Wikipedia

Talk:Football hooliganism/Archive 4

< Talk:Football hooliganism
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Mundelow in topic Nothing about Ireland?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Proposal to split

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

This article currently has 15864 words, an overall file size of 519 kB, and a readable prose size of 95Kb. So WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that dividing it would be useful. Unless, there are any objections, I propose to split off the United Kingdom section into Football hooliganism in the United Kingdom (which is currently a redirect here), and to replace the section here with a summary. This would reduce the present article by about 3000 words, 150 Kb of overall size, 20KB of readable prose size, and incidentally remove around 60-80 footnotes, for faster rendering.

It would also be possible to split off some other sections which are large enough and well-cited enough to justify articles of their own (i.e. would satistfy WP:GNG). The sections most suitable for this appear to be (in rough descending order of size):

Once this is done, this article would have a more manageable size, and it may prove easier to deal with the POV issues in it. I could probably start the splitting next week (Monday 16 Sept). Any views, please? --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea but:
1. The longer country sections may contain little in the way of new facts. In the Talk page, I noted that they're often used to slag off rival clubs and their fans, or to boast of one's own hooligans, or merely to repeat the more general sections above. I would give them all a fairly ruthless edit (I've done 5 or 6 already) which could make them more manageable, but am going on holiday for a month.
2. Possibly against Wikipedia's culture, but where a country article exists (e.g. Poland, or UK under this proposal), IMO the main article should merely have a link to it under "Poland", with no text at all. Otherwise duplication and contradiction will creep in. Chrismorey (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the fairly ruthless edit continue in other hands per Chrismorey above, and then have a split by continent. That would leave the current article with only a few geographical sections, with forwarding to the continental articles. Continental articles would be much more manageable, with individual countries split off from them where needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I support the country-level split. Continent is not a useful way to organize. We need to be reader- not editor-friendly! I would include incident-level stuff in the main article only to illustrate a broader point. Lfstevens (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Specific incidents should only be covered under countries, and then only if noteworthy. BTW I've just been ruthless with Bulgaria, reduced to about 1/3rd, if anyone wants to see an example of what I feel needs doing Chrismorey (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the following:

Football in Europe may have some issues considering Israel is in UEFA but they are geographically in Asia. --MicroX (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Seeing that there's more than one option, I'll wait a little longer than next Monday before starting to split, to give time for other editors to chip in. I think both approaches are reasonable, and would be happy with either, but I agree with Lfstevens that country-level would be easier to summarize and probably make for a slightly better reader experience. It's a good idea for some "fairly ruthless editing" to happen before the splitting, anyway. @Chrismorey: it's better to have a summary paragraph rather than no text at all. It's more work for us to keep the POV straight, but it may make for a better reader experience if they can get an overview before being sent off elsewhere for details. See WP:Summary Style, and especially WP:SYNC (a section of the former), which discusses the problem you raise. --Stfg (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
As it is it rambles, is too big and needs splitting and my choice would be for 'by continent'. I also welcome any move to cull the rubbish in this article and to stick to just what is hooliganism. For example, taunting Ashley Cole as he earns a big wage is not hooliganism, neither is making fun of Emanuel Adebayor. I would also question if a fight outside a ground is hooliganism. As the lead says an element of gang mentality and organization is required. For example, two West Ham supporters fighting do not make them Inter City Firm members, just prats. In my extensive experience in England, mobs travelling with the intent of violence and disruption belong to an era long before the Taylor Report.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Having slept on it, I think that continent-level splits are the wrong idea: there is too much diversity within a continent to enable the writing of a meaningful, informative summary (the point made by Lfstevens above). If we confine ourselves to splitting off only the well-cited sections, we can achieve some focussed articles with decent potential futures. Splitting by continent will just fragment this problem article into 5-7 problem articles (POV problem). But I agree with Egghead06 that we could also remove a lot of dross, such as the examples he mentioned. We could remove all uncited use of club names as examples: for example, delete the text "such as Club Brugge, RSC Anderlecht, Standard de Liège, Union Royale Namur, Beerschot and Antwerp FC" from the Belgium section, or the whole first paragraph of the Bosnia and Herzegovina section. Focussing on selected clubs rather than on the culture of hooliganism in general is bound to be a POV magnet. Doing this, plus future reversion of such edits, would make the article a much less attractive stamping-ground for POV-pushers with club-specific POVs. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My comment for this would be that, 'by country', would give you some very small articles once the unsourced, POV and patent nonsense had been stripped out. This might result in there being not enough even to create an article, for example, hooliganism in Norway. As an aside Football Hooliganism in Poland already exists as well as being part of the main article, so this method, ie by country, has already been started.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree in many cases and I certainly wouldn't propose to split them all out. United Kingdom and Argentina are the key ones. I only proposed three others, all of which are well cited. A good example where your point applies is Greece, whose section is large enough for an article (before pruning the POV etc) but has inadequate citatations and is probably amenable to substantial pruning. I wouldn't recommend splitting that. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The headings in this article 1-9 and 16 are really what should be the main content on this page, country specific details ideally should have their own article but with some kind of summarised information and link within this article. I was intending to create a separate Football Hooliganism in Scotland article anyway as the information on this page has a very narrow focus as well as being repetitive and, as someone has now done for Poland, I would have left a summary paragraph or two with the link. I recommend the split into country specific articles if there is sufficient material present to do that, for example if its like the Belgium or Norway they could be left as they are on this page. It could also help to prune this article further by having separate articles on a continental basis for North America, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Though by what I can see has been written throughout all the countries entries once POV, inadequate citatations, lists of firms and the irrelevant has been removed it will reduce article size though by how much remains to be seen. Barry rimmer (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; note we already had Football hooliganism in Poland as a stable, separate, notable articles for several years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed statement from Jordan section

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the following sentence from Football hooliganism#Jordan:

Some native Jordanians feel the Palestinian refugees have no allegiance to the country.<ref name="english.aljazeera.net" />

Although cited to this Al-Jazeera source (from which, by the way, it has been copy-pasted), it is a statement of opinion, not fact, and is highly partisan -- very far from WP:NPOV. It is also largely irrelevant to the subject of the article. The Palestinian/Jordanian tension is adequately covered in the first sentence of the section. Let's not inflame matters. Please don't restore the sentence unless consensus is established for it. --Stfg (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Split off UK article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(See two sections above this). I've now split off Football hooliganism in the United Kingdom. It was worth it as the new article has 20Kb in 3380 words. Template:Football firms used in the External links section of the present article only lists UK football firms and has been invoked from the new article. Should we remove it from here or retain it? --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooliganism vs. Ultras

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article (and the referred List of hooligan firms) has many contradictions with the article about Ultras and other sources about ultras such as z6.invisionfree.com/UltrasTifosi/ar/t12661.htm and ultras-tifo.net.

First, the article about Ultras clearly diffrentiates between Ultras and hooligan firms, but the names mantined here for firms in former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia), Portugal, Israel and Greece are recognized in the above sources as ultras. Also, some in-stadium behaviors such as using flares and other pyrotechnics, storming into the pitch and clashing with police could be linked more to the Ultras motivation (supporting, fighting commercialization) then to the hooligans motivation (vandalism).

The statemnet in the ultras article "Unlike hooligan firms, whose main aim is to fight fans of other clubs, the main focus of ultras is to support their own team" totally contradicts the statment in this article "The term Ultra is used to describe hooligans in Italy."

Also, some of the incidents described here (mainly about pyrotechnics and over-enthusiastic support) can be related to ultras rather tan to hooligans.

Or... the other article is wrong, and both terms refer to the same thing... Anyway, this issue should be cleared Barakb32 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not the same thing, although there can be some overlap. Bear in mind that the media can often conflate the two or describe any fanatical supporters/ultras as hooligans, maybe the Italian media do this a lot (I don't know). we should really be looking for better sources than "ultras-tifo.net" and such like, there have been books published on this subject. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty pointless arguing about the precise meaning of insider slang across multiple languages and countries. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Updair Azstraya, updair and foit!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism#Australia

This is so laughable. A laser light. A seat was deemed damaged. Another seat was 'sticker bombed.' The only real drama was the Serb's bringing their political agendas to a football match where ex-pat's and Serb's wanted to murder each other. This isn't exactly hooliganism. In fact, none of the material mentioned for the Australia section is hooliganism. It sounds more like an unholy trinity of overly sensitive organisers/police/journalists. A flare was let off. A flare. A seat. A sticker bombed chair. Not exactly flipping over cars and setting shit ablaze now is it? I would humbly suggest that an editor of this article hard prune this nonsense to at least read with neutrality and not like it's cut and paste straight from some alarmist budget increase request letter to the treasurer on behalf of some police association. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Football hooliganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Football hooliganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football hooliganism. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football hooliganism. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Football hooliganism. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about Ireland?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that Ireland isn't mentioned anywhere.. Northern Ireland is featured in the United Kingdom section, but nothing about the Republic of Ireland. I'm not studied enough to write an article but if someone here is, it would be cool to read! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundelow (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_hooliganism/Archive_4&oldid=1186133271"