Talk:Football hooliganism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

No more biast lies!

I removed the biast and mostly faked-up sections libeling fans from Spain, Demark and Switzerland over there off-pitch conduct.--86.25.53.171 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but they have been replaced. The sections are perfectly relevant to this article. Please explain why you think the sections are biased and which parts are biased in them. And which specific parts are fake? Removing whole sections because they are you believe they are bias is not how to edit wikipedia. By all means amend them so they are from a NPOV if you believe they are not and are from a POV. It would help of course if sources could be provided for those sections and more sections too.

In addition, the sections on England, Wales and Scotland are intended to be in different sections. There are other sections that need amending such as the one entitled The Former Yugoslavia, that does need looking at and maybe sorting out. I have also removed some of the wording you added using weasel words and POV. If you do not wish sections to be biased and fake then please do not add wording that shows clear bias and a POV. And I am fully aware that the whole article does need work doing on it as the topic is one that generates strong opinions and views. However, I also want this article to be a neutral one with no bias toward or against any country or club. Thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above, I have just checked the section on Switzerland which you had completely removed because you believe that it was bias and mostly false. The section mostly mentions one incident the 2006 Basel Hooligan Incident which not only has an article about it on wikipedia but is also mentioned on the FC Basel clubs wikipedia article. The rest of the section on Switzerland is just a general comment on hooliganism being relatively new. Removing that section because of bias and it being fake is therefore not appropriate. The section on Spain does have one source on it. HOwever, on reading that particular section it does mention a number of specific incidents yet with only one of them being sourced. I will try to find sources for the other incidents, which if there are no sources, should be removed. I have also removed one general sentence and tried to make slight amendments to make the section NPOV. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh, China and Portugal

This is mostly for the user 86.25.51.113, 86.29.245.93, 86.29.255.209. The whole point of this article is to give an overview of all football hooliganism from countries such as England where there have been huge problems with it, to countries such as Bangladesh and China, where it does not appear to be a huge problem, but where there are verified, sourced instances of football hooliganism. The entries for both Bangladesh and China, contain full verifcation and are notable for inclusion on wikipedia. Of course both sections need work doing on them, but checking the sources and adding the information from those sources is how this should be approached rather than just deleting the whole section. I had intended getting round to that eventually, but will now do so. This article though is to show football hoolignaism in its fullest, and it should not be censored to exclude countries where there have been clear cases of football hooliganism.

As for Portugal, I have for now re-instated the section. I will try to find sources, if there are none then it needs to be sorted. However, until then please do not again remove the section. I have been working on this article to make it NPOV without bias and to show a fair representation of world wide football hooliganism. I have removed as much as possible wording that showed bias, such as clear bias toward English fans on the Italy section. However, it is a work-in-progress and will not happen over night. But, it also doesn't help when you remove the entire Portugal section stating that it was "a bit POV" yet in the very next edit added wording that was clearly bias and POV - "hyper-volent" (violent) to England. And the next edit adding "psycotic" (psychotic) to Serbia is also bias, POV and totally out of context.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Simply put, the "Hooligan firm" article duplicates this article (but with lesser detail) and should be merged with it. --Edwin Herdman 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as if merged the combined article would be massive. The Football hooliganism article is intended surely just to explain football hooliganism in general which can include acts of hooliganism not committed by organised hooligan firms, andand mostly does. Whereas the hooligan firm article is specifically to cover organised firms. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ibrox

The 1970's Ibrox incident was not hooligan related.--86.25.55.109 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I have removed it now. I must have missed it when removing a number of recently added incidents none of which were hooligan related even though the editor had tried to make them appear so by adding words that were not in the original source such as "hostile crowd" when the source only said "crowd". ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tangerines on this. Hooliganism and hooligan firms are not the same thing. – Elisson • T • C • 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what value having two articles on the subject could have, and in fact having two articles discussing the same phenomenon is explicitly warned against in an article for Wikipedia newcomers. Redundant articles increase the chance of having various "faction owned" or otherwise uncoordinated pages with differing material on a subject, and while I imagine that the contributors to this article are responsible, it is not a guarantee that this will not occur in the future. It's also unnecessary clutter.

Secondly, the argument that since the two articles describe technically different aspects of the same phenomenon could be an argument for creating an article called "Outlaw motorcycle club activities," "list of outlaw bike gangs," or the like (assuming that outlaw motorcycle gangs have had the same sort of notable impact as hooligan firms, which arguably they last had in the 1960s, if ever). We don't do that, however, for the reasons above. Regardless of how notable the impact is, however, we do not need two articles for it. I would suggest that the article include a phrase such as "such groups are known as Hooligan Firms" and not duplicate the discussion. --Edwin Herdman 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support a merge (or the other option I describe below). Pretty much the only content in the Hooligan firm article that doesn't already appear in the Football hooliganism article is the list of specific hooligan firms. Also, some of the country-specific sections in the Football hooliganism should probably be deleted, because they only describe one or two specific incidents that aren't very notable outside of the local area. Spylab 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The other option is to turn Hooligan firm into List of hooligan firms and delete all the other content, because that content merely duplicates what already appears in Football hooliganism and Casuals. Spylab 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hooligan firm article has a short piece describing what a hooligan firm is, it is not duplicated content. Football hooliganism and hooligan firm are two related topics but they are not the same topic and I see no reason why things should change. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Short is right; four sentences to be exact, and they are all uncited. That doesn't seem to justify having its own article. Hooligan firm should be turned into a list. I doubt anyone's going to come along and add a large amount of referenced content that is specifically about firms, instead of about hooliganism or casuals in general.Spylab 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and turned Hooligan firm into List of hooligan firms because the list section is the only substantial content in that page, other than content that merely duplicates what appears in other articles.Spylab 11:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the murger.--86.25.48.144 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hooliganism in England

The section on hooliganism in England overlooks the fact that hooliganism at Premiership games as been virtually eliminated. I've never seen even a hint of trouble in the last three years of regular attendance, I HAVE seen fighting in supermarket queues though. Premiership grounds on matchdays must be one of the safest places on earth with all the stewarding, policing, cameras and security. I concede that in the lower leagues, championship and below there are still sporadic incidents.

• Is there any noted soccer hooliganism in the US? I read there was an incident between NY and DC earlier this year involving hoolignaim on some level, but I am not sure.

This entry seems to suggest there's only four countries with football hooligans. Anyone know why? PhilipPage 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's to biast against England and portrays us as a real life Green Street. Italy is by far the worst.--86.29.247.2 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

England (2)

This section has been a mess for a long time. I added the in use tag earlier this evening and have so far got about half way through the section. Some links were dead, and I have also added further links and so on, whislt trying to clean it all up and to keep it NPOV. There is still work to be done on this section, which I hope to complete tomorrow. Of course if I make any mistakes which is likely then please amend them. There are other sections that also need a fair amount of work doing on them, especially the Italy section. I have also found some reliable sources for other sections which I will add as I go on. I have also added at the lead of the article more about the history of the subject. I have also tried to ensure that nothing is seen on here as glorifying football hooliganism. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Just to add to the above, I haven't finished the England section yet (by a long way) but hopefully it is on its way to being a better section. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "In the 2000s, English football hooligans..." seems to come out of nowhere. The comment on clothing only repeats what has been mentioned earlier about "casuals" except it unnecessarily introduces the term "chav". The comment that hooligans use the internet and mobile phones to contact each other seems superfluous - pretty much everyone in the country uses these methods of communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.121.173 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

England re-visted

Why is this page so anti-English and pro-German, it's very POV and biast!

I'm English. You think I hate my own country? I think not :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Infact the page is a bit too pro-English and anti-Scotland/Wales.

Italy

I have added 10 sources ansd remove the {fact} tag.--86.25.51.178 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources need to be added in the correct format so that the link into the section entitled "Footnotes" at the bottom of the article. They also need to be placed individually in the article at the end of the specific story they refer to and not just place altogether at the end of two paragraphs. I have removed them for now, and placed them here, so that they can be placed back in correctly. I will be able to do that today if no-one else does it in the meantime.

• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2005495,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6331015.stm
• http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/article.html?in_article_id=45769&in_page_id=43
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6525795.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1694824.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6524735.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6326877.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6326513.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6326513.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6314949.stm

♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that as yet I have not had time to look at the above, but will do so soon, unless someone in the meantime has been able to do it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seems parochial, when talking about Man U - Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.83 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 31 July 2007

Eastern Europe

Classifying Poland as part of Eastern Europe is controversial and should be avoided. It's a fact, however, that ex-communist countries have historically had a different football culture, this could be reflected by the article by some means. Also, UEFA and the footballing world in general considers Turkey to be part of (Southeastern) Europe. 84.0.217.143 12:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland is geographically in Eastern Europe and as it has a wikipedia article it is perfectly relevant to use it as a geographical term especially in the case of saying that Poland was the first Eastern Europe country to get football hooliganism. In that context it is relevant. Of course Poland is simply a European country ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scottish entry

I don't think that Scottish entry is entirely correct. For one thing, the claims about the safety of Glasgow city-centre post-Old Firm game are wrong; I've never seen any trouble from that so long as I can remember.

The fude with England is not just a 'frendly bit of banter and rivalry'.--86.25.54.17 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, It's a lost worse than people think- Green Street would no know hare to start even!--86.29.243.34 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeh; it's not all that it's made out to be.--86.29.242.65 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Two types of references; need consistency

There are two types of references used in this article; they should all use the same format. I had previouly changed the reference format in the English section so it would be the same as the France section (and would be less cumbersome) but another editor reverted it to the other format (which is actually meant for books and print articles, not links to websites). Someone has to decide which format to use, and stick to it. I'm not going to waste my time making it consistent, just to have someone revert it based on personal preferences.Spylab 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the cite templates, the {{cite web}} is for website information that is not available anywhere else, {{cite news}} is for news articles that also may be available online. The <ref> system is far superior to the [link] system and if making the references consistent, the former system should be used. – Elisson • T • C • 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the <ref> system is far superior as it's more transparent for this type of article, with it containing "controversial material2. Englishrose 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup progress

I just want to say a public thank-you to Spylab, Addhoc and others who have worked very hard at cleaning this article up. It's now looking, and reading, much better. With that in mind, is it perhaps time to remove some of the cleanup tags? Waggers 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Addhoc 13:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6326513.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jooler (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the FIGC ban in Italy.--86.29.245.177 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes and the Definition of Hooliganism

I think that the changes in the last few months are excellent, and the article looks much better now. But still, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what, exactly, hooliganism is. A single riot doesn't come close to showing the existence of hooliganism. I don't think that the section on North Korea qualifies. Isn't hooliganism limited to violence between fans? If the crowd threw bottles at the referee and opposing players, that's a different kind of problem, isn't it? I'd like to see what other people think about this. In any case, I'm going to change the external link to the original Asia Times article, rather than leave a link to a far-right political site that uses a football riot to support an anti-communist agenda. Zerologic 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have made a start on trying to get this whole article into a far better order, and by making it NPOV and sourced. In doing so much of the content will need to be repoved. Which I have already done in the section on Italy. I have also added content into the section on Italy - fully sourced. But also removed stuff that showed clear English bias.

In the section on Sweden, I have removed this for now until it can either be sourced or removed, but will keep it in here until then -

"Toward the end of the 1970s, inspired by English football culture, hooligan firms were created, including Djurgårdens IF's Blue Saints, AIK's Black Army and Hammarby IF's Bajen Fans. Nowadays, these supporter clubs are quite friendly. The biggest firms in Sweden are at the moment Djurgårdens Fina Grabbar (Djurgården), Frontline (Helsingborg) and Kompisgänget Bajen (Hammarby)."

The two firms for AIK and Gothenburg have remained in the article as they have been sourced.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given the recent spate of anon edits of little encyclopaedic merit, introducing POV or poor tone, from a variety of IPs (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]) I have semi-protected the article now. This should probably be temporary and not permanent, however. Qwghlm 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it lock, lads. The England section is still a bit dodgy, slopy and rusticated!--86.29.244.175 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits today

Hopefully, with the edits made by User:Spylab and myself today following on from the previous major edit , this article is starting to improve. There is still a long way to go. Some countries are still full of bias, POV and unsourced sections, but these are being worked on. It is a topic that tends to get strong opinions. It might also help to have more in general about the topics history.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add these changes to the Greek section.

I cannot do so, because I am not registered. In the fact mentioned is erroneously reported that the death of twenty something people in the Karaiskaki stadium in 1981 was a result of fighting, it was not. It was a result of an exit door being closed and people rushing to it and getting trumpled, the stadium belonged to Olympiakos team and the fans who met their untimely death. I won't source it with any greek sources, although they are ample, since I don't know the policy for foreign language sources, but this is an undisputed fact acceptable by all fans.

Please also add, that in 2007, a fan was stabbed to death when rival hooligans from Olympiakos and Panathinaikos met up for a confrontation. 84.254.50.247 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look, if it is unsourced or incorrectly sourced then it will be removed as if it is not a hooligan related incident and merely an accident then it should not be on this article anyway. The second incident you mention cannot simply be added without a verifiable source. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The source for it stated, "24 people die in a stampede as fans rush to leave the ground.", and did not mention fans fighting at all. Unfortunately a user took it upon themselves a while ago to add numerous incidents taken from the same source, adding in their own words which did not appear in the source so that it looked as if they were all hooligan related incidents when the vast majority of them were tragic accidents. I thought that most if not all of these had been removed but it would seem not. I have removed it from the article. the second incident you mention though needs a source to be added. Thanks for the input. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

Boy, that recent riot-come Ultra bombing was bad! 2 bomb secterian bombings have killed at least 50 people and injured 135 in Baghdad as crowds celebrated the Iraqi national football team's win over South Korea. The first strike killed 30 people in the Mansour district and 20 died in the next blast, at an army checkpoint in east Baghdad. Thousands had filled the streets of the capital, dancing and waving flags in a rare moment of national unity. Police said the two attacks deliberately targeted the jubilant supporters. [5] [6]

I's part of a religiouse civil war, not a act of hooliganisum.--Bosnia 2007 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

England (2)

This section has been a mess for a long time. I added the in use tag earlier this evening and have so far got about half way through the section. Some links were dead, and I have also added further links and so on, whislt trying to clean it all up and to keep it NPOV. There is still work to be done on this section, which I hope to complete tomorrow. Of course if I make any mistakes which is likely then please amend them. There are other sections that also need a fair amount of work doing on them, especially the Italy section. I have also found some reliable sources for other sections which I will add as I go on. I have also added at the lead of the article more about the history of the subject. I have also tried to ensure that nothing is seen on here as glorifying football hooliganism. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Just to add to the above, I haven't finished the England section yet (by a long way) but hopefully it is on its way to being a better section. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "In the 2000s, English football hooligans..." seems to come out of nowhere. The comment on clothing only repeats what has been mentioned earlier about "casuals" except it unnecessarily introduces the term "chav". The comment that hooligans use the internet and mobile phones to contact each other seems superfluous - pretty much everyone in the country uses these methods of communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.121.173 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Why is this page so anti-English and pro-German, it's very POV and biast!

I'm English. You think I hate my own country? I think not :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Infact the page is a bit too pro-English and anti-Scotland/Wales.

Poland

Dino Baggio was hit in the head by a guy named Paweł M. "Misiek". Here is the full story in Polish [7] Most recently 47 Polonia Bytom ultras ware arrested (71 ware taken from the stands but on stadium monitoring footage only allowed to arrest 47)for 3 months after a Upper Silesian derby Between Górnik Zabrze vs Polonia Bytom . They're blamed with charges of police assault, destroying of propperty etc. they're facing a maximum of a 10 year sentance. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.198.237 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 September 2007

Sources in English are needed really for the information to be added, if there are any sources for these in English. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

here is the story in english [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.198.237 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Football hooliganism in Poland is widespread, even during games of local, 4th Division teams, there are fights. I will significantly expand this section as soon as I have some more time. Tymek 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey returning

I beleve it's best to point out, that by tradition, the Turks have a long standing grudge with Italy, England, Greece and Germany.

Iv'e always regarded it as more of a generalised hooligan elimet, not a racist firm or faction.--The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

--86.25.51.220 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Libya

Why the cover up?--86.29.240.36 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC) [[10]] [[11]][[12]]

Considering an IP user with a very similar address to that of you removed content about Libya with the edit summary of "Libya - What has a state masicare of protesters got to do with a footy riot! It's Tieanaman squair, not Green street out there!)" perhaps you could check with them as the content was also added by an IP user with a very similar IP address to yours and theres. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Celtic v. Rangers

I think this age old Catholic/Protistant fude in Glasgow's local derby deserves a more indepth coverage. Derry town also had it's shair of secterianisum to.--86.29.247.246 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotland's revenge

The Old rivalry with England is not a small issue! The Sasnegs are troubel whear ever they go. There is a need to point out that they always like hearlng abuse at Scots fans and reguarly assult German fans in Europe.

Page length

The page is getting rather long, so the older and quieter articels 2, 4 to 6, 12 to 16 and 19 to 29 are being archived. --The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 is now compleated.--The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangers v. St. Petersburg fans and Greater Manchester police 2008

How about adding this link about the Rangers FC riot that followed the stabbing of an innocent Russian fan after the match and the technical failure of a giant T.V. screen after a rangers fan had allegedly vandalised the power supply to it! Greater Manchester Police bravely helled the line and won the battle with the louts!

• BBC-[13]

• The Times-[14]

--86.25.49.68 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Goal.com-[15]--86.29.245.1 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It will get added correctly worded in English with sources soon enough.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry if i have added this in the wrong place . i the article on UK hooligans it says that rangers and celtic do not have firms . that is incorrect . he rangers firm is the intercity firm and the celtic one is the celtic soccer crew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.121.49 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)