This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd always been vaguely aware of this goalkeeper who made a single appearance for United in the 1980s, but I didn't know that he also had a spell at Liverpool (August 1995 - June 1996). He never played a first-team game for them, but was a full squad member (number 27) and I assume third choice (after James and Warner). Can/should he be added to the list, or does not having played a first-team match for Liverpool disqualify him? There are so few players who have signed for both clubs that I think he warrants inclusion in some form - perhaps a mention in the text if not the table - but I wanted to see if anyone disagrees. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Shiresman ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The box for major trophies excluded the Charity Shield because it is not a major trophy, however it contained the Super Cup. They are about as equally important as eachother, the charity shield is a game between the two domestic cup winners, and the Super cup is a game between the two winners of the major European trophies (Champions' League and UEFA Cup). Therefore I took out the Super Cup for the same reason the Charity shield was taken out. If it is to be included, I think the Charity Shield should be also included. 81.153.39.254 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
All trophies should be included. Manchester United has won 60 and Liverpool 59. Stop counting in your own way. Stop vandalizing the page by substracting trophies. It's not 44-41 to Liverpool. Thank you Psyrras Panagiotis 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There are references provided for how to determine which trophies are major trophies. Major trophies should be competed for by a significant number of the top clubs and should take place over multiple rounds across a significant part of the season.
It is clear that the Charity Shield and UEFA Super Cup are not equivalent to the Premier League or the UEFA Champions League.
Major Trophies
Premier League (and predecessors) - round-robin season-long tournament competed for by the top 20 clubs
FA Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs and hundreds of lower-ranked clubs
League Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs
UEFA Champions League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues
UEFA Europa League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues who did not qualify for Champions League
Minor trophies
Community Shield (and predecessors) - pre-season friendly single-match between FA Cup winners and Champions from previous season
UEFA Super Cup - single-match between Champions League winners and Europa League winners from previous season
Intercontinental cup - single-match between the winners of the European Champions' Cup and the South American Copa Libertadores.
Club World Cup - week-long knockout competition between 7 FIFA confederation championship winners 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 207.6.180.113 ( talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"Liverpool is the most successful club in English football history due to the number of trophies they have won."
Has been removed. Whilst Liverpool have won more trophies overall, Manchester United have won arguably the three most significant trophies the most - FA cup, Championship, European Cup/CL. The claim assumes the League Cup is counted as a significant trophy, and that the winning of more league cups is of similar significance to the winning of more FA cups. This is quite clearly a matter of opinion and not encyclopaedic material. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.9.135.152 ( talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Liverpool have won more titles and European Cups than Manchester United: they are the most succesfull team in the history of english football. Fry2000 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I signed in because I want to talk about the Sheriff of London Charity Shield with you guys. Tell me what else do you want me to do so you finally understand that it is actually a trophy. TheBrBa ( talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you answer? Tell me why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield isn't a trophy and I'll stop. I'm editing something based on facts and you wipe it away calling it "vandalism" without explaining. Tell me please why it shouldn't be counted TheBrBa ( talk) 13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok I guess I'll accept that. It matters most in the total count of top flight trophies and not for the rivalry. Thank you very much for the reply though, appreciate it. TheBrBa ( talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry 鈫 Liverpool and Manchester United football rivalry 鈥 For continuity purposes, Liverpool contains the F.C. at the end of their name whilst Manchester United doesn't, we don't need their full club names just their common names. 鈥 -- Jimbo [online] 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.When did Peter Beardsley play for Manchester United?????????? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.47.134.89 ( talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following since it's not supported by citations and is opinion based:
United's "Red Army" took huge numbers to Liverpool on match days and were particularly brutal. This was seen as a result of resentment due to United underperforming at this time while Liverpool were going through their most successful period in time.
I removed the following paragraph as the source article did not exist. "At the 1996 FA Cup Final, an unidentified Liverpool fan spat at Eric Cantona and threw a punch at Alex Ferguson as a victorious Manchester United team walked up the steps at Wembley Stadium to collect the trophy from the Royal Box.[15]" 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by BobSlayer91 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Man U won that one in 1999; why is that not mentioned in the table? 98.176.12.43 ( talk) 02:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article cited makes no mention of Liverpool fans chanting Munich songs, although it does say that the travelling Manchester United support rehearsed chants about Hillborough and Heysel. Find a citation if you want to say these things. In the meantime I have amended the article to reflect the citation. 89.211.250.155 ( talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to organise this article so that it makes sense and is worthy of being part of Wikipedia. There is huge scope for fans of both teams to take severe umbrage against what is included here, and as such it needs to be as concise and opinion free as possible.
I am trying to equalise the content and specific language used (including deliberately repeating certain NPOV phrases when listing trophy victories etc.) and seek to include but not downplay the record of success for each team. All the various terminology included (European trebles, domestic doubles etc.) makes large sections of the text unwieldy. I kept much of this language here at the moment and tried to make it opinion free and fair to both sides, but may I propose removing much of the text under the 'Football Rivalry' section and instead presenting the information on what has been won by each club in a table? The most recent changes by PeeJay2K3 have removed 700+ characters from the text but I think we need go further, it can now be read as a list of Manchester United boasts ('a record 12 titles' etc). Please do not think I am criticising you personally PeeJay2K3, this section is almost impossible to present from a NPOV while still being easily accessible.
The structure I propose is:
1. Roots
1.1 Inter city rivalry - Keep this section, and I will find a more acceptable reference stating why these games take place at lunchtime (or else we remove the text until someone can find such a quote). We all know that the police demand that any games not at a neutral venue start as early as possible, but actually finding it written down from a verifiable and NPOV source is another matter. I will keep looking.
1.2 Football Rivalry
Have an introductory paragraph stating that Liverpool won 11 league titles and 4 four European cups from 1973 to 1990 and that Man Utd have won 12 leage titles and two European cups from 1993 to present. I think it is also relevant to state that Man Utd won the Intercontinental Cup/Fifa World Club cup twice in this period here as it is the highest ranking tournament (officially if not truly heralded by all fans).
May I suggest:
Liverpool dominated English football from 1973 to 1990, winning eleven league championships and four European Cups, including several seasons in which they won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions. Similarly, Manchester United have dominated English football since 1993, winning twelve league championships and two European Cups. This has also included several seasons in which they have won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions.
Manchester United have also won the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA World Club Cup twice since 1993.
The two clubs are thus the most successful English sides in European and domestic competitions, with Liverpool having been European champions five times (securing 11 European trophies overall), while Manchester United have been European champions three times (securing 5 European trophies overall). Manchester United have won 19 English League Championship titles, while Liverpool have won 18. Manchester United currently have 34 domestic honours, and Liverpool have 33. These figures are correct to May 2012.
______
I appreciate that this is not wikified, but it removes all the posturing language about record numbers of premier league wins or highly complicated language about what constitutes a footballing 'treble' or 'double' and whether cups count or not.
We should then follow this by including the table of combined honours directly underneath.
1.3 Players Rivalry
This is another minefield. Could we simply state that both sets of players are known to have an intense rivalry on the pitch, and maybe include one quote from each team and a neutral one from another source to support this. Or delete the whole section and add it into the next section (currently 2.1 Player Transfers)?
Mwmonk ( talk) 12:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by the honours count in the introduction to this article, which states that Manchester United have 60 trophies and Liverpool have 59. According to the articles for each club, Manchester United have 62 and Liverpool have 65. Where have each club dropped trophies in this article, and how has the balance shifted in favour of Manchester United? I note this section is unsourced.
Unless I get a satisfactory reply to this, I will edit the page accordingly, and add in the sources that back up the (presumably correct) honours count in each team's respective articles.
roobens 82.17.7.9 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, in football matters, FIFA is the most prominent source, then UEFA, then the clubs, and then the media. Eliminating FIFA and UEFA, citing only the BBC reference and editorialising (ie: not "fairly representing") the clubs' websites and eliminating in-text attribution when the sources differ somewhat does not comply with this guideline. Chrisuae ( talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."
Even your own favourite club is not as biased as the edits you made - the Community Shield is "domestic" yet it doesn't rank in the same table as the actual honours that Manchester United have won under "Domestic Honours" and is instead relegated to "Other". The edits I made follow these guidelines completely. Your edits do not. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae ( talk 鈥 contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."
No, the BBC article is the only one that includes all honours without apportioning any ideas of "major" and "minor" status, or misattributing regional and second-tier titles. You can accuse me of having my objectivity clouded by my support of Manchester United, but you'd be dead wrong. I suspect the Manchester United website listed the Community Shield under "other" because it conveniently allowed for three equal groups of three competitions; if they really thought so little of the competition, they wouldn't have listed it at all. I can't explain why Liverpool hold it in such low regard 鈥 perhaps because they haven't won it very often... As I've said, this article is not the place to discuss the relative merits of each competition. Obviously each method advances a particular point of view, but I see no evidence that either is completely neutral, and hence the status quo of the article should remain, in the absence of a suitable alternative. 鈥 Pee Jay 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what trophies to include is a matter of personal preferrence. There are enough sources available to cherry-pick one that suits yourself. Wikipedia should be neutral, thus this version was perfectly fine, from a prose point of view. Stating exactly why the sources differ so much. For the table, though, I'd include the English Super Cup as well, just to give a complete overview (maybe omit the totals row then).- Koppapa ( talk) 10:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The most recent major edit of this article is ridiculous. It is full of unfactual informartion and convenient ignorance of the truth to heavily favor Liverpool. For starters, any other subsequent rivalry page on wiki uses total honours to count trophies as that is the least subjective form. For some reason, this one uses a highly subjective "major honours" system which puts Liverpool top of the trophy count when otherwise United would have won more. Conveniently such a trophy measure was NEVER used when Liverpool led United outright in honours in years past. The source is based off the unreliable and poorly maintained FIFA website, which despite not counting the English Super Cup (Community Shield) as a major trophy, it counts the Dutch and French Super Cups as such as well as REGIONAL tournaments for a few other clubs. This hypocrisy makes the source unreliable and not suitable for use per wikipedia's terms on source credibility.
The author then states that UEFA's website list 44 trophies for liverpool and 41 for United as they dont count the club world cup. This conveniently ignores that UEFA dont count that tournament as it is not in their jurisdiction but this is never stated. It also doesnt add the term "major" to the trophies as that changes the meaning entirely from overall trophies, which United have more of (the fact United have more honours is totally ignored throughout even though its a totally valid point in comparing historical success. It is then totally fabricated that United dont list the intercontinental cup on their website and list 40 major trophies. These statements are blatant nonsensical lies as the United website does show the aformentioned cup and merely lists 62 honours. The word 'major' isnt even used on the website!
Continueing on, the author uses sources from 2004 (which he doesnt quote properly and conveniently ignores the talk of total honours in the same source and only mentions the part about "major trophies") and quotes inaccurately from other sources (using the telegraph's major trophy article to reference the belief in the "major trophy" count when the article clearly shows lower division titles as major honours, making it unclear what their criteria is.
With such an illogical, unfactual and nonsensical piece of work currently submitted as the main edit for the article, I move for it's removal and a far more just and accurate portrayal of reality to replace it. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Davefelmer ( talk 鈥 contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Davefelmer ( talk) 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The term "major" is never used at all anywhere on the site. It lists trophies and then "other HONOURS". It is simply listing all honours and this is corroborated by the "trophy room" section that lists all those trophies together. And it does also list the intercontinental cup......on page 2 if you bothered to have a look. Such blatantly unfactual and biased information cant be allowed to stand.
Davefelmer ( talk) 16:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)more to the point then
Davefelmer (
talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The fact that United have more honours should be acknowledged in the intro; the major honour table can be kept but to present the neutral, unbiased all sides to the argument, it must be stated that while Liverpool have more "major trophies", United have more honours. Every other wiki rivalry page has honours tables instead of major trophy tables and ours should acknowledge this even if you persist on this "major honours" count. All agreed?
Davefelmer ( talk) 18:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)are you for real? If you can "bring yourself" to read ANY similar wikipedia club rivalry page, you will take note of the fact that they all use HONOURS as the trophy system and not "major trophies" as that is extremely subjective and not clearly defined. It is you who is insistent upon using a trophy count not consistent with ANY other page of this type to make YOUR club look better. In any case, major honours are not the same as honours overall and the fact is that United have more honours and this should be duly noted at the intro in order to give a balanced view of all perspectives.
Davefelmer ( talk) 19:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)no it is not because liverpool include youth and reserve honours. If you add the relevant trophies United have won from those competitions, United are ahead once more. Made up facts are like stating United list 40 major honours on their website. THAT is a made up fact.
Davefelmer ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)no we are not in agreement. The United website does not use the word 'major' to differentiate the honours anywhere on the website, therefore the statement of them showing 40 major honours is a complete fabrication as that is not stated anywhere. It is only Liverpool that show friendlies and youth tournaments as honours just because the club knows that if they list the normal honours, people will see United have more. This honours system is corroborated by the BBC article referenced, the Guardian article from 2004 that you used as a reference and Sky Sports' official website [1] amongst others. To not include it in order to balance any argument is nothing but favoritism and wont be allowed to stand.
Furthermore, the rules of wikipedia clearly state that unless something is clearly defined with all views covered, it should not be published. This page is full of unfactual information and unreliable sources. The FIFA website is admittedly poorly maintained and this is shown by the inclusion of regional tournaments and foreign versions of the Charity Shield as major trophies for some clubs but not major trophies for others. The UEFA website excludes the CWC because it is not in their jurisdiction but this isnt mentioned. The telegraph article referenced for United and Liverpool's trophies contains information that doesnt corroborate what is written while the other telehraph source shows second division titles for Liverpool but not so for United when United have won several. It really is a case of very little to no reliability across the board for judging which club is more successful, however, you have blatantly swung the facts to clearly favor liverpool and have ignored every trophy count by which United are more successful. such rubbish wont be allowed to stand until a truly neutral and FACTUAL piece is submitted.
Davefelmer ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Exactly, thus the content page should be removed altogether or reverted back to the original version that was here at the start of August. At the very least, something has to be done about the blatant lies on this page. Agreed?
The sources are NOT accurately presented though. Liverpool do not have an "others" section on their website yet you claim they do. Furthermore, the United website cleary states that all trophies listed are "major" ( http://www.manutd.com/en/Club.aspx) thus your assertion that "other" means "not major" is incorrect. This is corroborated by the club going on to say they are more successful, something they wouldnt be true had your assertion about what trophies they count as major been correct ( http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2014/March/Manchester-United-Museum-free-access-in-March-2014.aspx). This must be changed to accurately reflect the reality. Davefelmer ( talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
References
The telegraph sources provided at the end of the trophy count section should be removed as they fail to provide a neutral point of view as per wikipedia guidlines ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The one summarizing Liverpool's trophy haul includes second division titles to bolster the count while the United equivalent does not (when the club has indeed won 2). Furthermore, the Liverpool one acknowledges that the club won the Lancashire League in their first season and includes it (a regional cup no less) in the official count while the United one, despite acknowledging the Manchester Cup triumph in the club's first season (a similar regional competition), does NOT include it in the count. Hence, the sources blatantly favor Liverpool and cannot be used as reliable evidence. It would be like finding an article that lists all of United's trophies, then finding one that lists all of Liverpool's minus their FA Cup wins and then using them as a comparison. Its not fair and goes against wikipedia guidelines. Davefelmer ( talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources used to back up the claim of eliminating all super cups to count trophies making it 41-39 is NOT backed by the first source in that list (last time since each club won a major trophy) as it included lower division titles thus making it's criteria unclear.
Furthermore, the guardian source is extremely dated (2004) and refers to not only the major trophy count but also the total major honour count that favours United 62-59. Thus, at the very least, it can be used to back up the United sources as well. Otherwise it should be removed due to its internal contrasting nature making it impossible to side with one claim over another. Davefelmer ( talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the piecemeal approach to the article at the moment, below are some of my plans:
I will introduce full citations for the historical content that I have currently expanded on. I just haven't had time yet to fill out the cite templates. Koncorde ( talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Instead of saying honours and major trophies, we should use trophies and major honours. Not everyone understands what an honour is as the official meaning can be a personal distinction and the idea of a so called major piece of silverware will still be understood with the term major honour (as it is widely used in circles that count "major" silverware anyway). 72.229.9.167 ( talk) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There are two ways of listing Major trophies. 1. The season-long trophies, which for over 50 years have been called Major Trophies. The 3 Domestic, and 3 European,later morphing to 2( including the old Fairs Cup ) 2. The FIFA and UEFA method which includes prestigious international Titles (Though UEFA ignores the Intercontinental Cup) Pundits on TV often have a caption below stating how many 'Major Trophies' the ex-player has won. With a quick correlative check it is one of these two methods. Under both these methods Liverpool lead by 1. This lead, in all probability, will be lost next season anyway. Source 36 -as I have commented on below the table it has 'produced'-is chaotic and biased. It confuses the ICC with the WCC, it omits Utd's Cup Winners'Cup, and their (abandoned after the first leg) Super Cup of '91, and all 3 of Liverpool's Super Cups. With these put in, Liverpool lead by 1. Now, there may have been a BBC article which listed all trophies and therefore included Community Shields, but this is a one-off, and never implied this was a list of Major Trophies. The consensus over decades has been to never include the Comm Shield. Two reasons; 1. It was often shared. 2. In the event of a Double, another team is provided for opposition, sometimes a representative 11, as in 1961 after Spurs' historic first Modern Double. 3. Though it has some prestige it is considered a pre-season friendly. So, the only 'source' which provides a 'dispute' as to who has the most Major Trophies, has accidentally(on purpose?)left out 3 Super Cups for Liverpool. So all 3 sources have Liverpool ahead. There is NO DISPUTE.
22.02 115/06/2016 Enkayaitch ( talk) 19:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote to you on your talk page, firstly, there is no official definition of a 'major' trophy and several countries that do count them tend to count them differently. if you want to continue to say there is some magic definition that has stood for 50 years, please provide sources to prove this. secondly, as sources DO prove [1] many countries do count domestic super cups like the community shield as a "major" trophy. Futhermore, to say it is a friendly is completely unfactual as it is a registered competitive fixture as per the FA, as is any other domestic super cup. thirdly, the FIFA article you linked is completely inconsistent on a club by club basis, including community shield equivalents for french and dutch clubs for example as "major honours" but not english teams. it also includes regional trophies for african clubs such as Al-Ahly but not others. the lack of a general standard for what it deems 'major' added to the fact it is very poorly maintained with several recent club honours for many clubs not even added makes it very unreliable. UEFA's website you linked is biased towards its own competitions, not recognising the club world cup as an honour nor any club's inter cities fairs cup wins (neither compeitition is and was under UEFA jurisdiction). I think if you look closely you'll find everything is fair as is. there are multiple sources proclaiming each club as more successful than the other, and that is what is reflected. Davefelmer ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
As I have explained to you plenty of times on your talk page, there is no point in stocking up the Liverpool side of the argument on major trophies. There are many sources for both clubs but we cannot list them all. Please stop trying to add sources as it will make the article messy. I agree though that some of the sources are out of date in light of Man Utd's FA Cup win, and will find suitable replacements. Davefelmer ( talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are these seperated in the honours section? They are essentially the exact same league title, just with a newly branded name after a while. There is no need, imo, for a divide between them. Davefelmer ( talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Have seen labels like M60 derby and the 'battle of Lancashire' as alternative names
the cities themselves have a strong rivalry regardless of team (everton against man utd/city would be fierce too) but rivalry transcends sport like in economics and culturally. first railway line opened connecting the two cities and manchester ship canal undermined the port of liverpool.鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.115 ( talk) 09:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the article history, this is obviously a contentious issue. The article as it stands now is subjective in choosing one method, total. I added both perspectives: trophies that are widely considered as major, or 鈥渓eading鈥 as The Times put it, followed by the total. I then omitted any labels (so no 鈥渕ajor鈥, or 鈥渓eading鈥) by stating, 鈥淲hen league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, European Cups, UEFA Cups and European Cup Winners Cups are totalled, both clubs are level on 42 trophies won.鈥 I then sourced this with The Times, and talkSPORT (the latter i used for consistency as it鈥檚 also used for the total). Dave felmer then argued, 鈥測ou dont get to pick and choose what to count and divide trophy haul鈥, yet talkSPORT, a source that covers both (considered major, and total), only one is used. Furthermore, Dave felmer contradicts themselves having made this edit on 3 June, 鈥淯nited have won more total trophies than Liverpool, while the two clubs are level in terms of so-called "major" honours.鈥 They cover both perspectives, which I have done, but it鈥檚 not wording I鈥檇 use so I removed the subjective terminology and just listed the trophies followed by the sources.
The issue is the article is cherry picking by choosing one method, and in doing so also chooses a source that has total trophies while leaving out the same source that also has the other method. Rather than subjectivity, why not just list both perspectives, and in the process leave the reader with clarity. Nampa DC ( talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
As I briefly was able to mention to you in the edit summary section, the very term 'major' trophy is entirely subjective, picked out on an arbitrary basis by sections of the English press to better define what is 'worth' winning amongst a total trophy haul. It has no officiality to it, the term is not even used outside of Britain which makes it irrelevant, unhelpful and confusing to the majority of readers, and it is entirely arbitrary plus there is no clear definition for what even constitutes 'major' silverware. For instance, you defined it as the competitions listed above, however other sources [1] [2] [3] include the FIFA Club World Cup for example. The only factual, encyclopedic way to measure who has won more trophies is to count them all without arbitrary attributions of prestige, which the BBC and SKY Sports (the most reliable and authoritative sources on British football) both do amongst others, so they are the sources utilised for the section.
I did previously agree to a small note on 'major' titles in the intro after the total trophy hauls but have since simply agreed to the perspective of and formed a consensus with others like Koncorde and PeeJay who have argued against them. It is simply a project policy not to use the idea of 'major' titles because it is unencyclopedic and not official. Davefelmer ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Should there be a separate article for the women's teams? LC1829 ( talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63."
To: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Liverpool lead in major trophies with 47 to Manchester United's 45 [1]. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63." Marciano118 ( talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This article should be renamed to the "North West derby" as it is a commonly used name for the rivalry and where the derby has a name that should be the name of the page. Mn1548 ( talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if this is sufficient or more is needed to justify a name change. Mn1548 ( talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the listing of other derbies in the article鈥檚 leading section is excessive and unnecessary; none of the other Wikipedia articles about major football rivalries do this, and it would make more sense to insert a link to the list of football rivalries. If total removal isn鈥檛 a possibility, I believe condensing the list to just two or three examples would make sense. Also, the inclusion of the Derby d鈥橧talia and Der Klassiker is questionable as clubs from both of these are involved in other rivalries that are arguably more fierce and prestigious (Inter in the Derby della Madonnina with AC Milan and Dortmund in the Rivierderby with Schalke). KevindeAmsterdam ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That鈥檚 understandable, although I do think removal of Derby d鈥橧talia and Der Klassiker from the list is justifiable given the context of how they were added. Also, we may need to find a better source than the Telegraph article if we want to keep the list at all. KevindeAmsterdam ( talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's excessive which is why I removed it, but it was immediately readded. The thing about it being considered (a very weaselly phrase) the most famous fixture in English football is also I would suggest an assertion which it's impossible to provide with a reliable source as it's so subjective. Haldraper ( talk)
Koncorde, I don't have to "refute the statement", you have to provide a reliable source for it (which as it's just personal opinion rather than fact, "most famous" being inherently subjective, is going to be impossible for anyone to do). Haldraper ( talk)
You both need to read WP:SYN, about not combining what you think different sources imply to produce a conclusion that amounts to original research. Haldraper ( talk)
Some of those sources are a bit weaselly (arguably, recognised as, quoting players' and managers' personal opinions) and others aren't reliable, but that's beside the point because the text talked about it being the most famous fixture in English football, which is inherently subjective. Haldraper ( talk)
The current text, one of the biggest rivalries in world football, is fine, not sure why we need to add anything to that. Haldraper ( talk)
The problem with the word "famous" is that it means known by a lot of people. I'm not convinced that there are more people in England who know of the Liverpool-Manchester rivalry as opposed to each team's Derbies or other Derbies like the North London and North East ones, and would want to see some hard data that that is the case rather than a bit of journalistic hyperbole in a newspaper article. Haldraper ( talk)
"That sounds awfully like your opinion matters more than every reliable source. That isn't how this works."
Not at all. What I'm saying that no one has come up with a reliable source to back up the claim that it is the most famous fixture in English football (unsurprisingly as I don't really see how you can measure that accurately), only journalists, players and managers asserting that in their opinion it is. Haldraper ( talk)
Easy: public polling. YouGov and similar organisations do it all the time to find out how well known brands, TV shows etc. are by the public. I doubt it exists for this though, which is probably why you're struggling to back it up with actual evidence from a reliable source and merely quoting individuals' opinions. Haldraper ( talk)
I have made this change to the article, effectively reducing the Old Trafford 5-0 Liverpool win to a paragraph in the 'other notable games' section in line with the other games mentioned. My reasoning behind this is that all the citations given for the paragraph were from one twitter account. Furthermore, I dont believe the citations demonstrate lasting signficance of this match to elevate its notability above the others in the 'other notable games section'. I'm sure it was covered extensively (as the others were) but it would need a reference like the one above in the Independent 'x classic Liverpool FC-Manchester United' ie. a citation that its notability is that much greater than the others in that section Vanteloop ( talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Guys, instead of going on an editing war , lets try and reach a consensus and agreement. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay so let me start with the proceedings. After an initial google search of the trophy comparison between Manchester United & Liverpool, the first two web articles that popped up was these two https://www.goal.com/en-za/news/liverpool-man-utd-which-uk-club-have-won-most-major-trophies/eq9664p329p619x4ae81f2xff https://themoney.co/en/who-has-won-more-trophies-man-utd-or-liverpool-3/. These two articles show that the trophy comparison is 66-64 to Manchester United. The 2 trophies excluded from Liverpool's tally was the Football League Super Cup ( Screen sport super cup) & the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. With that said, we can assume that these sites could be subjective, so the best source of information is to look at the official page of Liverpool Football club. Upon inspection , I did notice that the Football League Super Cup was included under the competitive honours of Liverpool Football Club, in their trophy cabinet on their website. So that made sense to include that honour in this article.
However, I feel that the Sheriff of London Charity shield is a bit of a sketchy topic. I do understand and respect that it was the predecessor of the FA Community Shield. But Liverpool themselves do not count that honour in their trophy cabinet. It is not included in the trophy cabinet of competitive honours, neither is it mentioned under the club's history , in the club's website. I feel if Liverpool as a Football Club do not officially count that trophy as a competitive honour , it is futile for us to argue about it. If Liverpool did include this trophy on their trophy cabinet, then for sure I would have agreed for the tally to be 66-66. The most authentic source of information is the Liverpool website , so like it is not mentioned on their website, that is why I refute this trophy.
Furthermore, sometime back on this exact talk page, there was a discussion about not including this trophy. Some consensus was taken and it stood for years. I have noticed that only at the start of this year(2 months ago) that the talks of this trophy has come up again and it was included in the tally. When I checked last year, this trophy was not included. So I feel we can logically come to a consensus again, considering there was a consensus reached before to exclude this trophy聽:)
Link to Liverpool's official trophy cabinet聽: https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours
The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was the legitimate predecessor to the current FA Community Shield. The latter formed after the Amateur Football Association split from the FA. Similar thing happened with the top flight. In 1992, the clubs from the former first division decided to split-break away from the FL, thereby forming a brand new competition which became the new top flight, ie the Premier League. My argument is that, if we decide to ignore the SoL Charity Shield, using the same logic we should ignore the former First Division, as the predecessor to the current PL. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 37.203.124.28 ( talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is incorrect. Liverpool won the 1906 Sherriff of London Charity Shield, and this needs to be included, as I had done yesterday. The Trophy tally is now level at 66 apiece.
If you access the trophies won by club on Wikipedia, you will see that Wikipedia themselves now have the two clubs level onn 66 trophies apiece.
Please amend this article. BRACK66 ( talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there , as mentioned multiple times. A simple google search of "LFC honours" will show you all the competitive honours won by Liverpool Football club.
The top 2 search results are as follows聽:
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours聽: The official Liverpool website does not acknowledge the SoL charity shield as a competitive honour. There is no mention of this trophy under the trophy cabinet, neither is this trophy mentioned in the club history. This is the most authentic source of information one can find regarding Liverpool, and this trophy is not mentioned.
https://www.thisisanfield.com/clubinfo/honours/聽: A Liverpool fan page even makes no mention of the SoL charity shield.
If Liverpool don't acknowledge this trophy, unfortunately it cannot be included even if other sources mention it. Thank you -- HMD 1315 ( talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The text below is the email response from Liverpool Football Club. I could not upload the actual screenshot image of the email as Wikipedia does not allow me to upload such images. However if people want to contact me for the actual email, please privately contact me your email address and I will forward you the email and send a screenshot. I hope this puts an end to this edit war. You guys are more than welcome to contact the official email address of Liverpool(mentioned below), just as I did. You can even use my reference number , to re-query and see that the email I sent was legitimate. I did not spend my free time to go to this efforts for nothing聽: )
RE: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]
contactus@liverpoolfc.com
Attachments 17:03 (1 hour ago)
to me
Dear ******,
Thank you for contacting Liverpool Football Club.锘
This fixture was considered a friendly competition for charity and as it no longer exists it was never recognised as a major trophy or as an established competition in the way that the Community shield is.锘
We thank you for your support.
Kind regards
Matt
Fan Services Liverpool Football Club From: ****** ****** ****** <*******> Date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022, 19:14:17 To: <contactus@liverpoolfc.com> Subject: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]
Contact enquiry
About you
Name *******
Email address *******
Phone *******Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Address
Date of birth
Your enquiry Enquiry type Fan Services > Club Information Queue email address Subject Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry Your message Hi there. I would just like to know why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield won in 1906, is not counted under the competitive honours in this website, neither is it mentioned? Reference number(s)聽: 3ERFnN -- HMD 1315 ( talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change trophy counts following Liverpool鈥檚 FA cup win 2022. Most clubs now on 66. Jamirowikee ( talk) 18:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update to reflect FA Cup won by Liverpool in 21/22.
Also, how on earth can the Charity Shield be counted? Sad that United rely on this. 81.101.145.100 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Text says "Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65"
Liverpool now have 66 after their FA cup win yesterday.
If the Sheriff of London Charity Shield is to be included, then Liverpool's total should read 67.
Sheriff of London Charity Shield was an FA sanctioned competition that evolved into the current FA Community Shield. They're more or less one in the same, so i can't see how the current FA Community Shield can be included in the stats but not its predecessor, the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. It's historically the same trophy. Would we exclude e.g. the old First Division from the stats as the predecessor of the current Premier League? Or would we exclude e.g. the old European cup as the predecessor of the current Champions League? I don't think so. IMO, either we exclude BOTH the current FA Community Shield and the Sheriff of London Charity Shield from the stats, or we include BOTH. Koppite1 ( talk) 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The challenge is really easy Koppite. Provide a single reliable source that includes the SoL in a definitive list of trophies won by both teams. Koncorde ( talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Evolved from, simply means that the FA took the idea for the FA Charity shield from the London Shield. The two competitions are counted differently. Govvy ( talk) 10:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Liverpool have won 67 trophies compared to Manchester United 66. Please correct this. 82.20.42.125 ( talk) 06:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FA Cup Kcyster ( talk) 15:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Should the SoL Charity Shield be added to Liverpool's total, giving them 67? (United fan!!) BRACK66 ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This was historically sourced to some articles that seem to have been removed during prior edits, and have become victims of linkrot. As such, following a recent prompt, I sought out additional reliable sources explicitly to cover the requirement. This wasn't hard because it's a routine matter of discussion and there are others using variations of the phrase (I used simply the word for word example). All evaluations of rivalries and otherwise are "subjective" and sourced to the articles included, so the subsequent revert by Amakuru is redundant and very odd given the users experience. If we want to change the wording to "one of the biggest fixtures" or similar qualification then we would need to present that POV as a point of discussion in reliable sources, but given the wealth of discussion about the fixture in reliable sources this is presently indisputable accurate representation. Koncorde ( talk) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Had the scoreline been 7-0 to United, I would have suggested the same thing. Beatdowns like the one that happened yesterday happen once in a century, the last time United lost by 7 goals, my nan was 9. Results like these do not usually happen in such a high-profile match, that's why Barca 2-8 Bayern has an article, that's why Brazil 1-7 Germany has one, that's why Man United 8-2 Arsenal has one. Xxmadaraaxx ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should be included, as it was the forerunner to today's FA Community Shield. BRACK66 ( talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why you removed the Football League Super Cup title won by Liverpool in 1986? It is an official title as it appears on the club's website, before Liverpool won this year's league cup it appeared on the honours table.
Source: [42] https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours Eros 87 ( talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Domestic honours | ||||
Competition | Liverpool | Manchester United | ||
Titles | Year | Titles | Year | |
Premier League | 1 | 2019鈥20 | 13 | 1992鈥93 ... |
First Division | 18 | 1900鈥01, 1905鈥06, 1921鈥22 ... | 7 | 1907鈥08, 1910鈥11, 1951鈥52, 1955鈥56, 1956鈥57, 1964鈥65, 1966鈥67 |
... | ||||
Worldwide total | 1 | 2 | ||
Combined total | ||||
Combined total | 68 | 67 |
As this is a list of competitive trophies representing the rivalry between Liverpool & Manchester Utd, it doesn't have the same criteria of Major / Minor that other articles might (a criteria that is different depending on media source, and how close the two clubs have been at various times). As such, the use of the lead and the trophy count as a barometer of just whose club has the biggest dad from year to year is very much a tribal WP:RECENTISM. Very few people are seemingly anywhere near as animated to contribute anywhere else in the article. We are free to include Lancashire League, Reserve League One and similar competitions if we wish - but to the average reader they are unlikely to be viewed in the same light, and any attempt to provide contemporaneous sources about relative trophy counts specifically exclude them. In contrast reliable sources either categorise Major / Minor (often disagreeing which goes in where), or create their own synthesis of a list (such as dropping the Charity Shield, or World Club Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or Super Cup or similar) such as Goal.com's most recent article (67 apiece), or TheAnalyst.com (46-43), or last years Mirror (68-67) or this years SportBible (68-67) many of which aren't entirely clear as to which Trophies it is including. Problematically, there's a high chance wikipedia itself is becoming an unattributed source for some of these trophy counts creating a risk of circular sourcing. Amusingly, some websites like Livescore aren't even internally consistent, publishing a count after Liverpools recent League Cup win of 67-67 "Major", but 46-43 "Major" on their Facebook page within a few days, while a year earlier they were at 68-67. Almost like the whole thing is contrived. Koncorde ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd always been vaguely aware of this goalkeeper who made a single appearance for United in the 1980s, but I didn't know that he also had a spell at Liverpool (August 1995 - June 1996). He never played a first-team game for them, but was a full squad member (number 27) and I assume third choice (after James and Warner). Can/should he be added to the list, or does not having played a first-team match for Liverpool disqualify him? There are so few players who have signed for both clubs that I think he warrants inclusion in some form - perhaps a mention in the text if not the table - but I wanted to see if anyone disagrees. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Shiresman ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The box for major trophies excluded the Charity Shield because it is not a major trophy, however it contained the Super Cup. They are about as equally important as eachother, the charity shield is a game between the two domestic cup winners, and the Super cup is a game between the two winners of the major European trophies (Champions' League and UEFA Cup). Therefore I took out the Super Cup for the same reason the Charity shield was taken out. If it is to be included, I think the Charity Shield should be also included. 81.153.39.254 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
All trophies should be included. Manchester United has won 60 and Liverpool 59. Stop counting in your own way. Stop vandalizing the page by substracting trophies. It's not 44-41 to Liverpool. Thank you Psyrras Panagiotis 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There are references provided for how to determine which trophies are major trophies. Major trophies should be competed for by a significant number of the top clubs and should take place over multiple rounds across a significant part of the season.
It is clear that the Charity Shield and UEFA Super Cup are not equivalent to the Premier League or the UEFA Champions League.
Major Trophies
Premier League (and predecessors) - round-robin season-long tournament competed for by the top 20 clubs
FA Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs and hundreds of lower-ranked clubs
League Cup - knockout season-long competition competed for by top 92 clubs
UEFA Champions League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues
UEFA Europa League (and predecessors) - knockout and round-robin season-long competition competed for by top clubs from European leagues who did not qualify for Champions League
Minor trophies
Community Shield (and predecessors) - pre-season friendly single-match between FA Cup winners and Champions from previous season
UEFA Super Cup - single-match between Champions League winners and Europa League winners from previous season
Intercontinental cup - single-match between the winners of the European Champions' Cup and the South American Copa Libertadores.
Club World Cup - week-long knockout competition between 7 FIFA confederation championship winners 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 207.6.180.113 ( talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"Liverpool is the most successful club in English football history due to the number of trophies they have won."
Has been removed. Whilst Liverpool have won more trophies overall, Manchester United have won arguably the three most significant trophies the most - FA cup, Championship, European Cup/CL. The claim assumes the League Cup is counted as a significant trophy, and that the winning of more league cups is of similar significance to the winning of more FA cups. This is quite clearly a matter of opinion and not encyclopaedic material. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.9.135.152 ( talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Liverpool have won more titles and European Cups than Manchester United: they are the most succesfull team in the history of english football. Fry2000 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I signed in because I want to talk about the Sheriff of London Charity Shield with you guys. Tell me what else do you want me to do so you finally understand that it is actually a trophy. TheBrBa ( talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you answer? Tell me why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield isn't a trophy and I'll stop. I'm editing something based on facts and you wipe it away calling it "vandalism" without explaining. Tell me please why it shouldn't be counted TheBrBa ( talk) 13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok I guess I'll accept that. It matters most in the total count of top flight trophies and not for the rivalry. Thank you very much for the reply though, appreciate it. TheBrBa ( talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry 鈫 Liverpool and Manchester United football rivalry 鈥 For continuity purposes, Liverpool contains the F.C. at the end of their name whilst Manchester United doesn't, we don't need their full club names just their common names. 鈥 -- Jimbo [online] 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.When did Peter Beardsley play for Manchester United?????????? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.47.134.89 ( talk) 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following since it's not supported by citations and is opinion based:
United's "Red Army" took huge numbers to Liverpool on match days and were particularly brutal. This was seen as a result of resentment due to United underperforming at this time while Liverpool were going through their most successful period in time.
I removed the following paragraph as the source article did not exist. "At the 1996 FA Cup Final, an unidentified Liverpool fan spat at Eric Cantona and threw a punch at Alex Ferguson as a victorious Manchester United team walked up the steps at Wembley Stadium to collect the trophy from the Royal Box.[15]" 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by BobSlayer91 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Man U won that one in 1999; why is that not mentioned in the table? 98.176.12.43 ( talk) 02:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article cited makes no mention of Liverpool fans chanting Munich songs, although it does say that the travelling Manchester United support rehearsed chants about Hillborough and Heysel. Find a citation if you want to say these things. In the meantime I have amended the article to reflect the citation. 89.211.250.155 ( talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to organise this article so that it makes sense and is worthy of being part of Wikipedia. There is huge scope for fans of both teams to take severe umbrage against what is included here, and as such it needs to be as concise and opinion free as possible.
I am trying to equalise the content and specific language used (including deliberately repeating certain NPOV phrases when listing trophy victories etc.) and seek to include but not downplay the record of success for each team. All the various terminology included (European trebles, domestic doubles etc.) makes large sections of the text unwieldy. I kept much of this language here at the moment and tried to make it opinion free and fair to both sides, but may I propose removing much of the text under the 'Football Rivalry' section and instead presenting the information on what has been won by each club in a table? The most recent changes by PeeJay2K3 have removed 700+ characters from the text but I think we need go further, it can now be read as a list of Manchester United boasts ('a record 12 titles' etc). Please do not think I am criticising you personally PeeJay2K3, this section is almost impossible to present from a NPOV while still being easily accessible.
The structure I propose is:
1. Roots
1.1 Inter city rivalry - Keep this section, and I will find a more acceptable reference stating why these games take place at lunchtime (or else we remove the text until someone can find such a quote). We all know that the police demand that any games not at a neutral venue start as early as possible, but actually finding it written down from a verifiable and NPOV source is another matter. I will keep looking.
1.2 Football Rivalry
Have an introductory paragraph stating that Liverpool won 11 league titles and 4 four European cups from 1973 to 1990 and that Man Utd have won 12 leage titles and two European cups from 1993 to present. I think it is also relevant to state that Man Utd won the Intercontinental Cup/Fifa World Club cup twice in this period here as it is the highest ranking tournament (officially if not truly heralded by all fans).
May I suggest:
Liverpool dominated English football from 1973 to 1990, winning eleven league championships and four European Cups, including several seasons in which they won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions. Similarly, Manchester United have dominated English football since 1993, winning twelve league championships and two European Cups. This has also included several seasons in which they have won multiple trophies in both domestic and in European competitions.
Manchester United have also won the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA World Club Cup twice since 1993.
The two clubs are thus the most successful English sides in European and domestic competitions, with Liverpool having been European champions five times (securing 11 European trophies overall), while Manchester United have been European champions three times (securing 5 European trophies overall). Manchester United have won 19 English League Championship titles, while Liverpool have won 18. Manchester United currently have 34 domestic honours, and Liverpool have 33. These figures are correct to May 2012.
______
I appreciate that this is not wikified, but it removes all the posturing language about record numbers of premier league wins or highly complicated language about what constitutes a footballing 'treble' or 'double' and whether cups count or not.
We should then follow this by including the table of combined honours directly underneath.
1.3 Players Rivalry
This is another minefield. Could we simply state that both sets of players are known to have an intense rivalry on the pitch, and maybe include one quote from each team and a neutral one from another source to support this. Or delete the whole section and add it into the next section (currently 2.1 Player Transfers)?
Mwmonk ( talk) 12:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by the honours count in the introduction to this article, which states that Manchester United have 60 trophies and Liverpool have 59. According to the articles for each club, Manchester United have 62 and Liverpool have 65. Where have each club dropped trophies in this article, and how has the balance shifted in favour of Manchester United? I note this section is unsourced.
Unless I get a satisfactory reply to this, I will edit the page accordingly, and add in the sources that back up the (presumably correct) honours count in each team's respective articles.
roobens 82.17.7.9 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, in football matters, FIFA is the most prominent source, then UEFA, then the clubs, and then the media. Eliminating FIFA and UEFA, citing only the BBC reference and editorialising (ie: not "fairly representing") the clubs' websites and eliminating in-text attribution when the sources differ somewhat does not comply with this guideline. Chrisuae ( talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."
Even your own favourite club is not as biased as the edits you made - the Community Shield is "domestic" yet it doesn't rank in the same table as the actual honours that Manchester United have won under "Domestic Honours" and is instead relegated to "Other". The edits I made follow these guidelines completely. Your edits do not. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae ( talk 鈥 contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."
No, the BBC article is the only one that includes all honours without apportioning any ideas of "major" and "minor" status, or misattributing regional and second-tier titles. You can accuse me of having my objectivity clouded by my support of Manchester United, but you'd be dead wrong. I suspect the Manchester United website listed the Community Shield under "other" because it conveniently allowed for three equal groups of three competitions; if they really thought so little of the competition, they wouldn't have listed it at all. I can't explain why Liverpool hold it in such low regard 鈥 perhaps because they haven't won it very often... As I've said, this article is not the place to discuss the relative merits of each competition. Obviously each method advances a particular point of view, but I see no evidence that either is completely neutral, and hence the status quo of the article should remain, in the absence of a suitable alternative. 鈥 Pee Jay 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what trophies to include is a matter of personal preferrence. There are enough sources available to cherry-pick one that suits yourself. Wikipedia should be neutral, thus this version was perfectly fine, from a prose point of view. Stating exactly why the sources differ so much. For the table, though, I'd include the English Super Cup as well, just to give a complete overview (maybe omit the totals row then).- Koppapa ( talk) 10:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The most recent major edit of this article is ridiculous. It is full of unfactual informartion and convenient ignorance of the truth to heavily favor Liverpool. For starters, any other subsequent rivalry page on wiki uses total honours to count trophies as that is the least subjective form. For some reason, this one uses a highly subjective "major honours" system which puts Liverpool top of the trophy count when otherwise United would have won more. Conveniently such a trophy measure was NEVER used when Liverpool led United outright in honours in years past. The source is based off the unreliable and poorly maintained FIFA website, which despite not counting the English Super Cup (Community Shield) as a major trophy, it counts the Dutch and French Super Cups as such as well as REGIONAL tournaments for a few other clubs. This hypocrisy makes the source unreliable and not suitable for use per wikipedia's terms on source credibility.
The author then states that UEFA's website list 44 trophies for liverpool and 41 for United as they dont count the club world cup. This conveniently ignores that UEFA dont count that tournament as it is not in their jurisdiction but this is never stated. It also doesnt add the term "major" to the trophies as that changes the meaning entirely from overall trophies, which United have more of (the fact United have more honours is totally ignored throughout even though its a totally valid point in comparing historical success. It is then totally fabricated that United dont list the intercontinental cup on their website and list 40 major trophies. These statements are blatant nonsensical lies as the United website does show the aformentioned cup and merely lists 62 honours. The word 'major' isnt even used on the website!
Continueing on, the author uses sources from 2004 (which he doesnt quote properly and conveniently ignores the talk of total honours in the same source and only mentions the part about "major trophies") and quotes inaccurately from other sources (using the telegraph's major trophy article to reference the belief in the "major trophy" count when the article clearly shows lower division titles as major honours, making it unclear what their criteria is.
With such an illogical, unfactual and nonsensical piece of work currently submitted as the main edit for the article, I move for it's removal and a far more just and accurate portrayal of reality to replace it. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Davefelmer ( talk 鈥 contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Davefelmer ( talk) 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The term "major" is never used at all anywhere on the site. It lists trophies and then "other HONOURS". It is simply listing all honours and this is corroborated by the "trophy room" section that lists all those trophies together. And it does also list the intercontinental cup......on page 2 if you bothered to have a look. Such blatantly unfactual and biased information cant be allowed to stand.
Davefelmer ( talk) 16:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)more to the point then
Davefelmer (
talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)The fact that United have more honours should be acknowledged in the intro; the major honour table can be kept but to present the neutral, unbiased all sides to the argument, it must be stated that while Liverpool have more "major trophies", United have more honours. Every other wiki rivalry page has honours tables instead of major trophy tables and ours should acknowledge this even if you persist on this "major honours" count. All agreed?
Davefelmer ( talk) 18:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)are you for real? If you can "bring yourself" to read ANY similar wikipedia club rivalry page, you will take note of the fact that they all use HONOURS as the trophy system and not "major trophies" as that is extremely subjective and not clearly defined. It is you who is insistent upon using a trophy count not consistent with ANY other page of this type to make YOUR club look better. In any case, major honours are not the same as honours overall and the fact is that United have more honours and this should be duly noted at the intro in order to give a balanced view of all perspectives.
Davefelmer ( talk) 19:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)no it is not because liverpool include youth and reserve honours. If you add the relevant trophies United have won from those competitions, United are ahead once more. Made up facts are like stating United list 40 major honours on their website. THAT is a made up fact.
Davefelmer ( talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)no we are not in agreement. The United website does not use the word 'major' to differentiate the honours anywhere on the website, therefore the statement of them showing 40 major honours is a complete fabrication as that is not stated anywhere. It is only Liverpool that show friendlies and youth tournaments as honours just because the club knows that if they list the normal honours, people will see United have more. This honours system is corroborated by the BBC article referenced, the Guardian article from 2004 that you used as a reference and Sky Sports' official website [1] amongst others. To not include it in order to balance any argument is nothing but favoritism and wont be allowed to stand.
Furthermore, the rules of wikipedia clearly state that unless something is clearly defined with all views covered, it should not be published. This page is full of unfactual information and unreliable sources. The FIFA website is admittedly poorly maintained and this is shown by the inclusion of regional tournaments and foreign versions of the Charity Shield as major trophies for some clubs but not major trophies for others. The UEFA website excludes the CWC because it is not in their jurisdiction but this isnt mentioned. The telegraph article referenced for United and Liverpool's trophies contains information that doesnt corroborate what is written while the other telehraph source shows second division titles for Liverpool but not so for United when United have won several. It really is a case of very little to no reliability across the board for judging which club is more successful, however, you have blatantly swung the facts to clearly favor liverpool and have ignored every trophy count by which United are more successful. such rubbish wont be allowed to stand until a truly neutral and FACTUAL piece is submitted.
Davefelmer ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Exactly, thus the content page should be removed altogether or reverted back to the original version that was here at the start of August. At the very least, something has to be done about the blatant lies on this page. Agreed?
The sources are NOT accurately presented though. Liverpool do not have an "others" section on their website yet you claim they do. Furthermore, the United website cleary states that all trophies listed are "major" ( http://www.manutd.com/en/Club.aspx) thus your assertion that "other" means "not major" is incorrect. This is corroborated by the club going on to say they are more successful, something they wouldnt be true had your assertion about what trophies they count as major been correct ( http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2014/March/Manchester-United-Museum-free-access-in-March-2014.aspx). This must be changed to accurately reflect the reality. Davefelmer ( talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
References
The telegraph sources provided at the end of the trophy count section should be removed as they fail to provide a neutral point of view as per wikipedia guidlines ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The one summarizing Liverpool's trophy haul includes second division titles to bolster the count while the United equivalent does not (when the club has indeed won 2). Furthermore, the Liverpool one acknowledges that the club won the Lancashire League in their first season and includes it (a regional cup no less) in the official count while the United one, despite acknowledging the Manchester Cup triumph in the club's first season (a similar regional competition), does NOT include it in the count. Hence, the sources blatantly favor Liverpool and cannot be used as reliable evidence. It would be like finding an article that lists all of United's trophies, then finding one that lists all of Liverpool's minus their FA Cup wins and then using them as a comparison. Its not fair and goes against wikipedia guidelines. Davefelmer ( talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources used to back up the claim of eliminating all super cups to count trophies making it 41-39 is NOT backed by the first source in that list (last time since each club won a major trophy) as it included lower division titles thus making it's criteria unclear.
Furthermore, the guardian source is extremely dated (2004) and refers to not only the major trophy count but also the total major honour count that favours United 62-59. Thus, at the very least, it can be used to back up the United sources as well. Otherwise it should be removed due to its internal contrasting nature making it impossible to side with one claim over another. Davefelmer ( talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the piecemeal approach to the article at the moment, below are some of my plans:
I will introduce full citations for the historical content that I have currently expanded on. I just haven't had time yet to fill out the cite templates. Koncorde ( talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Instead of saying honours and major trophies, we should use trophies and major honours. Not everyone understands what an honour is as the official meaning can be a personal distinction and the idea of a so called major piece of silverware will still be understood with the term major honour (as it is widely used in circles that count "major" silverware anyway). 72.229.9.167 ( talk) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There are two ways of listing Major trophies. 1. The season-long trophies, which for over 50 years have been called Major Trophies. The 3 Domestic, and 3 European,later morphing to 2( including the old Fairs Cup ) 2. The FIFA and UEFA method which includes prestigious international Titles (Though UEFA ignores the Intercontinental Cup) Pundits on TV often have a caption below stating how many 'Major Trophies' the ex-player has won. With a quick correlative check it is one of these two methods. Under both these methods Liverpool lead by 1. This lead, in all probability, will be lost next season anyway. Source 36 -as I have commented on below the table it has 'produced'-is chaotic and biased. It confuses the ICC with the WCC, it omits Utd's Cup Winners'Cup, and their (abandoned after the first leg) Super Cup of '91, and all 3 of Liverpool's Super Cups. With these put in, Liverpool lead by 1. Now, there may have been a BBC article which listed all trophies and therefore included Community Shields, but this is a one-off, and never implied this was a list of Major Trophies. The consensus over decades has been to never include the Comm Shield. Two reasons; 1. It was often shared. 2. In the event of a Double, another team is provided for opposition, sometimes a representative 11, as in 1961 after Spurs' historic first Modern Double. 3. Though it has some prestige it is considered a pre-season friendly. So, the only 'source' which provides a 'dispute' as to who has the most Major Trophies, has accidentally(on purpose?)left out 3 Super Cups for Liverpool. So all 3 sources have Liverpool ahead. There is NO DISPUTE.
22.02 115/06/2016 Enkayaitch ( talk) 19:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote to you on your talk page, firstly, there is no official definition of a 'major' trophy and several countries that do count them tend to count them differently. if you want to continue to say there is some magic definition that has stood for 50 years, please provide sources to prove this. secondly, as sources DO prove [1] many countries do count domestic super cups like the community shield as a "major" trophy. Futhermore, to say it is a friendly is completely unfactual as it is a registered competitive fixture as per the FA, as is any other domestic super cup. thirdly, the FIFA article you linked is completely inconsistent on a club by club basis, including community shield equivalents for french and dutch clubs for example as "major honours" but not english teams. it also includes regional trophies for african clubs such as Al-Ahly but not others. the lack of a general standard for what it deems 'major' added to the fact it is very poorly maintained with several recent club honours for many clubs not even added makes it very unreliable. UEFA's website you linked is biased towards its own competitions, not recognising the club world cup as an honour nor any club's inter cities fairs cup wins (neither compeitition is and was under UEFA jurisdiction). I think if you look closely you'll find everything is fair as is. there are multiple sources proclaiming each club as more successful than the other, and that is what is reflected. Davefelmer ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
As I have explained to you plenty of times on your talk page, there is no point in stocking up the Liverpool side of the argument on major trophies. There are many sources for both clubs but we cannot list them all. Please stop trying to add sources as it will make the article messy. I agree though that some of the sources are out of date in light of Man Utd's FA Cup win, and will find suitable replacements. Davefelmer ( talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C.鈥揗anchester United F.C. rivalry. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are these seperated in the honours section? They are essentially the exact same league title, just with a newly branded name after a while. There is no need, imo, for a divide between them. Davefelmer ( talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Have seen labels like M60 derby and the 'battle of Lancashire' as alternative names
the cities themselves have a strong rivalry regardless of team (everton against man utd/city would be fierce too) but rivalry transcends sport like in economics and culturally. first railway line opened connecting the two cities and manchester ship canal undermined the port of liverpool.鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.115 ( talk) 09:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the article history, this is obviously a contentious issue. The article as it stands now is subjective in choosing one method, total. I added both perspectives: trophies that are widely considered as major, or 鈥渓eading鈥 as The Times put it, followed by the total. I then omitted any labels (so no 鈥渕ajor鈥, or 鈥渓eading鈥) by stating, 鈥淲hen league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, European Cups, UEFA Cups and European Cup Winners Cups are totalled, both clubs are level on 42 trophies won.鈥 I then sourced this with The Times, and talkSPORT (the latter i used for consistency as it鈥檚 also used for the total). Dave felmer then argued, 鈥測ou dont get to pick and choose what to count and divide trophy haul鈥, yet talkSPORT, a source that covers both (considered major, and total), only one is used. Furthermore, Dave felmer contradicts themselves having made this edit on 3 June, 鈥淯nited have won more total trophies than Liverpool, while the two clubs are level in terms of so-called "major" honours.鈥 They cover both perspectives, which I have done, but it鈥檚 not wording I鈥檇 use so I removed the subjective terminology and just listed the trophies followed by the sources.
The issue is the article is cherry picking by choosing one method, and in doing so also chooses a source that has total trophies while leaving out the same source that also has the other method. Rather than subjectivity, why not just list both perspectives, and in the process leave the reader with clarity. Nampa DC ( talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
As I briefly was able to mention to you in the edit summary section, the very term 'major' trophy is entirely subjective, picked out on an arbitrary basis by sections of the English press to better define what is 'worth' winning amongst a total trophy haul. It has no officiality to it, the term is not even used outside of Britain which makes it irrelevant, unhelpful and confusing to the majority of readers, and it is entirely arbitrary plus there is no clear definition for what even constitutes 'major' silverware. For instance, you defined it as the competitions listed above, however other sources [1] [2] [3] include the FIFA Club World Cup for example. The only factual, encyclopedic way to measure who has won more trophies is to count them all without arbitrary attributions of prestige, which the BBC and SKY Sports (the most reliable and authoritative sources on British football) both do amongst others, so they are the sources utilised for the section.
I did previously agree to a small note on 'major' titles in the intro after the total trophy hauls but have since simply agreed to the perspective of and formed a consensus with others like Koncorde and PeeJay who have argued against them. It is simply a project policy not to use the idea of 'major' titles because it is unencyclopedic and not official. Davefelmer ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Should there be a separate article for the women's teams? LC1829 ( talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63."
To: "Each club can claim historical supremacy over the other: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions six times to United's three. Liverpool lead in major trophies with 47 to Manchester United's 45 [1]. Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 63." Marciano118 ( talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This article should be renamed to the "North West derby" as it is a commonly used name for the rivalry and where the derby has a name that should be the name of the page. Mn1548 ( talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if this is sufficient or more is needed to justify a name change. Mn1548 ( talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the listing of other derbies in the article鈥檚 leading section is excessive and unnecessary; none of the other Wikipedia articles about major football rivalries do this, and it would make more sense to insert a link to the list of football rivalries. If total removal isn鈥檛 a possibility, I believe condensing the list to just two or three examples would make sense. Also, the inclusion of the Derby d鈥橧talia and Der Klassiker is questionable as clubs from both of these are involved in other rivalries that are arguably more fierce and prestigious (Inter in the Derby della Madonnina with AC Milan and Dortmund in the Rivierderby with Schalke). KevindeAmsterdam ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That鈥檚 understandable, although I do think removal of Derby d鈥橧talia and Der Klassiker from the list is justifiable given the context of how they were added. Also, we may need to find a better source than the Telegraph article if we want to keep the list at all. KevindeAmsterdam ( talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's excessive which is why I removed it, but it was immediately readded. The thing about it being considered (a very weaselly phrase) the most famous fixture in English football is also I would suggest an assertion which it's impossible to provide with a reliable source as it's so subjective. Haldraper ( talk)
Koncorde, I don't have to "refute the statement", you have to provide a reliable source for it (which as it's just personal opinion rather than fact, "most famous" being inherently subjective, is going to be impossible for anyone to do). Haldraper ( talk)
You both need to read WP:SYN, about not combining what you think different sources imply to produce a conclusion that amounts to original research. Haldraper ( talk)
Some of those sources are a bit weaselly (arguably, recognised as, quoting players' and managers' personal opinions) and others aren't reliable, but that's beside the point because the text talked about it being the most famous fixture in English football, which is inherently subjective. Haldraper ( talk)
The current text, one of the biggest rivalries in world football, is fine, not sure why we need to add anything to that. Haldraper ( talk)
The problem with the word "famous" is that it means known by a lot of people. I'm not convinced that there are more people in England who know of the Liverpool-Manchester rivalry as opposed to each team's Derbies or other Derbies like the North London and North East ones, and would want to see some hard data that that is the case rather than a bit of journalistic hyperbole in a newspaper article. Haldraper ( talk)
"That sounds awfully like your opinion matters more than every reliable source. That isn't how this works."
Not at all. What I'm saying that no one has come up with a reliable source to back up the claim that it is the most famous fixture in English football (unsurprisingly as I don't really see how you can measure that accurately), only journalists, players and managers asserting that in their opinion it is. Haldraper ( talk)
Easy: public polling. YouGov and similar organisations do it all the time to find out how well known brands, TV shows etc. are by the public. I doubt it exists for this though, which is probably why you're struggling to back it up with actual evidence from a reliable source and merely quoting individuals' opinions. Haldraper ( talk)
I have made this change to the article, effectively reducing the Old Trafford 5-0 Liverpool win to a paragraph in the 'other notable games' section in line with the other games mentioned. My reasoning behind this is that all the citations given for the paragraph were from one twitter account. Furthermore, I dont believe the citations demonstrate lasting signficance of this match to elevate its notability above the others in the 'other notable games section'. I'm sure it was covered extensively (as the others were) but it would need a reference like the one above in the Independent 'x classic Liverpool FC-Manchester United' ie. a citation that its notability is that much greater than the others in that section Vanteloop ( talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Guys, instead of going on an editing war , lets try and reach a consensus and agreement. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay so let me start with the proceedings. After an initial google search of the trophy comparison between Manchester United & Liverpool, the first two web articles that popped up was these two https://www.goal.com/en-za/news/liverpool-man-utd-which-uk-club-have-won-most-major-trophies/eq9664p329p619x4ae81f2xff https://themoney.co/en/who-has-won-more-trophies-man-utd-or-liverpool-3/. These two articles show that the trophy comparison is 66-64 to Manchester United. The 2 trophies excluded from Liverpool's tally was the Football League Super Cup ( Screen sport super cup) & the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. With that said, we can assume that these sites could be subjective, so the best source of information is to look at the official page of Liverpool Football club. Upon inspection , I did notice that the Football League Super Cup was included under the competitive honours of Liverpool Football Club, in their trophy cabinet on their website. So that made sense to include that honour in this article.
However, I feel that the Sheriff of London Charity shield is a bit of a sketchy topic. I do understand and respect that it was the predecessor of the FA Community Shield. But Liverpool themselves do not count that honour in their trophy cabinet. It is not included in the trophy cabinet of competitive honours, neither is it mentioned under the club's history , in the club's website. I feel if Liverpool as a Football Club do not officially count that trophy as a competitive honour , it is futile for us to argue about it. If Liverpool did include this trophy on their trophy cabinet, then for sure I would have agreed for the tally to be 66-66. The most authentic source of information is the Liverpool website , so like it is not mentioned on their website, that is why I refute this trophy.
Furthermore, sometime back on this exact talk page, there was a discussion about not including this trophy. Some consensus was taken and it stood for years. I have noticed that only at the start of this year(2 months ago) that the talks of this trophy has come up again and it was included in the tally. When I checked last year, this trophy was not included. So I feel we can logically come to a consensus again, considering there was a consensus reached before to exclude this trophy聽:)
Link to Liverpool's official trophy cabinet聽: https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours
The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was the legitimate predecessor to the current FA Community Shield. The latter formed after the Amateur Football Association split from the FA. Similar thing happened with the top flight. In 1992, the clubs from the former first division decided to split-break away from the FL, thereby forming a brand new competition which became the new top flight, ie the Premier League. My argument is that, if we decide to ignore the SoL Charity Shield, using the same logic we should ignore the former First Division, as the predecessor to the current PL. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 37.203.124.28 ( talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is incorrect. Liverpool won the 1906 Sherriff of London Charity Shield, and this needs to be included, as I had done yesterday. The Trophy tally is now level at 66 apiece.
If you access the trophies won by club on Wikipedia, you will see that Wikipedia themselves now have the two clubs level onn 66 trophies apiece.
Please amend this article. BRACK66 ( talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there , as mentioned multiple times. A simple google search of "LFC honours" will show you all the competitive honours won by Liverpool Football club.
The top 2 search results are as follows聽:
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours聽: The official Liverpool website does not acknowledge the SoL charity shield as a competitive honour. There is no mention of this trophy under the trophy cabinet, neither is this trophy mentioned in the club history. This is the most authentic source of information one can find regarding Liverpool, and this trophy is not mentioned.
https://www.thisisanfield.com/clubinfo/honours/聽: A Liverpool fan page even makes no mention of the SoL charity shield.
If Liverpool don't acknowledge this trophy, unfortunately it cannot be included even if other sources mention it. Thank you -- HMD 1315 ( talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The text below is the email response from Liverpool Football Club. I could not upload the actual screenshot image of the email as Wikipedia does not allow me to upload such images. However if people want to contact me for the actual email, please privately contact me your email address and I will forward you the email and send a screenshot. I hope this puts an end to this edit war. You guys are more than welcome to contact the official email address of Liverpool(mentioned below), just as I did. You can even use my reference number , to re-query and see that the email I sent was legitimate. I did not spend my free time to go to this efforts for nothing聽: )
RE: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]
contactus@liverpoolfc.com
Attachments 17:03 (1 hour ago)
to me
Dear ******,
Thank you for contacting Liverpool Football Club.锘
This fixture was considered a friendly competition for charity and as it no longer exists it was never recognised as a major trophy or as an established competition in the way that the Community shield is.锘
We thank you for your support.
Kind regards
Matt
Fan Services Liverpool Football Club From: ****** ****** ****** <*******> Date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022, 19:14:17 To: <contactus@liverpoolfc.com> Subject: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]
Contact enquiry
About you
Name *******
Email address *******
Phone *******Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Address
Date of birth
Your enquiry Enquiry type Fan Services > Club Information Queue email address Subject Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry Your message Hi there. I would just like to know why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield won in 1906, is not counted under the competitive honours in this website, neither is it mentioned? Reference number(s)聽: 3ERFnN -- HMD 1315 ( talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change trophy counts following Liverpool鈥檚 FA cup win 2022. Most clubs now on 66. Jamirowikee ( talk) 18:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update to reflect FA Cup won by Liverpool in 21/22.
Also, how on earth can the Charity Shield be counted? Sad that United rely on this. 81.101.145.100 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Text says "Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65"
Liverpool now have 66 after their FA cup win yesterday.
If the Sheriff of London Charity Shield is to be included, then Liverpool's total should read 67.
Sheriff of London Charity Shield was an FA sanctioned competition that evolved into the current FA Community Shield. They're more or less one in the same, so i can't see how the current FA Community Shield can be included in the stats but not its predecessor, the Sheriff of London Charity Shield. It's historically the same trophy. Would we exclude e.g. the old First Division from the stats as the predecessor of the current Premier League? Or would we exclude e.g. the old European cup as the predecessor of the current Champions League? I don't think so. IMO, either we exclude BOTH the current FA Community Shield and the Sheriff of London Charity Shield from the stats, or we include BOTH. Koppite1 ( talk) 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The challenge is really easy Koppite. Provide a single reliable source that includes the SoL in a definitive list of trophies won by both teams. Koncorde ( talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Evolved from, simply means that the FA took the idea for the FA Charity shield from the London Shield. The two competitions are counted differently. Govvy ( talk) 10:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Liverpool have won 67 trophies compared to Manchester United 66. Please correct this. 82.20.42.125 ( talk) 06:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FA Cup Kcyster ( talk) 15:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Should the SoL Charity Shield be added to Liverpool's total, giving them 67? (United fan!!) BRACK66 ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This was historically sourced to some articles that seem to have been removed during prior edits, and have become victims of linkrot. As such, following a recent prompt, I sought out additional reliable sources explicitly to cover the requirement. This wasn't hard because it's a routine matter of discussion and there are others using variations of the phrase (I used simply the word for word example). All evaluations of rivalries and otherwise are "subjective" and sourced to the articles included, so the subsequent revert by Amakuru is redundant and very odd given the users experience. If we want to change the wording to "one of the biggest fixtures" or similar qualification then we would need to present that POV as a point of discussion in reliable sources, but given the wealth of discussion about the fixture in reliable sources this is presently indisputable accurate representation. Koncorde ( talk) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Had the scoreline been 7-0 to United, I would have suggested the same thing. Beatdowns like the one that happened yesterday happen once in a century, the last time United lost by 7 goals, my nan was 9. Results like these do not usually happen in such a high-profile match, that's why Barca 2-8 Bayern has an article, that's why Brazil 1-7 Germany has one, that's why Man United 8-2 Arsenal has one. Xxmadaraaxx ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield should be included, as it was the forerunner to today's FA Community Shield. BRACK66 ( talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why you removed the Football League Super Cup title won by Liverpool in 1986? It is an official title as it appears on the club's website, before Liverpool won this year's league cup it appeared on the honours table.
Source: [42] https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours Eros 87 ( talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Domestic honours | ||||
Competition | Liverpool | Manchester United | ||
Titles | Year | Titles | Year | |
Premier League | 1 | 2019鈥20 | 13 | 1992鈥93 ... |
First Division | 18 | 1900鈥01, 1905鈥06, 1921鈥22 ... | 7 | 1907鈥08, 1910鈥11, 1951鈥52, 1955鈥56, 1956鈥57, 1964鈥65, 1966鈥67 |
... | ||||
Worldwide total | 1 | 2 | ||
Combined total | ||||
Combined total | 68 | 67 |
As this is a list of competitive trophies representing the rivalry between Liverpool & Manchester Utd, it doesn't have the same criteria of Major / Minor that other articles might (a criteria that is different depending on media source, and how close the two clubs have been at various times). As such, the use of the lead and the trophy count as a barometer of just whose club has the biggest dad from year to year is very much a tribal WP:RECENTISM. Very few people are seemingly anywhere near as animated to contribute anywhere else in the article. We are free to include Lancashire League, Reserve League One and similar competitions if we wish - but to the average reader they are unlikely to be viewed in the same light, and any attempt to provide contemporaneous sources about relative trophy counts specifically exclude them. In contrast reliable sources either categorise Major / Minor (often disagreeing which goes in where), or create their own synthesis of a list (such as dropping the Charity Shield, or World Club Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or Super Cup or similar) such as Goal.com's most recent article (67 apiece), or TheAnalyst.com (46-43), or last years Mirror (68-67) or this years SportBible (68-67) many of which aren't entirely clear as to which Trophies it is including. Problematically, there's a high chance wikipedia itself is becoming an unattributed source for some of these trophy counts creating a risk of circular sourcing. Amusingly, some websites like Livescore aren't even internally consistent, publishing a count after Liverpools recent League Cup win of 67-67 "Major", but 46-43 "Major" on their Facebook page within a few days, while a year earlier they were at 68-67. Almost like the whole thing is contrived. Koncorde ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)