Jump to content

Talk:Galatasaray S.K./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

They are not European Champions

Winning the Supercup does not mean that they are European Champions. The only possible "European Champions" are the winners of the Champions League, and you could argue that this title is not even used for CL winners nowadays.

I've got rid of the reference to Euro Champs.

Leeds fans

This section keeps getting added and deleted:

"On the eve of Galatasaray’s Uefa Cup semi-final first leg match against Leeds United, two Leeds fans, Chris Loftus and Kevin Speight, were murdered by Galatasaray fans. During the match, while a message of condolence was read out for the victims, the home fans jeered."

A discussion of the Leeds killings is probably warranted on the Galatasaray page, as it was a significane event in the team's recent history. But it should be done in a less inflammatory, POV tone. (The section is also possibly factually inaccurate in one regard: the killers were never shown to be Galatasaray fans, and are widely believed to have just been local thugs out for a fight). User:Englishrose (!) says that "Just because an event doesnt reflect positively on your team does not mean that you can remove it". I agree, but an inflammatory statement added by a clearly biased person is not the way to do it. 893 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • How can you put that in a more neutral point of view? In all honesty, I actually dislike Leeds United as a team so clearly biased is a bit far fetched.

"During the match, while a message of condolence was read out for the victims, the home fans jeered". Accurate summary of what happened. [1]. I think we should also add- "Galatasaray players did not wear black armbands as a mark of respect". I can't really see out wrong with that sentence. It happened, they jeered.

"the killers were never shown to be Galatasaray fans" Be bold add that they might not have been Galatasaray fans and instead that they were "were murdered by two men who were reported throughout the media as Galatasaray fans" or something. However, it should also be noted that the voilence that surrounded the incident involved Galatasaray fans and that those two men who killed the Leeds fans were part of that same voilence, thus there is as more evidence to suggest that they were fans than there are not.

In conclusion, the only part of that passage that should be disputed is whether they are Galatasaray fans are not. What is not disputed is that 1) they are assosiated with Galatasaray fans. 2) Galatasaray fans took part in the voilence that surrounded the event.

Regardless, it should not be removed from the article because it's a significant event. Maybe being wrote in a more neutral point of view. I also think that a whole section on Galatasaray hooliganism might be a good idea because there's been quite a lot of it. Englishrose 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How come you think Galatasaray page needs a hooliganism section while Liverpool page doesn't have one, whose supporters caused death of 39 people at Heysel disaster? And you cannot put all the blame to one side. One does not suddenly start to think he has to knife someone, no matter how sick he is. This is true for both Heysel disaster and the incident at İstanbul (murderer of the British fans had got reduction on his punisment because of "heavy provocation"). And my opinion: Yes put the incident here, because it happend and the murderers are probably sick Galatasaray fans, but put it in a more neutral way and avoid blaming the rest of the Galatasaray's fans (i.e. "The dark side of the team's fanatical support came to the world's attention in Apr..."). --levent 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Heysel disaster is mentioned in a sub-page as far as I can see. I actually didn't put the "dark side of the team's fanatical support" part but to me it is seperating it from the club's decent fans. If you look throughout the past, Galatasaray has a reputation for this. It shows the other side of it's fanatical support. UEFA supports this view. Englishrose 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Every team's supporters may have a dark side, you cannot grant that some ill people won't start to support your team. Moreover, most British teams have organized dark sides. Speaking of the reputation, Galatasaray could never have the reputation that British teams have, that were banned from UEFA for 6 years altogether. You know where the word "hooliganizm" actually erupted, and doing a google search reveals more about some of the reputations of British teams http://www.politics.co.uk/issues/football-hooliganism-$2757411.htm. To sum up, I highly object the need of an hooliganism section in this article unless British teams have one in their respective articles. --levent 08:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand you want the hooligan stuff to be mentioned, and you may be right, but (not to sound disrespectful here) the Galatasaray-Leeds violence was really a peripheral event in the 100-year history of Galatasaray Sports Club, which is the subject of this article. It probably deserves a mention in the Football hooliganism article - but not necessarily in the main 5 paragraphs of the Galatasaray article. What are your thoughts on this? 893 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To be honest and this bit is purely from an English P.O.V, the first thing that springs to mind about Galatasaray is that incident. The majority of football fans in England will think of that first. They're also known in England for the trouble against Arsenal [2]. From a none English P.O.V. Galatasaray have a strong reputation for football hooliganism from accross Europe. In the opening paragraph fanatical support and I think it personally shows the good and the bad. Also, the jeering part was quite a major part of the incident because it made it worse and showed no respect to the victims, so I don't know where it's a good idea to add it in or not. I also think there should also be a bit saying that the majority of supporters behave themselvees. Englishrose 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to think I'm neutral on this, so I hope you'll allow me to contribute a few pointers.

  1. Inclusion - unfortunately these incidents did happen and still continue to tarnish the club's reputation. It's only right that we include at least some reference to them.
  2. Placement - Englishrose placed the hooliganism section at the top of the article. I don't think this is correct or helpful. The club's achievements, history etc. are more important, and the hooliganism aspect is a side issue - it doesn't define the club. So I've moved it much further down the article.
  3. Wording - the club itself does not have a "hooligan element". Football fans everywhere would also say that hooligans are not true football fans. So I would advise not using phrases like "Galatasaray's hooligan element" or "Galatasaray fans stabbed Leeds fans" or similar. Instead, go for more neutral and factual terms - "youths parading as Galatasaray fans" would be far more acceptable IMO. Waggers 12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. Inclusion - Agree.
  1. Placement I originalyl placed it after the comments about fanatical support as it seemed to show both sides of it, the good and the bad. However, User:John wesley made a seperate section and placed it at the top. I'm happy with it being lower down. I think part of the problem is that nobody has written about the club's triumphs in detail, thus it stands out more.
  2. Wording - "Hooligan element", nearly every club has a hooligan element. However, I can see how this may be seen as biased. I'm happy with more neutral wording. I'd also like to add that I in fact added information about the actions of Leeds' fans making guestures towards the Turkish flag in order to show both sides.

Thus, in conclusion I'm happy with a more neutral tone. However, I feel that it did tarnish the reputation of the club and does need to be included as it is a major recent event for the club. Englishrose 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad you two talked, decided and eventually added that big chunk of hooliganism section. I wonder if anybody reads above. This is the third time I'm saying. There are many more teams that are known to have more aggrassive supporters (even organized groups to fight, see British teams), and while none has a hooliganism sub title in their articles, you decide to put one in Galatasaray's page. I say, this is not a neutral act. I object this. If you do insist to keep the section, I'll do my best to let the other teams get their respective share of this. --levent 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right; hooliganism is certainly associated with other football clubs too and is worthy of mention on their articles. I don't have any problem with that. But two wrongs don't make a right: just because other articles are incomplete in this way is no reason to remove the section from this one. Waggers 09:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Cardiff City F.C. instantly springs to mind in needing their own hooligan section as well. Englishrose 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cimbom

What does Cimbom mean? Cim Bom Bom (aka Cim bom) is a term used for Galatasaray. Students from Galatasaray used to sell candies and they were saying "j'aime bon bon" In french and in Turkish it is pronunced as Cim bom bom (not exactly but very similar)

"Galatasaray is the only team that has won the UEFA Cup without being beaten in a single match," that's a total lie because there are other teams that won UEFA Cup without being beaten. please check www.uefa.org to see other teams such as Ajax in 1991-1992, 

                         1.Game     2.Game

Ajax 4-0 Örebro 3-0 1-0 Erfurt 1-5 Ajax 1-2 0-3 Osasuna 0-2 Ajax 0-1 0-1 AA Gent 0-3 Ajax 0-0 0-3 Genoa 3-4 Ajax 2-3 1-1 Torino 2-2 Ajax 2-2 0-0

As you all can see here Ajax also won this cup without being beaten.....so please delete this lie...

Corrected. Is there any other team that won the cup without being beaten? levent 07:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the 2000 incident to a sub-section

I said above, I'm highly against to a sub-section of hooliganism in this article. Read my reasoning above. Now moving the single incident in the team history to a separate sub-section isn't any different than a hooliganism sub-section. Take a look at all the other teams' pages, which one has a subsection like this? How many of British teams- whoose supporters invented hooliganism - have a subsection like this?

I think we need a separate subsection on that particular English case; I think there was some sort of worldwide ban for a while on that team's fans? Which Englisg team was it? It would like it in that English team's article. I know that West Ham United has legendary fans but I seem to recall it was another team. John wesley 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we don't need these subsections in team's articles. Just look at this article now. It goes like:

History
Killers blamed on a fan
Achievments
Managers
..etc.

This is really bad. That sub section is not coherent with the rest. And I think putting these incidents in the teams page shows as if the team is responsible of them, or the team has a bad history or such. But that is not the case. What a sick hooligan has done shall not be a bad reputation of the team. British teams's pages does not have these kind of incidents, and I think it is the way to follow so this article shall not have one neither.

If you are asking the Heysel disaster, it was during the match between Liverpool and Juventus. I mentioned it above. That incident is just told along the text, no titles, and I think it is proper like that. --levent 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And, about the removal of "heavy provocation" from the text; provocation and heavy provocation are two different things regarding the law. The court could decide that it is provocation, or they could decide it is heavy provocation. For this case they decided it is heavy provocation. I'm not sure what you exactly call the latter in English but I did not put the term "heavy" in there to stress anything or put more blame on the Leeds fans, it is as written in the decision of the court. --levent 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the legal distinctions, please state the initial charge (i.e. murder, then the subsequent corrected charge, i.e. manslaugther or negligent homicide). Thanks John wesley 21:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what they were accused of (murder or manslaughter etc.), sources doesn't note that. http://www.cnnturk.com.tr/SPOR/haber_detay.asp?PID=318&HID=1&haberID=66373 . All I can extract is that, the man at first got 15 years. Then after objection to the courts decision and the following investigation, they decided heavy provocation was involved and killer got 5 years. --levent 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

Instead of providing an "edit" i.e., rephrasing or re-ordering via new article or link, some people keep removing an item in the article. This cannot delete a piece of history. If their fans cannot live up and own up to the team's history, they cannot eliminate the history by deleting such references. Is there some way to STOP this immature behaviour as it is tiresome and I will just give up. John wesley 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also worth a look are the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Ultimately, though, if the users who don't want the section included continue to remove it without discussing their actions here first, I think you're right to consider it vandalism and can follow the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy (place warnings on their talk pages using the standard templates, then request a ban). It would be very sad if this can't be resolved in a civilised manner though. Waggers 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
John, please don't keep moving the hooliganism section to the top of the article, it does not belong there. Also note that this section is not just about the incident with Leeds fans, but is more general than that - therefore using "killing" in the heading is not appropriate. Most importantly, please get concensus here before making any further changes. Thanks. Waggers 15:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Waggers, thanks. noted John wesley 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Plan

Ok, here's how I propose we take this forward. The opportunity is here for everyone to input their point of view on the talk page. I'd particularly like to see input from User:Metb82 and User:85.96.215.120 (possibly the same person?), as they have been active in editing the article but not very vocal on this talk page. Following that, if concensus cannot be reached, we'll need to get some wider input from other, impartial, members of the community, which we can do through Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If that fails to give us a concensus, we take each step we need to in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, going to arbitration if neccessary, until either (a) concensus is reached or (b) the arbitration committee reach a decision (if it goes that far - let's hope it doesn't need to).

In the meantime, any changes to that section of the article that are made without chatting about them here first may well be considered vandalism, and reverted. Any other thoughts? Waggers 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! The presumption is that henceforth it is vandalism and the burden shifts to those who want to add, delete or change without some consensus John wesley 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This section does not belong to the Encyclopic facts of the Sports Club of Galatasaray so actually this isnt even an information i can correct or expand further because it actually does not belong there. I agree to call an administrator to solve this dispute.Until a decision is made by an objective point of view, please do not add that section unrelated with the club of Galatasaray. metb82 12:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that my own view is unbiassed and objective - I have no strong views on either side. I do agree though that we need a bigger audience to comment; as such, surely they need to see what it is we're asking them to comment on, therefore the passage needs to stay, albeit tagged, in the article? (To say that the hooliganism is totally unrelated is patently untrue). I won't revert your edit for now though. Waggers 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that my own view is not only objective, but also suitable for the rules of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to read about the hooligan incidents, the suitable place is the hooliganism section where it is explained further with the incidents happened in the past. I strongly insist that the pages of sports clubs are only for official information related to the club's themselves. I also remind you that Galatasaray was not punished by UEFA for that incident because neither the place nor the reason of the incident was related to Galatasaray,unlike the Heysel disaster which took place *inside the stadium* on the day of the match. It was 100% a football related matter. For reasons already discussed, the Leeds - Galatasaray murders were a civil matter, even though the victims and perpertrators were both football fans. That's why it is not appropriate to include that article here since even the International football committee did not relate it with the club of Galatasaray. metb82 10:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Whilst the club may not have been responsible for the incident, it involved people claiming to be fans of the club. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to paint a rosy picture of everything, but to give an objective, warts-and-all account. Unfortunatlely these incidents are connected with Galatasaray, and therefore worthy of inclusion in the Galarasaray article. Similarly, as you say, other major incidents, bad and good, should be recorded in the articles of the relevent clubs. I have no problem with that approach.
I've taken the liberty of approaching the football Wikiproject about this, to try and get more people involved and a bit of concensus. I've left a message on the project's talk page, but have yet to see any response. (I notice also that an administrator blocked metb82 for breaking WP:3RR on this article a few days ago. Please be careful guys, this is such a petty issue it's not worth getting into trouble over.) Waggers 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I see we're getting nowhere. Personally, something that was so heavily sourced as the previous version and showed BOTH opinions on the matter was a pretty decent attempt. I also believe that one person cannot hold an article to ransom and it should follow consensus. Englishrose 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours

The home and away colors has shown wrong

(The previous unsigned comment was added by User:85.108.36.112 Waggers 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Allright, if you think this page needs a hooliganism subsection, I'll start to collect English football hooliganism incidents and add them to relevant teams' pages. If you look at club pages, none has a sub section like this. Why? Because their supporters never ever involved in an incident? You know the answer.

Ah, they jeered, they jeered. So what? Nobody has to show respect to a sick fan especially if he failed to show respect to your flag, neither you can accuse them of it. --levent 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Sure, collect information on a English teams involved in hooliganism. If they've been heavily involved in hooliganism such as Cardiff City F.C. then write it up. Other encyclopædia's such as Encyclopædia Britannica [[3]] mention this incident. Englishrose 08:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, this incident once again made front page news in a few evening papers yesterday over the recent developments in the retrail. Englishrose 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Please note, there is information in the Leeds United article here about the leeds fans tearing seats from the stands of the parc des Princes and subsequently getting the team banned from europe for 3 years, this information was added by a leeds fan some time ago and remains there today as it is legitimate information, whether the guy was or wasn't a galatasaray fan it was associated with galatasaray fan fights with leeds fans and it was associated with the match therefore whether people are correct or wrong to associate it with the club it is part of the club's history and should not be simply forgotten, two men lost their lives, which should not be the result of football.--Chappy84 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to believe this, or not

I actually met one of the persons involved in the murder of the leeds fans, and as you can guess he IS a total sycopath, he is NOT a galatasaray fan (in fact he supported Besiktas) and had a consideretly big crime past. He was a thug and involved in little gangs around the Taksim-Besiktas area. (a place close to where the incident happened) And were supposedly hanging by (in a way following) the leeds supporters which at the time were drunk, and was sort of wating for an excuse to leap on them, and when the fight started at the Taksim mcdonalds (which was across the street were my parents lived) they just leaped to the opportunity so; A) They were a gang, not Galatasaray supporters B) I can understand the hard feeling the leeds supporters have about this argument, regardless of the if's and but's it's not a good thing to loose two lives. But i think it's not fair to attribute this to Galatasaray SK. and i don't think it's right that it should be added to this article.

if you really want to put this incident in the database connecting it to hooliganism or something would be a better option... user:tmr5555

Hello, thanks for your input. I see your point and it may be a good idea for it to be in a Hooliganism article. The paragraph actually suggested that they may not be Galatasaray supporters and were likely to be local thugs if I remember correctly. If I remember correctly, Encyclopædia Britannica actually doesn't have an individual article on Galatasaray but mentions the incident the main article on the events of that year. On wikipedia it is mentioned on the Leeds United article. It's debatable either way to be fair. Englishrose 09:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Note, I've now moved the paragraph to the Football hooliganism article. Englishrose 09:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Squad templates

It is better if we used the proposed manual of style [4] since it is used more for football clubs. Can 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

last changes

Added fact tag to Marek Heinz out part, because as far as i know he is still a player of Galatasaray and his contract not cancelled. Removed 4 external links as they are not directly related to this article. And also removed become European champions after winning Super Cup, because Super Cup is not a big organization and winners don't be called Euro champ. --Ugur Basak 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For 2 days noone give a link for Heinz's contract cancelation. And i update squad part referring to official site. --Ugur Basak 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable players

Picture in this section has some problems with the links on it. I think links should be shifted to right for a better view. I experienced this problem with Firefox and Internet Explorer. It looks fine with 1024x768 resolution but with others, it looks awful. Anyway to edit it will be wonderful.Ugur Olgun 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galatasaray_S.K./Archive_1&oldid=302209391"