Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Famous Fans

Further to the request for discussion before making changes to the section, I thought it needed its own discussion section. To start off one from me - why is John Lennon included when all authorative Beatles/Lennon biographies indicate he had no interest in football? Rushian77 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe someone who knows different may offer a suggestion? If not we'll get rid. Maybe someone was getting confused with the fact he was born in Liverpool??? Jamie 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, according to whatever I've read as well the only sure thing is that none of the Beatles were interested in football. Its probably an assumption just coz Lennon was a Liverpudlian. Kinda crazy 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II loved all football teams not any in particular Im amazed that your "claiming" him as a supporter-Also John Lennon was not a Liverpool fan-He didnt like football.

How Many matches did Pope John Paul II go to ?

I thought John Lennon was a Leeds Utd fan

Cup Final

Is a whole section dedicated to the AC Milan/Liverpool Champions League Final really necessary, considering it is only one of five European Cup finals Liverpool have won in the past?

Well perhaps it could be added to a new page, the 2005 Champions League Final? Obviously, as wikipedia did not exist during any of the previous wins, this one is going to be written about more. -sars 19:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about moving the section to a new page entirely along with further details regarding 'Pool's other European Cup wins. This article is already too long by Wikipedia standards anyway.
- Have gone and made a new article like I said but it needs serious help with the details of the other European Cup wins. I didn't get to experience them firsthand so my lack of knowledge regarding the finals prior to 1985 is somewhat deplorable. :P - shikinluv

It is especially sweet, because the trophy that Liverpool FC won is the real thing. We get to keep it. The rest didn't. Liverpool lives forever! --chapter1 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Joe Fagan/Kenny Dalglish Eras

Just noticed a few inaccuracies in the text but didn't want to change them as i'm new to all of this:

  • Alan Hansen wasn't made captain until Kenny Dalglish took charge. Graeme Souness was captain for 1983/84, and i'm pretty sure Phil Neal was captain the following season
  • The text implies Ray Houghton was at the club in the 1985/86 season. He didn't join the club until 1987
  • John Barnes and John Aldridge are mentioned as replacing Ian Rush, but what about including Peter Beardsley? David f1976 01:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the part about John Aldridge replacing Ian Rush was sort of true, not too sure about John Barnes replacing Rushie though. Of course, we were all glad that Rushie couldn't stand his stint in Italy at Juventus, and swiftly came back the following season, an Anfield legend always. --chapter1 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Without wishing to be pedantic, the article states we (Liverpool) lost the 1989 title on "goal difference". I'm pretty sure this is slightly inaccurate. Arsenal won on the night 2-0, equalling both our points total AND our goal difference. The way they were crowned champions was even more unique in that the two teams could only be separated therefore, by virtue of the fact that they had scored six more goals than Liverpool. With attacking play being rewarded in such scenarios, the fact they'd also conceded six more goals than Liverpool was therefore inconsequential. :( Dalglynch-72 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Souness\Houllier Era Inaccuracies

I have noticed under the Graeme Souness years it is mentioned that he was sacked. He in fact resigned. To this day Liverpool FC have not sacked a manager.JamieStapleton 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have edited references to both Souness and Houllier being 'sacked'. Souness resigned and Houllier and Liverpool parted by mutual consent. JamieStapleton 14:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Well, actually you know the story: when it means a person leaves on mutual consent, you'll really have to look on the other side of the story. --chapter1 08:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Stars

Do we really think Harry Kewell can be regarded as a star? He's limped off in two of our important matches, and been out for injury for most games. He was only a really notable player at the start of his debut season. - sars 15:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would rate others above him. Most Liverpool fans, including myself, have found him a disappointment more than a star. Soul Embrace 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

True he has been disappointing, and I would rate others above him too. but if we have Nick Barmby we must keep Kewell (also Jason McAteer? - sure he was a fixture in the team but I'm not sure many would call him a star). In fact I could argue that we should get rid of Barmby and keep Kewell - he was (at the least) a star when he signed for us - like Anelka - who only scored 4 goals in 20 for us if I remember right. I say we just leave him there. Friedel is there but did nothing for us. From the make up of the list, it seems to me that if they were a star, regardless of how they played for us, they should be there. Cursive 16:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That seems a fair compromise. I agree. Soul Embrace 18:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He has improved. Albeit the reaction save from Shay Given, Kewell should've put his name onto the scoresheet against Newcastle last night. He tormented the Newcastle defence on the left, and totally thrived on the left flank. If not for his second cross which Crouch got his head to, Liverpool would not be 2-0 up. Great work Kewell! --chapter1 08:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

70s logo

Do we really need this in the article? It doesn't seem to fit (it really looks out of place) and is pretty poor quality too. Whoever added it didn't even give it a caption, I don't think it fits, but will defer to consensus. Cursive 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that it looks out of place where it currently is, is poor quality, and has no caption, however I'd say that a place for a better quality version could probably be found in the article. I'm not sure where though.
Was it just the club logo in the 1970s only, or was it the logo before then? KeithD (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I have done some research on this and, from what I have found, the 'old' logo appears to have been in existence long before the 70's. There is a disappointing lack of clear pictures anywhere and I haven't found anything clearer. I have put out a couple of feelers and will post back here when I hear something. (Picked up some images of some classic programmes but I don't think they are free of copyright - fascinating stuff!) Soul Embrace 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it was the club logo in the 70s. This is more the standard logo beloved of all fans of the era http://www.liverweb.org.uk/stdbadg.jpg
My research drew a blank on any dates or images. Is the image posted above copyright free? Soul Embrace 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
All club images prior to the current badge are copyright free

The 70s logo showed a Liverbird with the words L.F.C. right below. It signified the soaring high of the legendary Liverbird. The 80s logo showed the Liverbird enclosed in a badge, with the words Liverpool Football Club right below. The logo switched to a fuller version in 1990, after the Hillsbrough disaster, incorporating the Hillsbrough flames and the Shankly Gates, with the words "You'll Never Walk Alone". Since then, the Liverpool logo has not changed, only decreased in size, but in full colour.

The present logo shows the 5 European Cups stars right above the Liverpool badge. Wonder if Reebok are going to incorporate it into future designs (hopefully, we'd have won our 6th European Cup!) --chapter1 08:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Early history

I added a whole section on the club's history from 1892-1950 yesterday, it took me 4 hours to write and it has been removed today. I am not impressed.

I also amended the club's record defeat. Official sources always quote the 9-1 defeat at Birmingham City in Division 2 on 11th December 1954. Also deleted. Can anybody explain? (Unsigned comment by User:212.32.106.70)

Your excellent contribution to the article hasn't been deleted. It's still there. Perhaps your browser has cached the old page and you're not seeing the most recent version? KeithD (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! You are right - exits red-faced.

Suitably encouraged I will continue from 1950-59. Cheers. BTW how does one create a user name? (Unsigned comment by User:212.32.106.70)

I've answered on your talk page, along with the traditional welcome message. In short though, the register link should be visible in the top right corner of every page here. KeithD (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

European Cup 2004/5

One third of the article is on the 2004/5 season, detailing Liverpool's entire CL campaign, and the 2000/1 treble-winning season is worth 1 sentence. Some balace eh? Mandel 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C.

I have gone ahead and created an article at History of Liverpool Football Club. I have just yanked the entire existing history section from this article and put it there (like they have at History of Arsenal F.C.). The Arsenal F.C. article is a featured article, and I think that this article has the potential to be as well (but only if we get rid of many of the details that form the main article). I will stick a link to the history article in the apppropriate section of the LFC article.Oktom 13:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the new article?? Jamie 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I lied, i have added the link to the history of liverpool f.c. article to the 'see also' section Jamie 11:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction describes how the club was formed, why does this need to be repeated in a 'history' section that is supposed to have been moved? The comments in the history section are already covered in the 'history of liverpool f.c.' article so I think this history section should be deleted Jamie 11:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The history section as it stands is different to the previous version. As it stands, it is supposed to be a summary of the larger article, and so I guess some duplication is okay. I think that a history section is a valuable, factual contribution to an article such as this. And a brief mention of the club's founder belongs in such a section.Oktom 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The best history is to get it from the official website at www.liverpoolfc.tv We as Reds will stand together forever, and all Liverpool fans are together as one. --chapter1 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

History section and separate article

It might be an idea to put some comments <!-- like this --> in the history section advising people to add history stuff to History of Liverpool F.C. instead of this article. We had the same problem when the history was split out for Manchester United, and ended up with two history articles of about the same length, which was a pain in the arse to fix. I think the Arsenal article had the same problem as well before the comments were added. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The Liverpool history was done by a neutral? How could a neutral know more about the Champions of Europe, when compared to a die-hard Liverpool supporter doing it? --chapter1 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. I've never been accused of being 'neutral' with regard to Liverpool before.
  2. I didn't and haven't claimed to write the Liverpool history.
  3. That depends on which "die-hard Liverpool supporter" you're talking about (wry smile).
Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is Liverpool history so little compared w e rest?

I don't understand, Liverpool has an even more historical history, so why is the section being minimised? True Redders will not truly understand the significant events of the issues, and will have wrong conclusions on the history of the club. --chapter1 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The history section has been moved to its own page - History of Liverpool FC. The Article was becoming too big and needed to be cleaned up. Hope this has helped Jamie 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie! That was wonderful work! Ahhhh! Lovely Reds! --chapter1 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reserve Squad

It's strange that the reserve squad section is duplicated and above the first team. I'm thinking of:

a) deleting the first list of reserve players
b) copying the data about the Racecourse Ground to the lower section
c) removing any players from it that are in the first team table
d) Making all the players names links, even though most won't be on there.

Any thoughts?

Well there is some errors on that reserve list anyway. Paul Barratt (correct sp) isn't a reserve, he plays with the Under 18s, I can verify this because I know him personally. One correct list of reserve players is desirable, and I agree with the rest of your proposals. I just felt the need to highlight factual accuracy. --Thehumph 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I liked the old format for History Better

This new one seems rushed and is far less informative. An outsider would think the club has a modest history.

Does anyone have the new song sung at Anfield?

Does anyone know about the new song that's being sung at Anfield, where we'll show the "5 Cups" sign to the English clubs (especially Chelsea)? If yes could there be a section on famous songs sung by the Kop? --chapter1 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We won it in gay pareeeee, we won it at wemberleee, in 77 and 84 it was Rome, we've won it 5 times (x2), In Istanbul, we won it 5 times. (second verse - change the last line to 'In Athens, Greece, we'll win it six times!' :) Dalglynch-72 16:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool FC Songs

A whole section on Liverpool FC songs is a good idea,only it would make the page even longer, and some have already raised objections to that. The thing is, there are loads of liverpool songs floating around everywhere, ranging from the hilarious to the downright disrespectful, maybe even offensive. Some would probably be marked as vandalism. So there really isn't any point including some of the songs and leaving out the rest. Should i add a link to this website i discovered which has only liverpool songs? Its great fun. I would like to know of other club songs too, if anybody knows, its damn interesting. No, i haven't heard the latest, but i just downladed "anfield rap", its got to be the funniest i've head, and at times ironical. Kinda crazy 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguating "Ian McCulloch"

In the section "Club Culture" the name "Ian McCulloch" appears. There is insufficient information included to allow disambiguation among the several persons by that name; could a knowledgable person please edit the wikilink to point to the correct person, a listing of options being found at Ian McCulloch - or add another to this listing if needed. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple solution surely would be to label Mr McCulloch along the lines of ... (80's band) Echo and the Bunnymen's front man, Ian McCulloch. Dalglynch-72 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Running Season Commentary

Is it really necessary to have a running season commentary. I have deleted the text on liverpools 10 wins in a row, etc. This has happened before and as said before why not wait til the season ends and then write a summary. Remember this is a encyclopedia, not a way to catch up on their progress. Only significant events shoudl be included. Jamie 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

BOT making link edits?

I think a BOT is making excessive large amounts of link editing. Its making the article look messy. In the first paragraph alone almost every other word is being made a link. I'm going to remove the inappropriate ones. Jamie 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

World club Championship - Reds in Japan

Thsi should be incorporated into the Rafael Benitez article IMO. A sentence should do.

Sounds good. I'll try and make the changes today. Have you considered registering with Wikipedia? It makes editing and tracability alot easier. Jamie 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Squad List

I'm proposing changing the player classification in the squad list. Currently Strikers are classified as FW (Forward), i think this is very old-fashioned. I think ST (Striker) looks better. Ideas? Jamie 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with FW, but no objections to ST either. Also, i was thinking the page can be made to look a bit better by adding some pictures.i cant understand how im supposed to get copyright free pics, ive failed in my attempts so far, i guess im not clear about the procedure.anyway,ill keep trying Kinda crazy 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all sports pictures are problematical from a copyright point of view - basically, unless you took the photo yourself, or the photographer's been dead for more than 70 years (it sometimes only feels like more than 70 years since Crouch scored! :) ) then it's very difficult to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright licensing requirements. There are very few publications, professional photographers, or sites which will license their work under the GFDL or CC. If you look at FA Cup, the hands holding the cup are those of the photographers' little kids, which is how we know the photo's legit! Even club logos are a bit difficult - I know the Premier League has asserted copyright on them and forced some sites to take them down - it's only because our servers are in the US and we're able to assert fair use for how we use them that we've really got away with them. -- Arwel (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I just think Striker is more commonly used when referring to a Striker!! Forward is more often used specifically for Centre-Forward which defines a specific role on the pitch, whereas Striker is more generic. Jamie 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..yea,u have a point,change it. great to see fowler back though,hope he keeps scoring whether he's a ST or a FW,hehe. Kinda crazy

Forward is far more generic than striker. Kenny Dalglish would be classified as a forward and Ian Rush as a striker for instance. Striker has a narrower definition and suggests a player who is in the team just to score goals, whereas a forward has far more to his game. Rushian77 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The Wikipedia article for 'Forward' redirects to Striker. Quote - "Strikers, also known as centre forwards, forwards, and attackers, are the players on a team in football (soccer) in the row nearest to the opposing team's goal, who are therefore principally responsible for scoring goals". So in my opinion and by implication wikipedias is that Striker is more generic. Jamie 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That is such a poor Wikipedia article though. Forward has always had a more general meaning than striker. Forward can refer to attackign wingers for instance - Chelsea play with three forwards, Drogba, Robben and Duff yet only Drogba would be referred to as a striker. All three could be referred to as forwards. Rushian77 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the fact that an attacking midfeilder (i.e. Robben, Duff) can be classed as a forward, then surely Striker should be used to classify the distinction between a attcking player who isn't a midfielder. I.e. A Striker. Remember the whole point of this part of the discussion is what term to classify our strikers in the squad list as - FW or ST. If we use FW, there could be confusion where they play (not their role).Jamie 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The majority of club pages use FW. Some pages use CF. For the sake of uniformity I think FW should be used, despite CF being more accurate. Stu 15:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. Look at a random selection of premiership club official websites and take a look at their squad list, you'll find they use the term 'ST' for striker. I checked Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham & Newcastle - all used Striker. I must add these we're random selections, i'd be pretty sure that the majority if not all clubs used the term striker. I think this should be reflected in the wikipedia article.Jamie 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Jamie, I'm talking about the club's pages on Wikipedia, not external pages. There needs to be continuity with other Wikipedia club articles. You may have a point about Forward not being accurate enough, but if we change it here then all football club pages will have to be changed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football might be a good place to discuss it. Stu 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
When we consider the idiomatic expression, 'star striker' (no such 'star forward' exists), we should accept that players employed with goal scoring their primary job description to be strikers. As stated, forwards is more generic including wingers and strikers. It's not such an important issue though methinks. Dalglynch-72 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting

I've put the latest results on the page. What's wrong with it? Someone keeps on deleting it.

--Number 8 07:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are getting replaced because this is an encyclopedia - a knowledge base. Not a results service. The page isn't a fans website, where you can get all the latest news. Its purpose is to inform someone who Liverpool FC are and include some key historical background information and stats about the club. Although your additions have good intentions, keeping an up to date service is inefficient and messy, thats why we only include big events. Hope this helps Jamie 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why has no Liverpool fan corrected the error in the current squad list? Reina has replaced Dudek as goalie yet this has yet to be noted on the main wiki page! As a neutral i am sure that many wish to remember Dudek's brilliant contribution in last years CL final but lets get with reality..Reina is doing a brilliant job. Finally I would just like to say if the reuslt of Reyna stroking your cheek leads to loss of lower limb function, he must be a wow with the ladies!!

I think your getting confused, Dudek maintained the #1 shirt at te beginning of the season, Reina was assigned #25. Things will most probably change next season Jamie 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll Never Walk Alone and other clubs

Ok I've rewritten the YNWA section again to reflect both Ajax and Milan singing it. There really is no debate on who sung it first - no serious Celtic historian has ever claimed their fans sang the song, there's no documentary evidence of Celtic supporters singing it in the 60s (TV, newspaper, books, other media) whereas tons of such evidence exists regarding Liverpool FC and the Kop. This spurious nonsense has only arisen in the last ten years since it became more popular at Celtic and is parrotted by Mancs and Evertonians wanting to "have a dig" at Liverpool. Rushian77 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the thousand of Celtic fans who claim Celtic sang it first-are they all liars? or the show on Radio Ulster last year who after careful research concluded that Celtic FC did indeed sing that song first.Celtic fans at that particular time(1950s)where singing songs from other musicals not just from Carousel but also The Pirates of Penzance-It was a very musical time in the clubs history.The Celtic supporters are far too proud a bunch to "steal" a song from another club,and i find it insulting and it also makes me view the fans of Liverpool with less regard.How many Liverpudlians can say they know for a fact that Celtic didnt sing that song first?.The fans of Liverpool have not proven they where the first to sing that song they just claim to be without ANYTHING to back there claims up-Its as arrogant as it is pathetic. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Lenin (1870 - 1924)

Due to daily vandalism regarding this I have semi-protected the article. NSLE (T+C) 09:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Time to take the semi-protection off? It's supposed only to be a very short temporary measure, rather than lasting for five days. Also, this issue seems to be more an edit/revert war, than pure vandalism. KeithD 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection for this page. Thought I should let you know.KeithD 09:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is evidence regarding Celtic and YNWA pre-1960; please stop obliterating anything which doesn't happen to happily agree with your views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.175.193 (talk • contribs) .
Please note that Wikipedia is all about verifiability. If you have evidence that Celtic fans sang YNWA before Liverpool fans did that, please put it forward here to dispute that assertion. If that piece of evidence turns out to be reliable, we'll be more than happy to put it up on the article. Otherwise, as of this moment the source cited on the article, ie this, continues to stand and we are obligued to follow this source and say Liverpool fans sang it first. --Pkchan 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So Liverpool may not have been the first club to sing YNWA? Well here's an interesting notion... who cares? It doesn't detract from the fact it's become the club's anthem and motto, and is not the anthem of any other club. Why is this so important to User 58.84.73.78?
I think I preferred it when the page was just being vandalised by smug Man Utd fans who've conveniently forgotten they were knocked out of the Champions League this season before Liverpool. But anyway. --Stevefarrell 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I request that the Neutrality of the article box stays. You are being unfair,pigheaded and damned right arrogant Fans of Celtic sang that song first,you might not like that but its the truth.

Then give a source for it... – Elisson • Talk 14:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable source available that proves liverpool sang the song first,its pure heresay-the newspaper article is a pure joke. —This unsigned comment was added by 58.84.68.200 (talk • contribs) .

Then give us a reliable source that the newspaper article is pure joke... – Elisson • Talk 13:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Elisson you fire back blanks after blanks-The source of your information is only heresay-if you read the article you'll know its as much-pure heresay,I have sought proof that Celtic sang that song first and am happy with that evidence however i wouldnt insult the wikipedia organisation with putting anything on the pages that could not be verifiable 110% unlike the fans of Liverpool who are happy to abuse the wikipedia network by claiming something they cannot prove. Ive tried to do the right thing by rather than contradicting the lies on YNWA section,ive just put up a {npov} box urging further debates,however some of your guys are that petty they even take that box away,something i admit has left me gobsmacked-its only a song.Im personally fed up with the whole debate —This unsigned comment was added by 58.84.68.200 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you provide the "evidence" you say you have found? The NPOV box has nothing to do in the section, to me as an outsider, it represents a neutral point of view, and is backed up by a source. – Elisson • Talk 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because that evidence,like that of The Guardian is pure heresay-The biggest reason why im so hot on this issue isnt because of being a Celtic fan,they are simply a football team,Its Wikipedia-this organisation is supposedly one of the most respected,I love it-as i feel it holds high vale for education of the masses. and complete rubbish like this debate needs to be challenged for the good of wikipedia —This unsigned comment was added by 58.84.71.170 (talk • contribs) .

Please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. The Guardian article, like it or not, falls into the reputable media category and thus qualifies as a reliable source. If you don't like it, feel free to challenge this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources or its talk page. Before that, there is no POV dispute and not even factual dispute over this issue.
And, by the way, please format your comments properly in wikitext. See Help:Editing if you'd like to learn more about the syntax here. And I'd strongly recommend you to sign up for an account, and sign your name for your comments. Like you, we're all here because we love and respect Wikipedia as a respectable knowledge source. Your positive contribution here will be most appreciated here. --Pkchan 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the truth of the matter is that you don't agree with the stance the Guardian newspaper have taken. Sour grapes will get you no where my friend.Jamie 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I'll always assume LFC to be the first team to have adopted the YNWA chant (like most LFC fans with most Celtic fans probably disagreeing), I think reviewers on this talk page are putting too much emphasis needlessly on the importance of who sang it first. I presume no-one submitting is a minor. Suffice to say, the easiest way round it has to be in how you word the English. Why not... It was on the 1960's Kop that it is widely believed that LFC fans were the first to take the YNWA song to their hearts, adopting as an anthem. We have to bear in mind that most people around the World will never have heard about Glasgow Celtic, let alone their glory years, except in reference to them being the club that sold Liverpool King Kenny Dalglish. Dalglynch-72 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Most people around the world haven't heard of Celtic? Are you joking? They have a supporters club in every country where football is played! I hate to admit this, but they were singing it before we were. We got it from Gerry and The Pacemakers in 1963. We started singing it along with Beatles songs on The Kop when it got to number 1. Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have verification that challenges that already used in the article? Alias Flood 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem, an issue like this cannot be verified 100%. One has to ask what is the likelyhood of such a claim. Was this song commonly known in Liverpool before it reached number one on the charts? I would say no. It's not Maggie May is it? Did the Celtic fans know it before it became a "pop hit", I would say yes, they had, and still have more songs than a river rat has fleas! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well unfortunately for yourself there has been evidence for Liverpool singing the song first. Whereas every dimwit coming on here claiming Celtic sung it first either have no evidence or refute the source quoted here. So as it stands Liverpool sung it first - in any wikipedia article not just here, because there is evidence to back it up. Jamie 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey lad who are you calling a dimwit? Not me i hope - I was stood on The Kop when you were still a hop in your old fella's beer. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been kindly asked to provide verifiable standards of evidence. Now, can you do that? The same goes for anyone else making similar claims: Provide compelling evidence. All I see here from the likes of yourself is empty rhetoric, tantamount to wishful thinking. 82.42.133.198 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Kindly elaborate on the remark "the likes of yourself". Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It is self-explanatory. By "the likes of yourself" I am of course referring to contributors who casually circumvent/disregard verifiable standards of evidence and instead forcefully put forward their own personal opinion as though it carried substantial weight. In your case, you begin by asserting that "an issue like this" cannot be "verified 100%" as though the there exists some ambiguity, an indeterminable answer, or some mystery as to exactly which set of supporters began singing the song at a specific time and date. In fact no such ambiguity exists. Liverpool supporters can point to copious amounts of evidence in support of their position. On the other hand, opponents idly speculate and dance around their own unsupported assertions, then when challenged, often pick fights with those who would have the record set straight, deliberately drawing as many people as possible into distraction. Rather like you have done here. 82.42.133.198 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would I want to pick a fight with an IP address? Just because people disagree with you isn't a good reason to start calling people "Dimwits" and "Liars". It's not the sort of behaviour Liverpool supporters engage in, it's the behaviour of "Glory Hunters". THE END. Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Wikipedia policy/Etiquette is that talk pages aren't edited, rather Archived when they get too big. These topics may arise in the future and without any discussion history debates or issues will be reinvented. Also to be honest the discussion page here is no where near the size of other pages, i don't think we have much to worry about at the moment.Jamie 09:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Im putting in the disputed article box again,ive tried my best to find middle ground but ive found this NSLE guy not very co-operative. I know (for a fact) Celtic fans sang that song first,but its still only a song-a great song no doubt about it.I believe the disputed article box allows encyclopedia buffs the opportunity to explore this Anfield myth and know that theres more to this storie than what they have been led to believe —This unsigned comment was added by 58.84.67.32 (talk • contribs) .

As a neutral I don't "know" whether the Liverpool fans or the Celtic fans sang it first. I only know that there have been evidence put up to support the Liverpool fans' claim, and none, apart from hearsay, to support the Celtic fans'.
If you are confident about your claim, why don't you put up some verifiable evidence here for us all to judge? We'll then all be happy. Repeating groundless claims over and over again here won't lead you anywhere. --Pkchan 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Misc

With the Champions League squads being set following the transfer window, a few more Liverpool players have been given squad numbers. Adam Hammill is 40 (David Martin hasn't been assigned a number yet), James Smith is 41, Daniel O'Donnell is 42, Lee Peltier is 43 and Robbie Foy is 44. Great job with the page! 24.68.200.219 07:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The club have announce to sign new argentine central defender which arrive at june, Gabriel Alejandro Paletta, now playing at C.A. Banfield. Can someone write the article b4 he arrived? Matthew hk 14:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Her is some material: He born in February 15, 1986, and won the 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship, weight 80kg, 183cm tall...Matthew hk 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by anonymous user

That article is purely heresay it holds no evidence whatsoever and the whole. "Who sang YNWA first" is debatable aswell as heavily disputable. The claim that Celtic fans sang the song first is real and its not going to go away any time soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.77.240 (talk • contribs) .

Back up your claim with evidence here. Otherwise your claim still stay as a "claim", ie unverifiable assertion which every editor is entitled to discard. --Pkchan 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
So your trying to base the whole theory of Liverpool being the first fans to sing that song based purely on the say so of a newspaper-that argument holds no water as your well aware-To call 'The Guardian' as verifiable evidence is a disgrace and is wholly contemptable.
Why is the Guardian a disgrace? And no, that's not what the whole theory is being based on - I would say that, Celtic supporters aside, just about everyone would agree that Liverpool sang it first. I dare say most people don't even know that Celtic sing it. But either way it's going to be controversial. Maybe we could amend the text in the article to say that Celtic fans firmly state that they sang it first, but most people and sources indicate this to be untrue. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
However tearful Celtic fans want to get about the subject and/or the Guardian article - its still more cited evidence than Celtic fans have provided. So it stays. Find a source backing up your silly claim and then come back. Jamie 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
If when the article gets unprotected and vandalism resumes I intend to contact the ISP. NSLE (T+C) at 01:01 UTC (2006-03-15)

Its not vandalism,its the truth -Wikipedia is about facts and Liverpool fans claiming that song first is a damned lie-breed only through ignorance.

We still haven't seen you put forward any evidence to support your claim. Prove your assertion and let others verify it, or your claim will continue to be ignored and reverted here. Please note that that thousands of Celtic fans claiming that they sang YNWA first doesn't count as a proof -- it is as convincing as that thousands of Liverpool fans claiming that they sang YNWA first, that is, not convincing at all. --Pkchan 11:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Neither have you-The Guardian newspaper has no creedence in this issue whatsoever.What you are doing in effect is dishonest,on a medium like the internet that is nothing new-however,when you spout those lies on a trusted encyclopedia like Wikipedia thats just not on,and for that reason alone this issue will not go to sleep.You have every right to claim Liverpool fans sang YNWA in the early 60s - Theres no problem with that.

Debatable and disputable + Absolutlty NO proof = Not worthy of Wikipedia article


There is verifiable proof of Liverpool adopting the song from 1962 onwards, both in contemporary press (Liverpool Echo, various national newspapers) and in contemporary radio and TV broadcasts (both of matches and in the famous Panorama documentary). No such similar contemporary evidence exists for Celtic singing the song anywhere near this early. Not one iota. The same can be said for every other club in world football. As such the evidence for the claim of LFC singing YNWA first is both clear and substantiated. Rushian77 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear and substantiated,if it was we wouldnt be having this discussion nothing in regards to Liverpool Fans singing that song first is verifiable other than your claim that you sang it in the 60s Thats the only thing you can verify,There are thousands of Celtic fans all over this cyberspace who tell you They sang that song in the 1950s along with "Hail Hail"<Coincidentally from another musical of that era-The Pirates of Penzance---You can shout and scream your heart out but the fact remains Celtic fans sang that song first in the 1950s<I know that and i think deep down you realise that aswell.Celtic fans are far too proud a bunch to steal a claim to something like that. You should just be proud that you sing it too.

We appreciate that you believe that you are right, but Wikipedia operates on verifiability and consensus, not what you personally believe. And you shouldn't presume to know what other people are thinking. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe im right - I know it. As for the verifiability-Liverpool have not proven an iota that they sang that song first

What type of arguement is "thousands of celtic fans ...wil tell you" - I think alot more Liverpool fans will tell you the same. Basically a useless arguement. Heres a little test for you - Go to Google and type in You'll Never Walk Alone, see how many celtic references there are compared to Liverpool. I think it speaks volumes that you are clutching on a song, i mean as your history goes theres not much. I guess i should feel sorry for you. Jamie

Personal issues aside you still have no verifiable evidence Liverpool sang YNWA first. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Lenin (1870 - 1924)

We never said it was a lie. Celtic may have sang it first, but as there's no proof, and it's more or less the official theme of Liverpool, we're sticking with 'pool unless we get proof Sceptre (Talk) 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fans of Liverpool claim to have sang it first(Lie) If fans of Liverpool claimed they sang it in the early 1960s there would have been nothing to debate-except Fans of Liverpool are trying to claim something they cannot prove.

There is clearly proof that Liverpool fans were singing the song in the 1960s or at least the 1970s. What you need to do, is to find proof that Celtic fans were singing it earlier. Not just something like "thousands of Celtic fans would tell you they were singing it earlier". Real proof (video,newspapers etc.). And please stop calling everyone liers.

-Just a comment, but the fact is that while proof can be shown that Liverpool used the song in the early 60's, it does not form proof that Liverpool were the first. It proves nothing more than what it states, regardless of the absence of any evidence from Celtic. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to use something like "Liverpool have used the song since the 1960's (insert reference), and are believed to be the first club to have done so." It probably won't shut anybody up, but at least it's not subjective. Andy 10:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The most successful English football team

statistically the most successful English football team to date

Undoubtedly we need to cite a source to support this claim? --Pkchan 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Any book with facts and figures on football league/premiership clubs ought to prove that. --Stevefarrell 23:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It is an undisputed fact. See Titles by club as well as European Cup and Champions League finals Overall Statistics and Liverpool F.C. Honours. These links are cited in the article and the facts contained in many others. Alias Flood 00:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Football365 has a table of statistics for all league games played since the clubs joined which shows that up to end of season 2002/03:
          Team                    Sns  Pld   W   D    L    F    A  Pts  Pct 
        1 Liverpool                98 3916 1839 951 1126 6714 4935 5071 58.4% 
        2 Manchester United        99 3948 1812 965 1171 6745 5202 5037 57.6% 
        3 Arsenal                  98 3916 1732 980 1204 6444 5074 4851 55.9% 
        4 Wolverhampton Wanderers 103 4150 1690 955 1505 6779 6180 4702 50.8%
and Football365 again for all games in the top tier (Division 1 or Premiership)
          Team                    Sns  Pld   W   D    L    F    A   Pts  
        1 Liverpool                90 3602 1654 895 1053 5901 4467 4703
        2 Everton                 102 3986 1620 977 1389 6273 5634 4584
        3 Arsenal                  88 3602 1587 934 1081 5847 4617 4586
        4 Manchester United        80 3246 1476 822  948 5506 4331 4292
The top-tier statistics have been updated to include the last three seasons but I've omitted the percentage. If you add these to the trophy tally then I think the statistics suport the claim. --Barfbagger 13:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans / Managers Section

I noticed that recently the section has been changed regarding the table and its format. I don't know whether its intentional but its really messy. Anyone want to revert it or fix it? Jamie 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Benitez era / End of 2005-6 Season

My brief summary of Liverpool's present position has been deleted three times now without any attempt at compromise. I have replaced it once again, in good faith, believing it to be relevant to the article.

Liverpool are poised to break the 70 point barrier for only the third time in its premiership history. Indeed, it will be only the second time since the Premiership was reduced to 38 games. On top of this, the team is situated in 3rd place and certainly look likely to finish within the top four.

Following last year's disappointing Premiership performance and the problems of finishing fifth without automatic Champions League qualification, especially with only five games left to play, it does not seem too early to mention this in the article. This is not a running commentary of the nature where it would be meaningless within the first few weeks of a season. It is relevant and of interest.

Rather than coninue with this edit war, please propose a compromise rather than continue with this persistent revision. - Alias Flood 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph was vandalised 7 April at 11:45 by 88.109.212.14 (talk • contribs) and then deleted 11 minutes later by 212.158.75.199 (talk • contribs). Most strange ...

I have reinstated it. - Alias Flood 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have personally deleted on occasions for the main reason that Wikipedia isn't a season summary for your team. This isn't a fans page. Its an encyclopedia that should be informative. Having a season summary is messy and requires constant maintenance, thats why normally only significant events are cited. These thing should be saved for an article that reviews the season, but they shouldn't be in the main article. Jamie 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jamie. – Elisson • Talk 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As three days had passed with no comment, I was concerned that we might not have the opportunity to discuss this. It is doubly fortunate, therefore, that you both respond in unison on the same day. I am fully aware of what Wikipedia is and what it is not, hence my links in my first comment under this heading and my subsequent links here and now so that we may all be on equal footing, as all editors should be. This should also be reflected by the fact that rather than continue edit wars, I asked for dialogue to take place on the Talk Page due to JamieStapleton's persistent revisions. Whilst I agree that Wikipedia should not be used to give a blow by blow account of each sporting event and risk becoming an online scores reporting repository, I do see genuine merit in an article being up to date and reflecting significant events as they happen. There is no need to wait until the end of a season to say that a team has reached its best/second best position in ten years and could possibly reach its best position ever in a particular league. Such events must surely be of interest as well as being significant and germane. In this light, I find it hard to agree to a revert. Again I ask if you can suggest a compromise? Alias Flood 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason i edited was because no comment on the talk page was made to say what the changes were and why. You can't ask for open discussion when things are reverted and not have any when things are added. New additions to the article should really be proposed and discussed before adding. See Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes
Going on to your new paragraph it really looks out of place and is stating miscellaneous facts that don't need to be in the article. It reads more like a newspaper column. Significance is something that will be remembered in future years, i don't think Liverpools current league standing and their future semi-final opponents is something significant. These facts as said before can be included in a season review at the end of the season, but nothing is stopping the season review being generated now and linked from the main page. I see this as an adaquate compromise, as does Elisson. Hope this helps. Jamie 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Before responding here, I have looked at a few other clubs on my 'watchlist' and there appears to be little consistency in this respect when taken at random. Some give details of present performance and others do not, all to greater and lesser degrees.
Without mentioning the present position of a club (on this occasion), I feel that we sell the reader short. If I came fresh to this article, I would want to know about “now” as well as the past accolades. I would want to know about present form and league position and whether the club was improving and contesting, or declining and struggling, especially as the season draws to a close. The present time may be dwarfed, or indeed forgotten, by future events but that does not make it of any less value to someone reading it now.
I appreciate that we both feel strongly about this but I would like us to go forward in agreement as I believe that we both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. To this end, I propose my own compromise of including a brief reference under Liverpool's Premiership performance. Can we agree on this, please? - Alias Flood 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well currently the proposed compromise is 2:1 against yours. But in the light of civility and wikipedia I have proposed this matter to Wikiproject: Football for opinions on the matter. Mainly opinions regarding whether running season commentary should be included in any clubs main article. This should provide better scope to the matter. Until this has been resolved I will remove the commentary. Bear with the process. Jamie 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that you were more keen on canvassing opinion in your own favour than presenting the facts accurately, i.e. inclusion of a paragraph on this team having reached the 70 point mark for only the second time in 10 seasons and only the third time since the introduction of the Premier League. I have now pointed that discussion to this page. Statements implying that I was adding "who the game is against" as well as adding a "running commentary" do little to bring this matter forward. - Alias Flood 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just found that this information, i.e. Liverpool reaching the 70 point mark for only the second time in 10 seasons, has been cited as a "significant landmark" and can be found at Benitez' Reds on landmark course. As this is verifiable, are there still objections? - Alias Flood 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I just looked up Liverpool's league history, and they have reached 70 or more points on 14 occasions since 3 points for a win was introduced in 1981-82, ten of those consecutively [1], so I don't think it is particularly remarkable. The current season already takes up more of the article than Bob Paisley's entire tenure. A worthwhile question to ask when an article already has a long history section (and daughter article) is "Will this event be regarded as notable in ten years time?", which I don't regard as being true here. Oldelpaso 09:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Spion Kop

Which football ground was the first to have a terrace dubbed Spion Kop? Arsenal fans say their old Manor Ground [2] was first, and the Anfield page [3] states that the terrace at Sheffield was named accordingly first, but in both cases no verifiable source is provided. I am attempting to clear up this matter on the relevant of discussion pages. Please, all input welcome. 82.42.133.198 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Spion Kop is named after a hill in Africa where a fierce battle was fought that led to the loss of many (mainly) Liverpool lives. From Hillsborough Justice Campaign, "On January 24th 1900, there was a battle in the South African township of Natal, which led to appalling loss of life, especially amongst many Liverpool people. The battle became known as the battle of the Spion Kop. The battle was one of the many disasters at the Boer War and ironically, the battle need never have happened."
From lfconline, "They won their first championship in 1900/01, but were again relegated two years later. After another year in the second division they bounced back up and immediately won their second championship in 1904/05. As a reward the directors built the legendary Spion Kop for the fans. Named after a hill in Natal where a Merseyside regiment suffered heavy losses in the Boer War. Three hundred died in a vain attempt to lift the siege of Ladysmith, many of them Liverpool lads. "Spion Kop" means "vantage point" in Afrikaans."
I can't think why anyone outside of Liverpool FC would want to claim fame to the name. I hope that this helps. -- Alias Flood 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I just found this at Anfield History, "After Liverpool had won their second League Championship in 1906 the directors rewarded the fans by building a new banking at the Walton Breck Road. A local journalist, Ernest Edwards, of the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo christened it the Spion Kop, after a famous hill in South Africa where a local regiment had suffered heavy losses during the Boer War." It seems that the name came from a local journalist, again referring to the heavy loss of Liverpool lives. Again, I hope that this helps. -- Alias Flood 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
AF - Is is my understanding that the Walton Breck Road mound/bank/hill existed prior to 1906. Indeed, according to the Anfield page: "In 1906, the banked stand at one end of the ground was renamed the Spion Kop". [4] (emphasis mine). And so in the year 1906 the bank officially became known as the Spion Kop, and prior to that date it is believed that some supporters had already considered the similarity.
So I am not still not convinced by the claim that, unofficially, Arsenal's Manor Ground had the first Spion Kop, simply because no evidence is forthcoming for it. At present, it is no different than the claim that Liverpool supporters nicked the song 'You'll Never Walk Alone' from Man Utd supporters. Ste B 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey soft lad, "Kop" means "Hill" or "Mound" - Vantage Point, my arse! Vera, Chuck and Dave.

And in Dutch (from which Afrikaans is descended) "Spion" means spy. So a literal "Spy Hill" could be better translated as Vantage Point. -- Barfbagger 06:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright Barfbagger? OK, I phoned a friends Wife who is South African and she says you are not wrong but by the same token you are not right. The problem is, that Afrikaans was a "spoken language" at the time of the battle, and that Dutch was the written form, so as per, things go a bit wonkey in the translation. She says Spion in Kicthen or Cape Dutch (Afrikaans) means "See" not "Spy". So to say Spion Kop means "Spy Hill", would be like saying "Spy Hill Hill" It would certainly mean if one was at the top one would have a "vantage point", but it would not mean it meant "vantage point" It would be like saying "I am standing on the top of Tower Bridge, I have a good "vantage point", this must be the name of the bridge". But she says that whilst I'm right in saying it means "hill or "mound" you are more correct, although it isn't really correct! God! Why the hell didn't they just call it The Home End??? Up The Reds! Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Spy" is a literal translation but I guess we could agree that it is a synonym for "see" or "view" (check out Roget's Thesaurus") so that would make it a "see hill" or "view hill" which I think is close to "vantage point" as that was probably why it was given the name. I certainly don't agree that it would follow that it would be "Spy Hill Hill". Anyway, it was named a long time ago and I am sure that Afrikaans has changed since that time as it has assimilated many other languages (I believe Malay is in there somewhere according to the Afrikaans monument in Paarl) and a present-day Afrikaaner may not realise the difference. For example many British decry the use the American "gotten" as not being proper "English" but I understand that this was actually in common use in England several hundred years ago and it is "British English" that has changed. However, I am glad they called it the Kop as we now have the apellation "Kopite", home-ender wouldn't have the same ring to it. Barfbagger 12:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, home - ender certainly wouldn't have the same ring to it! Fair points, you can have that one! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) PS I misread you , I thought you said "Spion" meant "Spy hill" - hence "hill, hill".Vera, Chuck & Dave
I admire your magnanimity Vera Chuck & Dave! "Spion Kop"="Vantage Point"?! It means "Small Hill". Denise.

Violent Reputation?

I'm reverting to before the insert by user 131.111.8.98. This is an opinion, and cannot possibly be substantiated with evidence.

quote: Liverpool FC have a reuptation (sic) amongst English Premier League supporters of being a violent team, or moreso a time with violent supporters; especially in older times when many players came from the poor, crime-ridden areas of Liverpool. Although this is not so much the case in modern times, local Liverpool supporters are still known to be strong-voiced and sometimes a little fanatical.

Ronaldo Guevara 13:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh it could be substantianted with press commentary... if it were true. I'm English and I don't believe Liverpool fans have a bad reputation at all. Good revert. --kingboyk 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah? [5]

Vandalism

Some of the infobox has been vandalised - I don't know all the information/characters though so I can't change it back. 82.71.216.90 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

At 43 kb I think this article is probably more suited to a peer review than a good article nomination. Anyhow as I'm here I'll make a couple of suggestions as to things which can be improved:

  • The history section pays too much attention to recent events and not enough to those further back; of the club's 114 years of history, the first 67 years are given just seven lines, whereas events from the last 12 months take up several paragraphs.
  • No need to include reserve players, scouts, masseurs etc.
  • There is a section about the proposed new stadium, but no section about Anfield. Oldelpaso 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic??

So the page states Liverpool is mainly considered a Catholic club. Oh? I'm a bloody atheist and I support them. The only real link with Celtic is they sing our song. I'd say that Liverpool is mainly secular, and frankly religion just doesn't get involved. I don't know of any religious songs regularly sung, the players are mixed denominations, the fans are from all backgrounds. The only reason I haven't deleted that entire sentence (typo on prominent included) is that some muppet would just revert it. Please, take religious aggrandising elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.228.185 (talk • contribs) .

Does it? I reverted that edit (along with another) almost an hour ago. – Elisson • Talk 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think any reference to religious allegiance is entirely misleading. My mother's family came from a strong Orange background and were Liverpool supporters. My father's family were also Protestant but supported Everton. My mother insisted that Everton was in fact the Catholic club. As a seventh-day atheist I continue to support Liverpool in a purely secular fashion. Religious tags are probably purely the POV of whoever is doing the tagging. Barfbagger 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, one of my uncles, strongly Welsh Methodist, supported Liverpool for well over 50 years. -- Arwel (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yews want lobbin' off The Stick! everton are the Catholic Team. Vera, Chuck and Dave.

Shouldn't this discussion come to an end right here? I don't see how religious associaions matter in football. Kinda crazy 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think its probably due to Liverpool having that special relationship with a certain Scottish club with affiliations to the Catholic church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.64.8 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 July 2006.

Neither liverpool or everton where founded or indeed associated with religious factions in a similar way to the glasgow situation. However Everton generally became the 'Catholic club' during a period of the 20th century, due to a number of Irish Catholic players they had. Therefore the whole religion debate is a bit pointless,b ut it should be mentioned that at certain periods there has been a loose cultural connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.112.229.66 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 June 2006.


My family's origin is Turkish. I was born and raised in Australia. I am a muslim. Religion has nothing to do with this song nor the club. I am a strong, faithful Liverpool supporter and the support has been passed down from my fathers side which happen to be all Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.165.218 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2006

Everton are traditionally considered the Catholic club and Liverpool are considered the protestant club. I'm sure that there are plenty of people from different religions who support theses clubs and no one is disputing this. It is however true that certain clubs are considered to have or to have had links with religions.--The Next Biggish Thing 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See, that's always the way I'd considered it, too (although I'm a Catholic who supports Liverpool). However, the debate still rages fiercely - I used to work at Radio Merseyside on the Roger Phillips phone-in, and it would crop up all the time. As soon as one person said on the phone that Everton were always the Catholic club, you'd get twenty people phoning in to say they were the Protestant club. It's such a fervent debate that there's really just not the space it needs on the Wikipedia entry, and surely the fact that there's even a debate shows that the religious affiliations of the two clubs aren't as ingrained in their existence as those of Rangers and Celtic - as such, I don't think it's necessary to include it. Seb Patrick 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)