Talk:2007 AS Roma–Manchester United F.C. conflict

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Football: England / Italy / Manchester United Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Italian football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Conflict sounds like two countries at war... can anyone find a better adjective? Riot? Rumble? --Howard the Duck 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

At the minute, Daddy Kindsoul is making it seem like the violence was started by Manchester United fans without provocation. I propose that the article be re-written to make it less biased against Manchester United and more neutral. PeeJay 10:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - from the reports I've read, it sounds like the Roma fans started the trouble, to which the police did nothing.

Added a POV check header.Darkson - BANG! 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Description of events

This is a dispute about the neutrality of the description of the events involved in this article. 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

The description written by Daddy Kindsoul makes the incident seem like it was wholly caused by deviant Manchester United fans, whereas the actual cause of the events were more complicated than the Man Utd fans simply attacking Roman police officers. -- PeeJay 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I can't see why the links provided by PeeJay2K3 are any less relevent than the ones already in the article. At least one citation was from the BBC, which seem to be a good enough sourse on many other articles. There seems to be some ownership issues here. Darkson - BANG! 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, without trying to undermine my own argument, I didn't really supply any of those sources. I just re-wrote the article to make it reflect the events as they really happened. PeeJay 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

PeeJay2K3 is a Manchester United fan (I myself am a neutral) and he has repeatedly edited the article in question in a fashion which ads an extremely strong bias against the police force which are inacurate in regards to the events, despite sources stating otherwise. Mr PeeJay has repeatedly blanked indipendant news sources and the information which pertains to them from the article, without using the edit summary.[1][2][3] His bias makes out that the riot police moved in and attacked the fans for no reason at all, the reports however beg to differ that United fans pushed around stewards thus giving reason for police to move in.[4]

I attempted to dicuss this with the user, explaining that Wikipedia needs to be neutral, and that we can't have articles that disregard fact and baselessly attack police forces despite sources from reputable news stations stating otherwise.[5] Yet this acumilated to nothing more than PeeJay continuing to blank sourced information from the article, with no edit summary explaining why he thinks such bias is acceptable.

PeeJay has since blanked an image from the article[6], which depicts a United fan throwing an object at the police.[7] Again, he doesn't bother to use the edit summary to explain his action, which leads to the conclusion that he just doesn't like the reality of the event and thus removed the image for no good reason at all. - Daddy Kindsoul 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources remain intact on the page, so I don't see where your claim that I "repeatedly blank sources" is coming from. I have merely re-worded the article to make it seem less slanted. You claim to be neutral, yet all of your edits smack of anti-Man Utd sentiments. This is why I have put the article up for arbitration, since you do not seem able to come to a compromise. PeeJay 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're lieing. You blatantly blanked[8][9][10] this source and part; "(...)... after a portion of the United fans refused to be contained by stewards[11]". You blanked this sentence and BBC source from the article, because you don't like the fact that United fans were reported to have pushed around stewards, thus giving the police (not United fans) reason to retaliate.

United fans didn't retailiate at all in the incident, not at a single point. They got beaten up after they attacked the police[12] who had calmly moved in to control the United fans misbehaviour and pushing around of the stewards.

Also the Catania vs. Palermo incidents has absolutely no relevence to the article at all. Neither are Manchester United or Roma fans, or if we are adding any example where English or Italian crowd trouble, do we add the Heysel disaster where an English club's fans killed 30+ Juventus fans? - Daddy Kindsoul 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a smart arse, dude. I have no problem with you being so outspoken with your opinions - in fact I applaud it - but in this case you are being extremely biased. Second, I didn't put in the Catania v Palermo stuff, but I saw no problem with it since it is another case of crowd violence from this season. Third, I'm not lying. Those sources were not blanked, they were just put in a more appropriate place in the article, if you look closely. PeeJay 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it PeeJay, its pathetic. You're A) still blanking sources mentioned above to give a POV United fan based opinion of the event (especially in regards to United fans pushing around Rome stewards[13], which was reported in the media). And B) you sneakily tried to blank any mention of what happened to Roma fans in Manchester[14], where like in the first leg, Police hit away fans with batons, this is sourced by the BBC [15]... then when it was brought back you rewrote it in a tone which is bias against Roma fans and fails to mention that the British press played the incident down, unlike the first leg.

It seems like borderline racism against Italians... even further because you re-added information about the Catania/Palermo game, which isn't even in the competition, nor does it involve these teams. But then you blank the highly notable Juventus/Liverpool Heysel disaster (again sourced), which did happen in the European cup, and involved clubs from both countries with English fans causing trouble abroad.

Obviously an Italian team knocked United out of the competition, and your editing style is notoriously POV in favour of the team you support[16]. So incentive to deride and be bitter about Italians is there, but it really has no place on an encyclopedia. - The Daddy 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do strongly wonder at your claim of "being neutral", because every time a more neutral rewritting of the article was put in, you editted/reverted it. For example, why do you not mention that the riot police were only on the Unitted side of the perspex, and that the did nothing to stop the throwing of missiles at the United fans when Roma took the lead, and yet moved in to stop the United fans throwing them back?

To be honest, I think you're both being pathetic. Neither of you seems to be willing to allow a truly neutral article to be written (PeeJay after you refused to allow one), and the sooner this whole article is arbitrated and/or deleted, the better. As for accusing PeeJay of only doing becasue united were knocked out of Europe by Milan - talk about twisiting the facts. The article has been in conflict from long before that. Darkson - BANG! 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Does this event deserve really to be described as a standalone article? I have a few doubts, as events and riots like these unfortunately are not so uncommon, especially in Italy. Just to make an example, right today two AS Roma fans were stabbed outside the stadium before the Rome derby. I guess describing shortly the facts on both AS Roma and Man Utd articles would be well enough. --Angelo 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think this page really needs to exist. A paragraph in one or other of the team pages would be enough, or a mention in a page listing football riots in general. As it stands, this page just seems to be an excuse to attack United fans. Spugmeister 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

This article has been put up for arbitration. If you wish to make a statement regarding the arbitration over this article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict. Thank you. PeeJay 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man Utd fans buying tickets for home end

In the 'related incidents' section this needs some sources. untill then its getting removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diontheace (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, let's think about this logically. Why would Manchester United fans be trying to enter the home stands if they had tickets for the away end? The very fact that they were trying to enter the home stands indicates that they had bought tickets for that end. Your edit suggests that the away end had been over-sold, when in actual fact the away allocation was just enough to fit inside the away end. The stadium officials just made a balls-up when it came to organising everything. In this case, I don't think sources are necessary as any other explanation would be absurd. PeeJay 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to change it back, you cant say things like this without sources, at least give it a citation needed tag. I never heard any roumours of fans trying to enter the home stand, and I read several reports, so it would be adviasble to cite something like that before saying it.

Fair enough. I heard it on the telly while I was watching the game. Bit difficult to cite something off the telly though. PeeJay 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute. Still.

I've added a couple of sentances to give a more... realistic view of what went on in the crowd. I note that, predominantly, the sources used to give this article an anti-United fan slant are all based on press releases by the Italian police. I'm currently on a computer that blocks sports related pages, but (assuming my changes last that long) I will find other sources to back up the other side of the argument later. And they exist in abundance. I see the request for arbitration was denied, is there anything else that can be done to sort out the page? I still think it should be deleted as non-notable and a paragraph stuck into the Utd and Roma pages somewhere. Spugmeister 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6529949.stm - Summary of Roma events showing both sides, not just police rebuttal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6528751.stm - Some less one sided photos of the violence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6538695.stm - a fuller account of the Old Trafford violence (Edit- Looks like it's the same source, odd how we managed to get completely different impressions from it, eh? Spugmeister 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6529721.stm - eyewitness article on the events at Roma

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/6380837.stm - summary of events from Lille, not just a police rebuttal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/02/22/220207_lille_fan_feature.shtml - Eyewitness of events at Lille

Funny how easy it is to pick and choose articles from the same neutral website to make your case, isn't it?

Spugmeister 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of specific textual edits

I got lost trying to weed through the text & sources revert war and finger pointing. Perhaps if the actual proposed textual edits (along with the proposed sources) were provided and discussed here, it would be easier to arrive at and maintain (or at least document) a consensus. --Evb-wiki 19:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Season, New Hassle

Come on guys, instead of revert warring you could at least pretend to discuss the matter. Nothing's happened on this page since the AfD and now we're suddenly back to the same rubbish that bought it about in the first place? I've never seen such a biased attack on United fans so poorly disguised as a viable article, and that includes articles in the tabloids. Spugmeister 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The bias emanating from Daddy Kindsoul's keyboard is overwhelming. However, I fear that unless he gets his way, he may never cease editing this article. - PeeJay 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, he's not even trying to defend/explain his edits on here any more, because he knows full well they're a load of rubbish. According to the latest edit summary, his crusade is for justice for the stewards that got beaten up. Funny, I thought wikipedia was for facts... Spugmeister 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heysel / Catania-Palermo references

I'd like to remove these references to the Heysel tragedy and the Catania-Palermo violence. Although the C/P match took place in the same season, its not the only incident of crowd trouble that year. If people want to read up on crowd violence, lets put a link at the bottom. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Goldbringer 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. The reference to the Man Utd-Lille violence should stay, though, as it also involves Man Utd. - PeeJay 08:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree. References to other clubs involved in crowd trouble should be left off. Use a link at bottom of page to Football Crowd Violence. Joeyfin (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]