Talk:William Gaillard/Archive 1

Post Champions League Final

Someone with better grammar than myself could work in the phrase blame game to replace the word scapegoats. Alexsanderson83 11:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is that Gaillard went too far. Platini has distanced himself from these comments. Article shows that now. Londo06 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non CL Final related stuff

• Uefa criticises European policing articles such as this, his views on drugs, racism and such things would bring a more complete article. agree, or not? Londo06 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edcoomber 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)== NPOV ==

Please refrain from ading subjective material to this article.

Perhaps the NPOV guide will help you in understanding what is and isnt acceptable?

Wikipedia is not the place to propagate false allegations of racism and bias, this is known as libel, a criminal offense.

Cited Sources show what they say. You have removed three cited sources. Please wait for a UEFA response to the British position before editing unecessarily. Alexsanderson83 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done no such thing.

1. Gaillard did not claim that racism was merely technical, he stated that he didn't feel leaving the field of play was a good idea due. The interpretation you present is false. 2. Therefore he could not have changed his position, as it was not his position in the first place. 3. The problems at the CL final are still allegations. Wikipedia is a encylopedia, and should only contain information that is verifiable. 4. Gaillard is not known as "Comical Willi" by anyone. 5. The accuracy of Gaillards' information section is clearly not NPOV.

Fixed. Might want a link to Gaillards work in promoting UEFAs drive to drum out racism from Europe. Londo06 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please disscuss any further changes to the article here, before editing.

Accuracy of Gaillards information

Probably wants attention to make this section a bit more solid. I think it is referring only to the 2007 CL Final. Alexsanderson83 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It was meant for the fallout of the Athens game, it's not very well written at the minute. Will tighten up. Londo06 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Likened to Tony Snow after his time in the Air Industry

His work goes largely without too much notice, however he does sometimes come across as intransigent and belligerent in the same way that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow comes across.

Was removed, did someone want to replace it with something better. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted an edit

Already linked through wikipedia and cited and sourced. No need to duplicate wikipedia that is linked on this page, and the sentence is already linked. Basically too much information. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert the entire edit, rather than just change the part you didn't like? I made a dozen small changes to make the tone more neutral, the article now once again plainly reads like it was written by people who have a severe problem with Gaillard and UEFA. And besides, there should be some mention of the UEFA report, however brief, otherwise there is no context for Gaillard's statement and it will be assumed by most readers that Gaillard simply made a random assertation about Liverpool fans based on personal opinion, he actually chose to leak one part of the report and was using the report as justification, that drawing such firm and controversial conclusions about a one set of fans from such statistics is dubious is not really the issue. A mention of it does not have to be detailed, but it should be there, to make plain why Gaillard said what he did. 217.38.66.40 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias and 'Inaccurate Information'

Nice to see the clever misquotation of Gaillard, twisting his words and trying to portray him as a racist, has actually been removed (opposing walk-offs by whole teams in response to racist abuse for 'technical reasons only' somehow becomes only opposing racism itself for 'technical reasons only', and then Galliard himself is accused of being a propagandist and a spin doctor...how ironic. I'll presume whoever put that in didn't read Galliard's actual words very carefully, I'd hope it wasn't deliberate…). However, this article still had something of a biased tone to it. No explanation for Gaillard's 'worst behaved supporters' comment, no mention of UEFA's report, and the whole thing reads as though the reader is encouraged at all times to regard Gaillard as a crank with UEFA entirely to blame for what happened in Athens and all Liverpool supporters totally innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Regardless of your point of view on what happened, propagandising on Wikipedia is not acceptable.

In particular, we need sources for Galliard's accusations and their alleged inaccuracy. Namely, what they were, and proof that they are inaccurate. As far as I know, Gaillard said the following:

1. That some Liverpool fans entered the stadium with forged tickets, or even no tickets at all, and this was the reason for the overcrowding and the need for the Greek police to refuse entry to fans with genuine tickets. Nobody has denied this, and Liverpool FC themselves, through Rick Parry, have happily admitted this and condemned those supporters accordingly. UEFA may well have allowed this to occur due to poor organisation and security, and may be emphasising Liverpool fans behaviour to deflect attention away from their own incompetence, but that does not make the allegation false. So Galliard's claim is factual and accurate, whatever his motivation for making it.

2. Galliard says some Liverpool supporters attacked other Liverpool supporters and stole their genuine tickets. This is factual - local media in Liverpool reported on the day of the game that Liverpool fans has been hospitalised after being attacked by other Liverpool 'fans' who stole their tickets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with UEFA's organisation and the allegation is accurate.

3. Gaillard says Liverpool fans stole tickets from children. Haven't seen a reliable report of this.

4. Gaillard says some Liverpool fans stormed the gates and attempted to force their way into the stadium. This is correct and factual, there is video evidence of this and it was witnessed by any number of sources, including Phil Hammond, chairman of the Hillsborough Families Support Group, who was in Athens and witnessed these events first hand, and said he regards such supporters as 'scum' and that he will not follow Liverpool in Europe again as a result of witnessing this behaviour. That Gaillard might be making a point out of this to deflect criticism is irrelevant to whether the accusation is factual, which it evidently is.

5. Gaillard says some Liverpool fans watching on a big screen in the town centre in Athens attacked Milan fans at the final whistle. Well it appears they did, judging by footage of the events. This is nothing to do with UEFA's shortcomings and again the allegation is factual.

I can think of five allegations regarding the behaviour of a minority of Liverpool fans on the night. Four of them are plainly factual, and this can be demonstrated quite easily with any number of reliable sources on the net - the other allegation about tickets being stolen from children I have no idea about, I have seen nothing on that subject (although I haven't looked). None of these things has been denied by any serious commentator, neither by Liverpool FC who have actually criticised the behaviour of these 'fans' themselves. The issue for them is UEFA refusing to take a share of the blame for creating the conditions which allowed the chaos to occur, namely by proving unable to stop fans with forged tickets entering the stadium. Allegations that Gaillard is highlighting all of this to deflect criticism from UEFA should be in the article, but they are not relevant to the claim that Gaillard's information is 'inaccurate'. Any further allegations or statements that Gaillard has made which are inaccurate should be made known and specified in the article, along with reliable sources indicating why they are known to be inaccurate. Simply stating that Gaillard's 'information is inaccurate' with no specification or evidence is not good enough, and this should either be addressed soon or the claim should be removed from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual encyclopaedia, not a PR exercise. 217.38.66.40 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Will change section CorleoneSerpicoMontana 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If a Ford crashes due to the brakes locking at 80mph do you blame the Driver for exceeding the speed limit, the brakes manufacturer for the goods inside the vehicle or the Car company for installing the item within their vehicle and selling it. To me the issue is lack of context from Gaillard and his complete lack of acceptance in accpepting UEFAs share of blame. That lack of acceptance is the core thematic. Inaccurate information by its refusal to accept all the variables. This is a consensus opinion in the media. UEFA and Liverpool fans to blame, you can't find anyone arguing with that. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed citation wanted in 'Before the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final' section

Emphasis to prove there is a more visible UEFA employee than Gaillard, unless there is an in-house scandal, I don't see one. Londo06 06:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edcoomber: Removal of UEFA anti-racism drive

Removal of a section that defended Gaillard as a figurehead of the Anti-Racism initiative. Also removal of a cited source.

Post Champions League Final, you have also sanitised it from British officials to some, the article cited stated whom. Alexsanderson83 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

the information regarding uefa and racism is of no relevance. my last edit was part of a re-working that is sorely needed in this article as it gives undue weight to the champions league final. as for the term "british officials" this is highly misleading so it was changed to portray reality.

Richard Caborn, Michael Howard and a multitude of other MPs didn't quote on the matter, or apparently don't exist, interesting. I shall revert that section alone, upon the basis of the above summary information. Alexsanderson83 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The anti-racism section is a drive that he is most heard from person. It brings balance to an article, it shows that he does do good work for UEFA. Alexsanderson83 12:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

blanace to the article????? you insisted on keeping the edit that implied he was racist in the first place! and tell me, in what what way is michael howard a "british official"? richard caborn has taken issue with the report as that is part of his job remit, please stop reverting my edits.

Michael Howard is the MP for Folkestone and Hythe and former Conservative Party Leader, to me that would pretty much a British official. There were also numerous calls for clarity from Merseyside mps. You seem to lack to have issues with POV.Alexsanderson83 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

fixed. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 11:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"British Officials" is a clear weasel word/term, see here if in doubt. Edcoomber 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edcoomber:Post Champions League Final Section

current edit states (he) ie Gaillard. Earlier edits state UEFA. Caborn said: "Uefa must stop playing the blame game. The previous edits implicated UEFA as enterring, not Gaillard being a maverick. Londo06 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

fixed Edcoomber 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edit

I've deleted the pre/post Champions League final titles (though kept the content) as they imply that this is all he is known for. I feel the POV issues are near to being resolved, though I feel undue weight is still given to the Champions League final. Edcoomber 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

William Gaillard

Can I remind some editors that this is a biography of William Gaillard, it is not an article about the 2007 Champions League final. I feel that the issue has been exhaustively covered in the article, and that the inclusion of any more information is pointless. Wikipedia is not a news service, the article does not need dailly updates of who has said what about whom. Edcoomber 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is unacceptable. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please stop vandalising the article and provide a rationale for your changes HERE before making them to the article.

repeated vandalism is unacceptableCorleoneSerpicoMontana 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As are edit wars. Please provide a rationale for your changes. Edcoomber 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

better to state what Hicks said, some to British officials as per consensus on talk page, added a quote by Simon Gass, the British ambassador to Greece talking about ticket issues, removed citation brought back, but placed in diff place to give context to Platini position.CorleoneSerpicoMontana 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "Better to state what Hicks said"? why? It gives even more undue weight to an already bloated section. The previous edit says all that needs to be said, ie that Gaillard was criticised by Hicks. Wikipedia is not a place to simply reproduce what is written elsewhere.

2. "British Officials" is as I said above a weasel word, there was no consensus for the revert back from "some".

3. All citations were left within the article...

4. All that needs to be said is that Platini has distanced himself from Gaillards comments. Edcoomber 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with user Edcoomber. Please come to a agreement over this. The only problem is reduction, I would reach out for a middle ground figure. Londo06 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars find an agreement over reduction. Londo06 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The Liverpool/UEFA critisim link is dead so needs to go.

2. See WP:BLP for guidance on what should and should not be included in a living persons biography.

3. I repeat that wiki is NOT a mirror and should only contain the pertinent information, and neither is this an article about the CL Final, another reason to keep the content to a minimum. Edcoomber 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism lacks context. Wikipedia is not a thumbnail. Clarity is preferred to vague statements. Please feel free to add all the work that Gailard would do on a day to day basis delivering the views of UEFA on racism, crowd control, the G-14, etc. Londo06 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

no4 Gerrard and UEFA fixed, probs with additional http in link Londo06 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BLP if you unsure as to what belongs in a wikipedia biography. Wikipedia is not a mirror, nor is it an endless database of information. All material should be verifiable, factual and concise. Everything that needs to be said about the CL Final is said in my edit, the additional material creates POV issues and gives undue weight to the criticism of his work. Edcoomber 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Josef Goebbels; a Nazi. did some bad stuff, the end. grow up. wanton vandalism will not be tolerated you scum. Londo06 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither will personal attacks. Edcoomber 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Please cease and desist on the reversions. I would be happy to join you in reaching a happy middle ground. Londo06 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well provide an alternative version instead of engaging in an edit war. The current edit which you insist on using does not meet wikipedia NPOV standards, nor does it meet WP:BLP policy. Edcoomber 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe that to be a happy medium. Londo06 12:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you feel that "British Sports Minister Richard Caborn, on June 5th 2007 met with UEFA president Michel Platini, after which the Frenchman was keen to distance himself from the Gaillard's accusations. [9] UEFA president Michel Platini has denied Liverpool fans are the worst-behaved in Europe following UEFA spokesman William Gaillard's statement. [10]" is basically say the same thing? Do you feel it would be possible to merge this into one sentence? Edcoomber 12:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

removed later sentence altogether, but have left the citation in. The link shows what Platini is distancing himself from. Londo06 12:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3o

Hi. I saw your listing on the third-opinion pages and I thought I could be of service. Could someone lay out the major points of contention and your personal stance and rationale that you are using to justify your stance? Thanks! PouponOnToast 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think we finally have reached a consensus, though any further input would be welcome. Edcoomber 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Current edit is fine, not really much different from before, would be better with more details about what he has done before, ie anti-Racism that Uefa does apparently. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)