Talk:2022 UEFA Champions League final chaos

Grossly biased article

I rewrote part of this article to try to remove the grossly one sided interpretation, but that was reverted. I see very little written here with a sense of balance and intention to write from a neutral point of view, not even the title of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact you think the title isn't neutral, even though sources on the left, right and the centre call it that, shows you might not be so knowledgeable on the subject and any perceptions of neutrality - Mirror, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, F365, ESPN, Sky News. And I'm not linking to them but the Sun and the Daily Mail too. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

UK press responses to French authorities are scarcely the epitome of neutrality. Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You'd think at this point you'd probably hazard a guess that you're wrong about this, but no, you've doubled down. LA Times, Washington Post, France 24, Deutsche Welle, El Pais, Marca, Gazeta Esportiva, Al Jazeera. Wanna bang on about the epitome of neutrality now? Oh and imagine thinking The Sun are the epitome of neutrality regarding Liverpool. Maybe it's your lack of neutrality that should be called into question. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The issues for me largely relate to edits by ItsKesha, who is a big soccer fan given his past history of edits. ItsKesha deleted a good deal of the information that I took time researching and writing. This is now corrected. Moreover ItsKesha deleted the references. For example, ItsKesha deleted how Liverpool fans travelled to the game, taking the D instead of the B Line. Yet this is most relevant to understanding how the mess developed.
ItsKesha deleted as well a reference to Liverpool FC issuing paper tickets without secure holograms, in contrast to Real Madrid (whose tickets did have holograms if issued in paper form). A reference showing the difference between Liverpool and Madrid tickets was deleted
@ItsKesha I understand that you are a big football fan. However could you please refrain from deleting information and references that are important in trying to understand the issues?
The introduction to the article would benefit from being shortened and balanced. Essentially everyone is trying to transfer the blame onto everyone else in this affair. Yet the mess developed on several levels and all share some responsibility. However some editors are clearly taking sides.
There is unfortunately just one reference to the upcoming French elections. This is actually quite important and explains why in France the affair attracted so much attention, with the opposition using it to attack the government. Some of the quotes are from people with an axe to grind and should be put in context. TGcoa (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

How supporters travelled to the game is largely unimportant, it requires little detail in the section regarding stewarding, it doesn't need lengthy and boring paragraphs about which trains take people where in Paris. The references to the hologram tickets simply don't say what you are saying they say, they make absolutely zero mention of Liverpool declining them. Who cares about the cost of a booking fee, it's not remotely important. The introduction to the article doesn't need to be shortened, please read WP:LEAD. The upcoming French elections, again, are largely important and requires minimal detail. And finally, please refrain from using the Daily Mail as a source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I want to add to this, since my edit was also deleted for being "overly detailed". I can confidently say that this is the first time I've seen a Wikipedia edit being reverted for being too detailed. You say that "How supporters travelled to the game is largely unimportant", and that the article "doesn't need lengthy and boring paragraphs about which trains take people where in Paris" – in my view, it does need such paragraphs, because the fans' arrival is, in my view, one of the main causes of the problem. I find your claim about transport being "largely unimportant" to be completely unjustified.
Right now, the article gives next-to-no information about the context and cause of the situation (I realise that this is being investigated). For example, there is a sentence: "Stewards on the route set out for supporters coming from the D line station were insufficient and quickly overwhelmed". This leads to a whole lot of questions. Why were they insufficient? Why did they come that way? (anyone that has lived in Paris can confidently say that so many fans using D instead of B is unusual and would be unexpected) etc. Any Wikipedia article about an incident (I don't want to relate this incident to Hillsborough, but even that article) gives a thorough summary of what happened and why it happened etc. – everything linked to the incident.
For these reasons, I actually believe the article is now biased and does not do much to explain the issue. This is what I tried to do with my edit. The fact that now three people challenge the current article and its content and structure should be food for thought. Miki.krok (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

In this edit by TGcoa, there is incorrectly sourced information about holograms and needless information about booking fees, use of Daily Mail and YouTube as a source, and unsourced information about trains that isn't even well written. In this edit by Arjayay and this edit by Miki.krok, there is far too much information about which train lines take people where, an entire paragraph about event itineraries, a baffling new and directionless section titled "the incident" (what incident? there were dozens and dozens of incidents), where much of the new information added isn't even sourced. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@ ItsKesha You write "Horrible written, overly detailed, badly sourced," Well it may be horriblY written, but the iinformation is important.

As for the YouTube vide, you can see that the Liverpool fanzone was massive and chockerblock, with an estimate of 50,000 vs 44,000 expected. If you have another source for this, you are welcome to put it. This helps explain why so many took the D line from nearby Gare de Lyon to go to the stadium.

As for the TF1 source, even without speaking French, you can see that they compare the Madrid and Liverpool tickets on screen, and Liverpool has no hologram.

You deleted as well other sources in the English press reporting that there was mass fraud of tickets before the match, with Liverpool FC even warning supporters.

You deleted too how tickets were delivered by Liverpool FC to purchasers. I think any reasonable person, without an axe to grind, would see this as very relevant to subseequent events.

=> So please ItsKesha may I kindly ask you to edit the text and scources as you see fit, (given 'Horrible written'), and place back in. Thanks ~~~~ TGcoa (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Which information is important? It isn't even remotely adequately explained in those edits nor in this discussion. Please see WP:YOUTUBE for why YouTube isn't a valid source. I removed the reporting of counterfeit tickets because, as explained above, it's in the Daily Mail. The other source used for that claim had absolutely nothing to do with the 2022 Champions League Final. How Liverpool bought tickets is a very minor detail that requires a brief mention at best. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Préfecture de Police

search: site:prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr 28 mai 2022 Stade de France

for documents in french by french police

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)