pronounced. It is true that Everton's form has fallen away in the past 20 years, which has somewhat diminished the rivalry, and in that time the rivalry with Manchester United has become more pronounced due to their success, but I think Everton is still the more noteworthy rivalry. However, I wouldn't have any problem with people adding details about a rivalry with United.
Put it this way... try polling Liverpool fans with the question "Who would you rather lose to; Everton or Manchester United." aLii 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Both are important, but for me, growing up in Liverpool, getting the banter every day, getting stick from your mates in school if you lost, having gloating rights for the next few months if you won, it was the Everton match that was really important, and it was losing the Everton much that really stung. Anyway, I'm sure you can reference both rivalries - just don't try and bring up recent Sky-manufactured rivalries like the one with Chelsea. Robotforaday 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That polling suggestion wouldn't prove anything. I would much rather Liverpool lost to Manchester United than Everton, because losing to Everton is embarrassing (particularly 3-0). And yes, I don't plan on putting in 'Sky-manufactured' rivalries such as the one with Chelsea. But yes, I think they are both big rivalries but I don't think we should say either one was more than the other. It appears that different fans value the rivalries differently depending on which kind of fan they see more often. I see more Man U fans around, so I value that rivalry more. So in this post I've really said nothing of any value at all. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The only reason its embarrassing is because Everton are crap, losing to any crap team is embarrassing. Try polling Liverpool fans and asking who is it more important to beat Man Utd or Everton. I think you'll find it's Man Utd purely because beating Man Utd actually has some impact, most seasons, on Liverpool's league performance. Jamie 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be true if you conducted the poll in London or Ireland (or Worthing), but not in Liverpool. I don't want to see this reduced to the level of "you're only a proper fan if you live in the Liverpool area," but there are obvious differences in perception between local and non-local fans. Historically Liverpool's fans have been mostly from the Liverpool area and the Everton rivalry has always been the main one. More recently the club has gathered many fans around the world and these obviously won't feel the same local rivalry with Everton, because Everton don't have much worldwide support. Man Utd do, hence this argument. aLii 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's correct but to be fair I've posted the question of rivalry on a big Liverpool forum I post on - where the majority are "locals". So the outcome should prove a good indicator.
One point you raised made me think though. You say that local rivalry is biased towards Everton but why should the article focus on a regional bias of rivalry when arguably the majority of fans outside of Liverpool would consider Man Utd as their biggest rival? Jamie 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[pov]Because only the fans who go to Anfield matter[/pov] ;-) Oldelpaso 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: My poll after one day has produced a staggering bias towards Man Utd as the fans biggest rivals (including scousers). No surprise there!. See here for poll. Now I am in no way saying this is a consensus amongst all fans but its pretty clear that most fans, regardless of location, consider Man Utd our biggest rivals. Beating them means more and losing to them means more to Liverpool fans than to Everton. The rivalry between Liverpool and Man Utd is as historical as that with Everton the only difference being proximity (See here).

All I can say is find a few articles from reputable sources that back up your assertation, then we don't need to argue. See WP:ATT. You could also attempt to start an article for the rivalry to rival the Merseyside derby article. aLii 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument here? You say that I should back up assertions with articles yet I don't see any cites for the fact that Liverpool's greatest rivalry being Everton. The paragraph describing the rivalry should be without local bias it should reflect the majority opinion of supporters in terms of greatest rivalry. I think it would be wrong to not mention the Merseyside derby because it is a big and important game to Liverpool fans. My problem is that Everton should not be defined as Liverpool's greatest rivals when they clear are not to the majority of supporters. I'll go ahead and edit the paragraph in a couple of days time. Jamie 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, if you look at the history of the article, you'll see that over the past few weeks editors have been saturating the article with the required references - a big work which is not yet complete. Compare the version we have now with the one, say, a month ago (or was the article improvement drive actually a month and a half ago?) and you'll note that there are now far, far more references, and we hope to complete this process as part of the work of getting this article up to FA standard. If you see an unreferenced statement in the article, the best thing to do it to slap a citation needed tag on it (or better, find a citation and add it!). Robotforaday 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is not addressed in the concept of rivalry is the era. When Everton were a "big club" <grin> in the fifties & sixties, then winning or losing to them mattered more than to Man Utd. However over the past thirty years MUFC has become the team to beat. Originally because of the perceived media bias but also since SAF declared that Liverpool were the team that Man Utd needed to surpass. With MUFC closing on Liverpool's title tally then it is not surprising that we want to knock them off their perch. Beating Liverpool matters more to Evertonians than the other way round. Barfbagger 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The amended paragraph is a good start although I think the final sentence needs changing. Although midday kick-offs are to prevent crowd trouble I was always under the impression that this was because the majority of pubs won't of been open long enough for fans to drink heavily prior to the match. Jamie 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fishfingers15 added a few paragraphs on the topic last night, which I edited down to that one. I wasn't certain about the last sentence, so put the [citation needed] tag on it, but it rang true. It needs rewriting again I think. Have a go. More detail about the actual rivalry wouldn't hurt either. aLii 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing I would definitely change is the description of the rivalry with United as "local". Oldelpaso 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houllier

I have been adding more refs, and come to the bit in the history about Houllier leaving the club "by mutual consent". Is this really a fair thing to say? I know that the club tried to make it look mutual in various ways, but most of the sources seem to treat the departure as a dismissal. Robotforaday 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find an official statement on the matter, but I found Houllier's final Liverpool interview for the official website.
The interviewer says: There is usually a lot of animosity when a manager is told his services are no longer required...
Houllier: (Clearly moved) "First of all, that is not the culture of this club. Myself and Rick both want the best for the club and if this is the best, then I can accept that. If I didn't want the best for the club then it would mean that I was just working for me and that is not how I am."
Rick Parry: "I can remember the day we started working together four years ago and we both said, the nature of this is that one day the job will come to an end but that doesn't mean the friendship has to come to an end. Words are cheap and sometimes it's easy to say that but we're sitting here together now. It's the nature of this business that every manager must end his reign at some point."
So was it mutual consent? It's hard to say. Was it a straight sacking? Again, hard to say. aLii 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Godwin Antwin

Someone needs to change Antwin's home country flag, he's from Ghana, not Spain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.221.212 (talk • contribs).

Yes, but he's a Spanish youth international, so for football purposes, he is (for now) Spanish. Ytny (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/v/Talk%7ELiverpool_F.C._66a3.html"