Talk:Football hooliganism/Archive 3

Egypt
The section involving Egypt is completely wrong, Libyan fans are those who throw things on the Egyptian fans and taunting them I was there at the match and I saw it, police took Libyans from the stadium to protect Egyptians sitting neighbouring blocks, somebody should edit this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroa12004 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up the topic. All the websites I found posted 1 of 2 articles. The first article is already cited for this wiki page. The other article (Associated Press) is posted on USAToday and SFGate and a few other sites that seems trustworthy. All of them says that the violence "appeared to be caused by Libyan fans." It doesnt go into details. So for all we know, both articles could be right. Libyan fans stayed after their game ended, started taunting Egyptian fans, who the responded by hurling missiles at the Libyan fans. I think we need a better source before we can edit it
 * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/24/sports/s134802S40.DTL
 * http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/world/2006-01-24-african-cup-of-nations_x.htm Elsonlam1 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NA section
I'm taking it out because it's blank. --Æ AUSSIE evil Æ 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama vs Sao Caetano (Brazil)
There was no fight between fans in this episode,the fence broke because the stadium was overcrowded...too many people there. Rodrigo Saggin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.2.127.11 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Football hooliganism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Football hooliganism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "History": From Derry City F.C.: Derry City FC - A Concise History. CityWeb, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-04-30. From Brussels: Brussels.org - History of Brussels 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of worldwide perspective...are we reading the same article
Hi, The article seems to cover a good swath of the globe...check out the Table of Contents...:) Thus I am removing the tag....OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Israel in the European section?
Israel is not a European country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.186.234 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, for the purposes of soccer, Israel is a European nation!


 * FIFA, the organization that establishes and controls football worldwide, is made up of member confederations. Generally, each continent has a confederation, but some confederations have members which are not actually physically located on that continent.


 * For example, Guyana and Suriname are both located in South America, but they are members of the CONCACAF confederation, which is for North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.


 * Israel joined UEFA, the European confederation, because they could not regularly schedule games with many of their neighbors in the Asian Confederation due to political considerations. European nations and clubs were (and are) willing to play games home and away against Israeli teams.  Israeli clubs are eligible for the UEFA competitions and qualify for the World Cup and other FIFA-run tournaments via the European confederation.


 * Thus, for soccer's purposes, Israel is a European nation. Whether this means they should be listed as "Europe" in this article or not... well, that is a slightly different argument, but there is a strong argument that in terms of strictly soccer, they're Euro.  Enumclaw (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is not located in the continent of Europe.Spylab (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland section
This section is very pov and is unsourced. Should this be removed?(90.203.211.144 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

italy section
this section needs more citations. if it's not pov, then it must be sourced. without citations, much of this section should be removed. find citations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.140.65 (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Italy section reads like a Daily Mail article
Most of the claims made have no basis in fact and are written from a clearly anglo-centric point of view, and with the aim to heap all the blame for incidents involving English clubs on Italian fans, by someone who knows nothing about Italy or Italian football. I'm deleting the two worst paragraphs at the beginning of the section. If you have an issue with that, and you're not just out to push your point of view, dispute it here. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it was unsourced, pov and should have been removed. Could you suggest a different opening paragraph then for the italien section of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 November 2009

"Real Millwall fans"
I decided to take out the above statement from the sentence, "Dozens of people, real Millwall fans, were injured." because it implies that hooligans aren't actually fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.223.220 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

United States Section
Refers to a packed match at Giants Stadium for soccer. Was not aware that people attended these games, much less packed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.240.199 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you were wrong then weren't you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.1.218 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Italy section is just a short list of cases when English fans were stabbed by hooligans
There is so much to say about Italian hooliganism - it certainly didn't start in 2001, Milan's Fossa Dei Leoni or Roma's Feedayins go back to the 1970s. There are political affiliations, choreographies, infiltrations by organized crimes, retail outlets owned and run by hooligans, etc. Some of the episodes are reported elsewhere in WP and should be linked to, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_della_Capitale or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_Serie_A (see "Lazio Fan killed by police")

Instead all we get is two or so paragraphs, the UK-centric author obviously only interested in listing a couple of episodes when English fans were stabbed.

One of the poorest Wikipedia entries I have read so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
In the 'Bulgaria' section.

This: "Football Hooliganism in Bulgaria, is typical of everyday life for the public. In Bulgaria fights happen regularly on match days sometimes even on the field as well as off it. The main teams that are in the trouble are CSKA Sofia and their rivals Levski Sofia, Lokomotiv Plovdiv and their rivals Botev Plovdiv. Many of the teams are also linked to right wing ultra-nationalist racist groups. Fascist and Nazi symbols can be very easily seen in Bulgarian modern football."

is patently biased, unsourced, and original research. I petition for its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.125.253 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition to weaponry
I'm going to note the occasional use of firearms, as I feel the violence is being downplayed in the first paragraph. Notably, I'll be referencing Carlo Picornie's death, which I'll also specify under the "Netherlands" header. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. While there are plenty of recorded instances of firearms being used (should I reference those?) Carlo Picornie was killed using baseball bats. I've reverted the Netherlands section, but left the mention of pistols in the used weaponry in the initial paragraph. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Existence of that page ?
Existence and meaning of such page is questionable and by any moral values not approved ! I mean this page just as such acts of violence doesn't have no moral values and as such it shouldn't be written about it in a open-accessible open-content encyclopaedia !

Other words say you even encouraging people that do think like that to continue to think like that and making them look higher in eyes of their friends ! And that is what will again move them to a violence !

I want to say that stopping violence is not done by talking about it specially publicly !

And this page is a list of gruesome crime that look like a grocery shopping list ! And that is disregardful to be in encyclopaedia !

I mean why you do not make a one page with list of a one random soldier in Vietnam kills ?

There is no need of existent of such material in any encyclopaedia !

There are other sites for such data gathering ! And usage by scientific people is not enough to approve existence of such page in encyclopaedia !

Cause most people that will look that page aren't a scientist that need such data but just plain people that are interested in subject of crime, violence , vandalism !

That are mostly people that do crime and live from crime !

And that are the reasons why maybe Wikipedia should shut this page down or maybe be shuted down if doesn't respect some moral levels of normal human beings !

I mean do we write in encyclopaedia ! What is definition of encyclopaedia ! Treasure of human knowledge ? And is vandalism and such things such doings ? Is that something that goes into part that we call knowledge !?

NOOOOOO!

Then again that page is freely and easy accessible and look like a list of kills !

Did you play games !? It look like a list of murdered people by idiots that love to talk about it ! And you even give them a more resources to be heard about it with such page ! And that is something that is not morally aloudable ! And that is grouse and plus there is nowhere on that page a material that say that such things or bad and not aluadable ! That they are not aloud and not good and there is no moral questioning and judging of such acts on that page !

Existence of such page is totally morally questionable even more the page has links other gruesome lists !

We could made that page look correct by erasing a data that is concerned about kills in countries and about a football fan groups !

Or we could make he a few pages from that page with content regarding continents and countries ! Then page titled Football Hooliganism would only have a bit of general information about topic and about its existence with a nice and sharp moral judgement of existence of the same !

Other pages would be about existence of violent football fans groups in different countries and they would linked separately to page Football Hooliganism ! And each of them including page Football Hooliganism would and will be moderated ! Heavily moderated and page Football hooliganism should be even maybe looked down to prevent edits by people that just want to add some new hooliganism !

Again I say there is other sites for such things ! And it shouldn't be written about it in encyclopedia !

I call anyone that is concerned about it and about a content of wikipedia to talk about it !? And that specially include anyone that work as a moderator on wikipedia to question moral values about existence of that page!

This page discussion is a call to mind to people that arrange this page ! Again I say that such page shouldn't exist and shouldn't be in any open organisation easy accessible page like wikipedia is !

Content of Wikipedia pages heh sometimes need to be examined ! On some topics ! Just because its content is edited by anyone it doesn't mean that should look chaotic and have no reasonable content structure ! Beside there is a question of moral approval of existing of such page in encyclopedia and that is the question I make and say here ! Any social network also sometime have content from Wikipedia that include facebook which is a bad network that using a content from wikipedia without questioning its moral values !

But then again anything that any user write on facebook have some sort of moral questioning so if someone would made content that is not desirable as a behavior just like that page is they page would be erased !

Encyclopaedia is important to have a content that have moral value in it ! not just mumbling about things that normal people if wouldn't run on in some point on it wouldn't care ! And also most of people doesn't care about such things !

Clear example how some idiot wrote in that encyclopaedia maybe even some Serbian idiot football fan about a lynching and kill of Brice Taton in Serbia !

I'm about to dismantle this page into a smaller pieces as I wrote if someone have some other reason why it should write it here ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.72.123 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your passionate and repetitive plea for censorship is certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I don't much like this article either. It is a nation-by-nation catalog of hooligan firms. The Portugal without evidence that teams sponsor (or "have") hooligan firms, criminal gangs really, a claim that might be considered libelous. Other parts of the article lack references too. Never mind the lack of references, there are not even dates for some incidents referred to. This is should be an evergreen article. Words like "recently" don't belong in an encyclopedia.

There is little synthesis or sociological or psychological analysis of the phenomenon. Are there any studies of sports hooliganism that might shed light on this phenomenon? There are passing references to white supremacist and other extreme groups that perform their violence under the rubric of being sports fans. What is really behind most of the violence? Is it ritualized conflict? Does violence refer to property damage, or injury to persons? After reading the whole article, I feel no more enlightened than after the first few paragraphs.

There is no "morality" in covering up or censoring information about criminal behavior. The morality -- if that is what you seek in an encyclopedia -- is to document research about the causes and possible solutions to a serious social problem.

Why does Poland get its own football hooligan page?

One other question. Have parts of this discussion page been deleted? I ask, because the neutrality of the Portugal section has been disputed, but there is nothing on this discussion page about that. Waltezell (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC

Australia section
As an Australian, I should like to note two things which may be worth adding. Firstly, whilst the A-league has indeed not seen major clashes, the lower state-level competitions have seen some serious nastiness. To a large degree this is a legacy of ethnic-based club structures. The A-League's predecessor, the National Soccer League DID have serious hooliganism issues.

Note that there is NO crowd segregation at A-League games. Supporters of rival teams are allowed to mingle freely and sit side by side. (Unthinkable in much of the world!).

Note | this incident which appears extremely serious and ugly.

Much of the conflict in the A-league has centered on discord between the clubs and their "active support" groups, not between the support groups themselves. See Melbourne_Victory_FC, for example. There was apparently some kind of "peace deal" negotiated this year between the parties, but I don't know the details. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

the Ukraine
I hear there's a serious problem over there with football hooligans - it was on BBC panorama last nigth yet there is NOTHING here about that country. Are the Ukraine authorities deleting this coming up to the Euro championships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.162.85.170 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Close - aliens are editing it, because they're reading your thoughts. 174.110.143.124 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Portugal section
In the 'Portugal' section.

The information provided not only has no references, but no dates as well. Beyond original research it's clearly biased against the FC Porto club. It also has no mention of the worst Portuguese Football incident: when a Benfica supporter killed a rival Sporting supporter with a pyrotechnic device.

The use of the word "recent" in an encyclopedia is also debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.173.101 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Own section for Cyprus
Football hooliganism is also a problem in Cyprus, well linked with politics. Someone with more knowledge would write a section for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.73.216 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

References problem
The references list seems to have a problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.26.12 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Took a look at this. Do we really need a single article of this length on the topic? I recommend a much shorter summary piece and factoring the rest of the content into separate pieces based on geography, time period, cause, etc. Time period is my choice, because the individual articles would quickly stabilize and the recent period tends to be of greatest reader interest, but it's up to you folks.


 * Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

possible copyright
79.167.68.47 blanked most of a section, around line 97, claiming that it was copyright. I undid said blanking, and tagged it for review. see the history... Aunva6 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging it, but I don't really understand why you undid it. :/ Copying is blatant, and Copyright violations makes clear that copyrighted content should be removed from articles. Such removals are not only permitted but encouraged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.grreporter.info/en/police_detained_228_football_hooligans_extensive_weaponry/5947 http://espnfc.com/news/story?id=499122&cc=5901 http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=08&nav_id=45224 and others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Country sections
I have an issue with almost all these sections. They largely repeat what is said in the general section, often merely giving specific instances of objects thrown etc. Many of them have clearly been written by supporters of one or other team to attack and arguably libel supporters of other teams. In one case I removed text naming an individual as a murderer and accusing police of a cover-up (!)

IMO "country" sections should merely identify country-specific issues such as names of groups, clubs affected (although even this is contentious since every significant club in e.g. England has its "firm") and local factors such as ethnic rivalry, specific racism, support for specific political movements. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do this for every section (I did Bosnia, Denmark and Poland) but some public-spirited persons could deal with the rest Chrismorey (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Later - I also did the Israel section, which contained much material from anti-Israel media titles; slso Jordan; China; Italy, Bulgaria.

I removed the following from Bulgaria as it's about Bulgarian football not hooliganism: "Levski and CSKA are the only teams, who have never relegated from the Bulgarian top division - "A" Group."; and "Botev is by far the team with the largest stadium support, even when the team was in the third flight of Bulgarian football in 2010-2011."

Rewrite
Without wishing to insult the author, this wasn't a good article. The tone was sensational not encyclopedic, there were numerous holes, the lead section was massive and there was no structure. The author clearly loved football but lacked writing skills. I've done what I can, it's far from perfect and some headings are scanty, but it hopefully gives a basis for others to work on. Chrismorey (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also...

Portugal
This has a POV/neutrality tag which is "not to be removed". The problem is endemic to Country sections (see my note above) and not specific to the Portugal section. I've cleaned it up and reduced the material to facts, what's the next step? Chrismorey (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New redirects
I have just created redirects to the relevant sections of this article from the titles Football hooliganism in the United Kingdom, Football hooliganism in England, Football hooliganism in Northern Ireland, Football hooliganism in Scotland and Football hooliganism in Wales. If this article is split by geography, and particularly if an article for the United Kingdom is the chosen split, then the targets will need updating. I have not created redirects for other sections (e.g. Football hooliganism in Italy), but other editors may wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that these large sections be split out as separate articles cf. Poland, as the main article is enormous and unwieldy. Also that contributors be discouraged from editing the sections in the main article, leaving just a link to the specific article.  Otherwise inconsistencies and contradictions will be inevitable. The England section is a prime candidate.  Then again, many of the country sections merely repeat general information, as I note in my talk item below. Chrismorey (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit request
This article is WAY too long. It should be edited/split down to about 5k words from the current 15k. It's not meant to be a compendium. It is meant to cover the subject to a reasonable not infinite degree. Copyediting doesn't make sense until the restructuring is complete. Lfstevens (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the copy edit-section tag and placed GOCEreviewed at the top of this talk page for the time being. Let the content be agreed upon first, then we can copy edit if still wanted. I hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Lfstevens (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)