This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I re-wrote the entire page today. Here is the list of substantive changes:
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article1848719.ece, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7206891.stm
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/17075/hun-not-a-sectarian-term-celtic-fans-chief-tells-committee.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeusie72 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4219595/Hun-rap-Celts-pair-walk-free.html#ixzz1qCvlLdP7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 ( talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 ( talk) 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Haven't we been through this before? We tried to make the description completely neutral, but since that didn't work... The description mentioning sectarianism accurately reflects the content of the article being linked to. The Rangers article says quite clearly, with plenty of referencing, that the term is insulting and sectarian, so the description can/should reflect that. If an editor disagrees with that description, the place to take up the debate is at the Rangers article Talk page. As before, the use of Hun as a general term of abuse towards Protestants is not supported by the linked article(s) and so shouldn't be dealt with here.-- ShelfSkewed Talk 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The key point is that disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. So long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. This is the point ShelfSkewed made a while ago and I am at a loss to understand why the argument is still going on here. If people want to argue over content and referencing than that is for the linked article not a disambiguation page. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
To just repeat what has already been said. Wikipedia Disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. With this page, so long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. Monkeymanman ( talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Wether it is sectarian or not the current wording is wrong, it is either a term for Rangers fans OR a term for Protestants it cannot be both. Adam4267 ( talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
On another note, List of ethnic slurs says about hun: '2) An offensive term for a Protestant in Northern Ireland or historically, a member of the British military in Ireland ("Britannia's huns").'
A Scottish court has cleared this as not being a sectarian term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 ( talk) 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I had the same reaction as Adam4267 at first. An insult from one side of the Old Firm to the other isn't ipso facto sectarian. Why Rangers and their fans are called Huns makes all the difference for me. Is it to connect Anglo-Saxon Britons to Hunnic heritage (as opposed to people of Celtic heritage; compare to its use to describe the Germans in WWI)? If so, it's sectarian. Is it to suggest a sort of lawlessness and savagery, as commonly associated with the Huns? If so, then it's not sectarian. Absent evidence either way, I wouldn't've used the term if I added that entry, but neither do I feel comfortable removing it. -- BDD ( talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
BKonrad,
Please understand that blanket reverting to the problematic revision will not help. Discuss here the shortenings, because the edits removed parts and altered information, etc.( KIENGIR ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC))
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I re-wrote the entire page today. Here is the list of substantive changes:
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article1848719.ece, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7206891.stm
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/17075/hun-not-a-sectarian-term-celtic-fans-chief-tells-committee.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeusie72 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4219595/Hun-rap-Celts-pair-walk-free.html#ixzz1qCvlLdP7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 ( talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 ( talk) 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Haven't we been through this before? We tried to make the description completely neutral, but since that didn't work... The description mentioning sectarianism accurately reflects the content of the article being linked to. The Rangers article says quite clearly, with plenty of referencing, that the term is insulting and sectarian, so the description can/should reflect that. If an editor disagrees with that description, the place to take up the debate is at the Rangers article Talk page. As before, the use of Hun as a general term of abuse towards Protestants is not supported by the linked article(s) and so shouldn't be dealt with here.-- ShelfSkewed Talk 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The key point is that disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. So long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. This is the point ShelfSkewed made a while ago and I am at a loss to understand why the argument is still going on here. If people want to argue over content and referencing than that is for the linked article not a disambiguation page. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
To just repeat what has already been said. Wikipedia Disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. With this page, so long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. Monkeymanman ( talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Wether it is sectarian or not the current wording is wrong, it is either a term for Rangers fans OR a term for Protestants it cannot be both. Adam4267 ( talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
On another note, List of ethnic slurs says about hun: '2) An offensive term for a Protestant in Northern Ireland or historically, a member of the British military in Ireland ("Britannia's huns").'
A Scottish court has cleared this as not being a sectarian term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 ( talk) 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I had the same reaction as Adam4267 at first. An insult from one side of the Old Firm to the other isn't ipso facto sectarian. Why Rangers and their fans are called Huns makes all the difference for me. Is it to connect Anglo-Saxon Britons to Hunnic heritage (as opposed to people of Celtic heritage; compare to its use to describe the Germans in WWI)? If so, it's sectarian. Is it to suggest a sort of lawlessness and savagery, as commonly associated with the Huns? If so, then it's not sectarian. Absent evidence either way, I wouldn't've used the term if I added that entry, but neither do I feel comfortable removing it. -- BDD ( talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
BKonrad,
Please understand that blanket reverting to the problematic revision will not help. Discuss here the shortenings, because the edits removed parts and altered information, etc.( KIENGIR ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC))