Jump to content

Talk:Mo Johnston

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

Rangers vs Celtic controversy

[edit]

This article is heavily biased and written from a very skewed view of Mo Johnston and his relationship with Rangers Fans. There were no burning of scarves outside Ibrox ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] by Rangers Fans only by two homeless people paid by a tabloid to do so! ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] The author would be better served investigating Maurice's fear of living in Glasgow and his intimidation by Celtic fans ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed](now who is being slanted and biased?) ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] rather than myths about Rangers! Mo Johnston wasn't the first Roman Catholic player to play for Rangers, this is a bit of an urban myth. Most notably John Spencer was at Rangers in season 1985-1986 and was Roman Catholic.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] It is impossible to know without access to all former players details whether or not Rangers ever had a ban on signing Roman Catholics or not. It is often suggested that Scotland being 85% Protestant, and the majority of Roman Catholics would favour Celtic that it is not unusual that very few chose to play for Rangers who are Celtic's biggest rivals. Even now when Rangers play considerably more Roman Cathlolic than they have done at any time in their history, this probably has more to do with playing non-Scots, rather than a lifting of any ban on Catholic players.

1) Not the first Catholic, the first since WW2. 2) Spencer did not play for Rangers until after Mo did, which is what the article said. 3) Mo's official bio says that he was the first since WW2. 4) Even if it's not the case that he was the first WW2, which we might not have a way of knowing, it is an important misconception (or not), which has to be mentioned in the article. 5) I'm not Catholic, Protestant, Rangers, or Celtic fan, so I'm trying to make this article as informative and unbiased and possible. --Dryazan 13:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although, even if it could be shown that it was actually John Spencer and not Mo Johnson who was the first Catholic signed by Souness, this would not disprove the claim that Rangers had a ban on Catholic players from roughly WW1 down to the Souness era. PatGallacher 01:17, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I am really not sure how to do this so this page doesn't become a Holy War like Rangers and Celtics pages become from time to time. If you can, please do. --Dryazan 03:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Kitchenbrand said that he was not open about being a Catholic when he played with Rangers, he used to attend mass in secret. It seems Rangers simply assumed that a white South African with an Afrikanner name would be a Protestant. PatGallacher 10:30, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I am removing the Kitchenbrand info. This is a Mo page, not a Rangers or Kitchenbrand page. I do not want this page to become a Holy War like the Rangers and Celtics pages. --Dryazan 13:30, 13 May 2005 (U

Sources/NPOV

[edit]

I've added {{POV}} and {{notverified}} tags at the top of the article. For an article dealing with a polarizing figure and containing some controversial claims, it's shocking that no one bothered to cite a single source.

Also, there are several unattributed, subjective statements that either need to go or have to come from notable, preferably neutral people. For example:

  • "widely considered one of Scotland's best strikers of the 1980s."
See: WP:WEASEL. Either quote a reputable source calling him one of the best Scottish strikers of the 1980s, a reputable source saying he's widely considered so, or remove this statement and cite his goal tally.
  • "However, it was his return from France to Scotland that was to cement Johnston's place in Scottish football history."
This sentence needs to go, I think. If it really is notable, it should go without saying, right?
  • "famously saying that "Celtic are the only team I want to play for"."
Again, "famously" should go without saying.

I'll be adding {{fact}} tags into the article and if i have more time, see if I can dig up some sources. Ytny 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic added

[edit]

I have added a picture to the page (finally). Ebuz610 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers section

[edit]

@IP editor; I removed those tags because I rewrote the material to remove opinion/conjecture and deal only in verifiable facts - this then satisfies the reliability of the source. Blogs of major newspapers are generally treated the same as op-ed/editorial (i.e. relatively reliable). Pulling factual information from them is generally considered ok in my experience. Any thoughts?

I think the inclusion Rangers fans burned scarves and threatened to hand in season tickets over the signing should be altered to some rangers fans.....
I also think the sentence should be expanded to include the fact that johnston was welcomed by some of the Rangers support, due to the nature of the one upmanship over signing johnston before celtic.(As per the stated ref)
The book (Murray, Bill (2000). The Old Firm. Edinburgh: John Donald) although is a reliable source, due to the fact that it has been referred to by the same user who has a history of misusing sources I question its inclusion until it can be checked.Monkeymanman (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on that source because of BLP policy: When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting. Obviously there will be a multitude of more reliable news sources from the time, as well as more recent academic work.
Your edit appears to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in that it is no longer clear why Rangers supporters objected (burning scarves etc.) to his signing. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i see what you mean, it might be an idea to scale the rangers section down to the bare bones just now before discussing an improved section with refs that are acceptable? Monkeymanman (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I re-jigged the section based on the above comments (made it more clear why people disapproved and added "some" for the Rangers fance). In terms of the source; usually it is acceptable to cite facts from such sources (see Wp:BLPSPS for general validity of the source and Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations gives general ideas r.e. news sourcing). As the content is factual and not opinion it seems verifiable --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh good work. I am wondering about the sentence Rangers' kitman protested by making Johnston arrange his own kit and witholding from him the chocolate bars dispensed to other players, and its verifiability. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't strike me as contentious. So, generally speaking, it should be fine with that source - of course it would be beneficial for our piece of mind for someone to find and check the book (and all the other bits it references). On the other hand I am apathetic if you prefer to remove it :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is not contentious enough for removal, at this moment. Good work with the rest. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mo Johnston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency re first Catholic playing for Rangers

[edit]

Related to a discussion I started at Talk:1989 in Scotland, I notice the article is a bit inconsistent about the significance of Johnston's being a Catholic playing for Rangers. I think this is entirely down to contradictory claims over the years and ambiguous issues, but there does seem do be a problem. The opening to the article states Mo Johnston was "the first open Catholic to play for Rangers since World War I." However the Rangers section of the article is slightly different and in itself contradictory noting first that Johnston was "'their first major Roman Catholic signing'", but then he was the highest-profile Catholic to sign for the club since the World War I era, though other Catholics had signed for Rangers before". In fact this is a complicated issue. Johnston's signing was very much in the news in 1989, not least because of his religious background, but also because of the fact Celtic had thought he was going to rejoin them. Certainly claims were made about him being the first Catholic, but a) as noted here there were Catholic players in Rangers' early days b) John Spencer was on Rangers' books at the time Johnston signed, having come through the youth system at the club, but I think had yet to play for the first team in a major match c) Don Kitchenbrand was a Roman Catholic playing for Rangers in the 1950s, but his faith was concealed. It would be good if a consistent form of words could be used. Dunarc (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mo_Johnston&oldid=1203118350"