Talk:Neil Lennon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The Rangers Supporters Trust employed the services of a lip reading expert who verified the claim.[6].
Would it be pointing out the obvious to say that a document, supposededly paid for by the Rangers Supporters Trust, written by someone in the employ of the Rangers Supporters Trust, hosted on a website which is dedicated to the rivals of the team of which Neil Lennon is a captain, might not be the most relaible and informed source for such a statement?
[edit] NPOV Check
"Rangers fans accused Lennon of giving sectarian abuse when he shouted Orange Bastards at the Rangers fans and management during an Old Firm match. The Rangers Supporters Trust employed the services of a lip reading expert who verified the claim.[6]. The Trust also criticised Celtic manager Martin O'Neill, who escorted Lennon off the pitch, and later claimed that Lennon had been subjected to abuse of a "racial and sectarian manner" throughout the game by Rangers fans [7]. No action was taken and very little coverage of the offence made the media."
- Rangers Supporters Trusts are not the best source of unbiased information with regards to Glasgow Celtic or their players.
- The source to 'verify' the claims of the Rangers Supporters Trust is a single PDF file created and hosted by the Rangers Supporters Trust.
- Quotes, and information relating to Martin O'Neill should be in the Martin O'Neill page, not Neil Lennons. This would be an indicator of the general NPOV of this section.
Any thoughts anyone? --McTrumpet 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The incident did occur, and it was mentioned by Graham Spiers both in print and on the radio. There is now no mention of Martin O'Neil in relation to this incident in the article.
- You'll need to provide a reputable, verifiable source for this. In the mean time I've removed both claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The source is both reputable and verifiable. An independent lip reading expert was used. KarateKid7 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- A Rangers Supporters Trust is neither reputable or unbiased. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- An independent lip-reading witness is both reputable and unbiased.
- And who was it who paid for this 'independent' report? The Rangers Supporters Trust. Indeed, the document which has been linked to is not in fact the alleged report in question, it is a 'Media Release', issued by the Rangers Supporters Trust which mentions this alleged report! Are we now saying that a single PDF document, paid for and hosted on servers paid for by the Rangers Supporters Trust, which doesn't mention either the name of the 'expert', nor in fact provides any evidence to support the claims being made, is an unbiased source which is likely to be representative of a Neutral Point of View? Oh well, as long as I can quote COTH as a source..........--TheMadTim 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- An independent lip-reading witness is both reputable and unbiased.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a mention of the incident/alleged incident, as long as it's made clear who is making the allegation (earlier edits didn't), and I would prefer if the word "independent" was removed - if a group employs someone to back up their claim, is that person "independent"? I think readers are quite capable of reading the edit, noting that it comes from fans of Lennon's arch-rivals (note: not even from Rangers Football Club, not from the SFA or SPL, not from Strathclyde Police...), and drawing their own conclusions. An earlier edit added that the RST also criticised M O'N for escorting Lennon from the field - I added a reference (BBC, I think) to O'Neill saying that it was because he felt that Lennon had been subjected to a tirade of sectarian/racist abuse all match - felt that added a bit of, er, "context". Camillus (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok That settles it I will take Camillus's advice as he is the best contributor to the article and I will remove the word independent, but I do think that it is important the claim stays. I have heard Graham Spiers refer to it on both radio and television and read him mention it in the herald. --
WP:RS - 'We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher'. --TheMadTim 03:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
OK chaps, I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, but some users feel it acceptable conduct to make changes contrary to Wikipedia policy, without discussion of the matter. Fair do's. --TheMadTim 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)