Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 riots

Note
Note: I have merged the Marseille riots article into this one, as I think the topic has broadened out to problems in Lille, and given Russian MPs support for the violence, I think more of the story is to be written. The exception is that I have not moved over any information cited to the Daily Mirror, as that is a tabloid newspaper and should not be used per WP:BLPSOURCES - "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I again remind people that new content must be backed up with a good, high-quality source. The exception is in the lead, which simply summarises what is in the article. Any edits that don't cite a source, particularly if they deal with any actions of fans or the authorities, are likely to be reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Suspended disqualification"
Could we get a definition for that term please? I keep seeing it used but as yet no explanation for what it actually means. I could Google it but that kinda defeats the purpose of this whole thing. --DarthBinky (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The press release of UEFA is even more confusing. They do not explain what a disqualification entails and the applicable rules specifically state that a suspension of measures is not allowed if it concerns a: warning, reprimand or ban. The probationary period must also be a minimum of a year.–Totie (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put a link to suspended sentence in the article; beyond that I can only go with whatever UEFA have put in their press release, or major news outlet's interpretations of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And that's fine, thank you. It's as I suspected- it's just that the way that particular sentence is written ("On 14 June, the Russian team were given a suspended disqualification and fined €150,000 with a strict warning that they would be removed from the tournament if any further violence occurred."), it makes it seem like the suspended DQ is unconnected to the 'strict warning that they would be removed'. Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just "fans"
Sources appear telling that Russian "fans" were actually well-trained, maybe even professional combatants ,. This is not usual violence during such events. Should not this be more clearly stated, even in intro? My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a bit in "Media reports". I'm a little hesitant to put it anywhere else as the two sources linked are clearly opinion pieces, and therefore should be noted as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead unbalanced
The lead implies that the violence has been condemned by everyone. This simply isn't the case and does not paint a balanced picture of the response to the violence. 86.180.107.166 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

POV
This article is anti russian POV and not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the German edition is more about Russia alone than here, so i find this more neutral than the German wiki. BerendWorst (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultras and Saint-Étienne
, due to recent edit, is "ultra supporters" synonymous for the term Ultras?--Crovata (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the article starts "Ultras are a type of football fan renowned for ultra-fanatical support... " And it seems to be used in an adjectival form, with a small "u", in that article. But I'm quite happy to go along with consensus. If it's clearer to always use it as a proper noun, with a capital "U", then ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not intend the first letter, as can be seen in the article it is written in both small and capital, yet that the term is written as noun-adjective "ultras" (ultras groups, ultras movement), with "s", not as an adjective "ultra"-something, without "s". I would like to draw the attention for the use of the right terminology.
 * As well, would note other editors that the action of the ultras groups is related to these events "Croatia fans’ act of terrorism in Italy was a planned cry for attention" (Milano, 2014), and "Uefa opens proceedings against Croatia over pitch swastika" (Split, 2015). Should those events be mentioned in the sub-section?--Crovata (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the Ultras article has one one example with an 's': "Within the ultra or hooligan culture..." Does any one else have an opinion about that?
 * As regards the other information, that's very relevant to Ultras, but predates the EURO 2016 competition by quite a long time. It does show that there is still a serious and endemic problem in European football though - it's not just suddenly happened at EURO 2016. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Hungarian fans clashed with stadium security and later riot police"
According to the first source provided: “Supporters tried to climb a fence but there was no violence,” a spokesman for regional police said. And the second source states : "Many of the fans managed to cross over before riot police moved in and blocked off the area, allowing stewards to return. There did not appear to be any clashes between fans and police." So I don't think saying that fans clashed with security and riot police is appropriate if the sources state that there were no clashes and no violence. --Nekdolan (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe everything that is written in The Sun, what do you expect? (Okay, the citations there were for incidents in Paris, but the citations in this bit weren't great either) I have rewritten this section with a more reputable source that says violence was minimal. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying
Is there an article about violence in qualifying? Examples would be Montenegro v Russia, Serbia v Albania & Croatia v Italy.Perfectamundo (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is, but those matches are mentioned over at UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. There is also an article for Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying). Fuebaey (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"hyper-rabid," or "hyper-rapid [sic]"?
What do you mean in this sentence?: " The chief prosecutor in Marseille called the group "hyper-rapid [sic] and hyper-violent". No crime to be "hyper-rapid"! Autodidact1 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's what the source says, and I assume its a synonym for "fast-acting". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets just leave Sweden out of this, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Hybrid warfare"
This content:


 * According to the The Guardian, a UK government source said that some of the attackers had been identified as belonging to the Russian uniformed services.[9] Officials suspected it was part of the Kremlin's "hybrid warfare", attempting to "demonstrate Russian strength while building on a narrative inside the country that the rest of the world is lining up against it".[9]

is based on one newspaper report, which in turn is reporting the alleged allegations of one unidentified source. It is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedic overview of this issue. Were anything about this to be independently reported by multiple sources, especially any other than a former Mail reporter writing for another British newspaper (the Observer btw, not the Guardian), and with some actual evidence, it might have some weight and be worth including. Oh, and "but we're just noting what an RS says", as ever, fails to address the wider points about WP:UNDUE etc. I will remove it, and perhaps anyone reinserting it could do better than that as a justification.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. I was quite surprised when I read that. Not that MI6 sources generally give their name, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Although this isn't even necessarily a spook of course. It's just a journalist speaking to some mate of his who, for all we know, works in the admin dept at DCMS and tossed out something off the top of his head at lunch one day, which said journalist then wrote up to fulfill his quota for the Sunday paper and get a sensationalist and editor-pleasing headline. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that this is how much media content in the UK and elsewhere is generated. You just have to have worked near it.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try and think of a good reason to violently disagree with you. In the mean time, you might find this study interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is an extraordinary claim and I personally would not be happy to see this in the article unless mentioned by a critically acclaimed book source (which, obviously, does not yet exist and won't do until months or even years after the cup ends). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try and think of a good reason to violently disagree with you. In the mean time, you might find this study interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this addition, which has now replaced it, is much better. Yes it's written by academics but it remains speculative commentary (and the "state-sponsored hooliganism" is a sub-heading, not a definitive conclusion of theirs). Indeed I'm not sure of the point of this whole section other than, as so often happens, to be fly-paper for any anti-Russian media commentary that partial contributors can dredge up online. I can't even make sense of the first bit, about Twitter trolls. The main Reaction/Russia subsection already has the actual, verified Lebedev comments in support of Russian violence, which were widely reported and definitely worth noting – as well as Putin's (or rather his spokesman's) condemnation of the violence and those comments, and other details (possibly too much from the press conference). What does this add to that, other than a healthy dose of speculation and selective POV?  N-HH   talk / edits  10:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The first revert here removed the 18 words "Two England fans were left in comas after being attacked with hammers and iron bars by Russian hooligans." The sources were BBC and Hinkley Times. The supposed copyvio was from The Guardian. The second revert here removed text that was largely made up of direct quotes from the two sources, The Independent and the Guardian. I'd suggest that both of these passages could easily be rewritten to avoid any copyvio. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)