Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Football: Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as High-importance).

I propose to remove this as it is not appropriate for this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not a means for advertising news from the media.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Shouldn't we keep this? It's the SFA's view. Cfc.csc (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant to the SFA itself. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was irrelevant to the SFA, why are they discussing it? And don't they have responsibility for inappropriate behaviour? Centralview (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SFA article should discuss the SFA. The Famine Song is discussed at the Famine Song. Get it, or do I have to draw you a diagram? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behaviour of some fans is the responsibility of the SFA. And you don't need to be sarcastic. Centralview (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sfa's article, the section has more appropriate places to be included, this is not your soapbox.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would say that it is the responsibility of whichever fans that have committed those actions. The only involvement that the SFA has is to pass comment, in the way that any journalist or supporter can. Take The Football Association article - is there anything there about Heysel or Hillsborough? Of course not, and nor should there be. You're trying to push your point of view by placing this kind of discussion on as many articles as possible. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNIDENT

"The SFA will threaten to deduct points from Rangers in the Clydesdale Bank Premier League this season if the club's fans do not stop singing the now-infamous Famine Song which is regularly besmirching the appearance of Rangers at Ibrox and other SPL grounds." So it's clearly the SFA's responsibility. What's included in other articles has no relevance, but if you find evidence suggesting the FA did not comment on Hillsborough we can exclude it here too. Centralview (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are cherry picking sources to further your pov on this, you have no intention on improving the article but to use this as your soapbox, just because the sfa say something about a certain thing does not mean it 'HAS' to go in the article, i wonder why you are solely focussing on rangers here and a certain 'famine song' rather than trying to improve the article with a non biased inclusion.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are not denying that it is the responsibility of the SFA. So why are you censoring this material? Centralview (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a drama queen. It is not censorship - the issue is described at racism in association football and Famine Song - WHERE IT IS RELEVANT. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not denying this is the responsibility of the sfa? Caledonia1 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating sockpuppets to "support" your argument. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a section about the finances of the SFA compared to other nations ? I have it on quite good authority they're one of the wealthiest associations in the world for it's size (5 million people). Yet it drastically underperforms compared to nations like Denmark (5 million) with a fraction of their finances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top three results in this search give the annual reports by the SFA for each of the last three years, if you want to knock yourself out. My understanding is that the SFA is reasonably wealthy, but the failure to qualify for any tournaments since 1998 has cost the SFA tens of millions in potential revenues (UEFA paid a minimum of £6.5M to each country that qualified for UEFA Euro 2012 - source). That money would have been reinvested in facilities, in which Scotland grossly trails comparable Nordic countries (due to those countries having far greater public sector investment). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]