Talk:2008 UEFA Cup final riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

this has to be one of the most biased pices of mis-information wikipedia has ever hosted, would i be right in guessing that the author might just support celtic? i will be doing my upmost have this shocking piece of fiction removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Araw23 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very one sided article that does no justice for the majority of Rangers Fans that behaved themselves on that day. I notice that there is a severe lack in mentioning this, and the lack of trying to balance the viewpoints from both sides for example when it says 'the rangers fans criticised the manchester police'. Why did they criticise them? Who did they make the complaint to? who delt with the claim?

This article athough can be linked to in the media is on this site for no other reason than to blacken the name of Rangers football Club and their fans. it is my opinion the article should be reviewed or removed by wikipedia as it is very bias and does not a offer a sense of the fuller picture of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.129.143 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to nominate for speedy deletion,but i would if i could. If your going to make an article for this football "riot" you have to make one for every football riot ever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.206 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 May 2008

  • Not every football riot gets broadcast live on the national news and is still a top 3 article 24 hours later. Article needs a cleanup but this is something that hasn't been seen in years - British football fans basically wrecking a city. They should be ashamed... JamesCollins (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely: what happened on Wednesday night was some of the most astonishing scenes of civil disorder ever seen in the United Kingdom. It is more than worthy of comment, given that it was in the second city of the United Kingdom, that it was a showpiece event broadcast live on television, that it completely destroyed the image of a European football club, and that it marred one of the foremost sporting events in the world. As for your second sentence: why not register for Wikipedia, instead of perpetrating unconstructive vandalism, and start such articles? TBall84 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2008 (BST)
  • I have to agree. Criteria aside, I think this warrents an article, and think we could make a good job of it. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

There's a growing collection of free-to-use images here, at Flickr. Are there any that might be suitable for this article? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some images from the day. I will see about posting some more in the morning. I have set up commons:Category:2008 UEFA Cup Final. I would try and get some of those flickr ones uploaded to the commons. A good one showing the square before the violence would be good, as would one showing the mess after. Woody (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this would be a good one then. I'll upload that to commons as an aftermath shot. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Piccadilly Rangers fanzone.jpg is a great one of the fans in Piccadilly before the violence too. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you - I witness quite a bit at first hand - both positive and negative and I have uploaded many images to commons.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

We need to be very careful in ensuring we don't misquote or partially quote sources to further one POV here. Before changing, adding or replacing quote please make sure that the person we attribute it to actually says it in the source provided. Also don't selectively quote them. For example, if the source says "a minority of thugs" don't change it to just "thugs". Finally, cherry-picking the one negative quote in a long sentence filled with positive comments is a form of POV pushing. We need to represent people's opinions accurately. Thanks. Rockpocket 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good point. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Piccadilly[edit]

The "Battle of Piccadilly" is a name alluding to the Battle of Peterloo. However, I don't want to add that without attributation. Does anybody have a source that makes the link between the two clear(er)? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to this on numberous occasions in the MEN.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peterloo? I can't see any mention of it in this. To clarify I'm looking for a link between Piccadilly and Peterloo. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I havent seen that link made.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch Invasion[edit]

I added in about the pitch invasion by zenit fans at the final whistle and after the 1st goal.

I cant find any confirmed referances about it, so i have not added it however there were a few reports that chelsea fans were also involved in this riot, wearing chelsea tops. Also other "fans" were not wearing any shirt, just blue (the club colour) and can not be identified as rangers fans.

I also changed "dozens of fans" to 42 which is the official number.Ragingbull911 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Pitch invasion section, on the grounds that it had nothing to do with the subject of this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE Rangers Fans[edit]

There were about 120-130 000 Rangers fans in Manchester. Could we at least not refer to the rioters as "the Rangers fans" but instead "the rioters" or similar. A VERY small portion of the Rangers fans were parts of the riots, but by using this kind of terminology, it could look as though rioting was the norm among the present Rangers fans. That would be a gross breach of POV policies.Thaum1el (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. On the flipside to this though, if the source uses "Rangers fans" I think we should mirror that, BUT, use quotation marks. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with this so long as no-one tries to make it out to be a big deal. The meaning is clear in either case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mirror and other newspapers also reported fans from a lot of other clubs as well as locals consistuted a significant part, though probably a minority, of the rioters. Those were in paper editions however. I don't have access to said paper editions here in Sweden where I live, but I could find dates, headlines and bylines if anyone could check. Also, I don't know how to put in citations from paper editions of newspapers even if I had them. Perhaps some of our British contributions could investigate the matter further? Contact me on my talk page for details. As for now, as I don't have any sources I could put in text due to above reasons, I am of course not requesting for such information to be added, though it would clear out the POV issues a bit if it was sorted. Thaum1el (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Daily Mirror (or other tabloids whose readership in Scotland consists of the very people who were rioting) is a reliable source for this sort of thing. Do any of the broadsheets, or the broadcast media, suggest that there was significant infiltration of the Rangers fans? Rockpocket 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does these tabloids readership really consist of an absolute minority of travelling Rangers fans? Or do you mean that the majority of the fans were rioting? :)Thaum1el (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply meant that the tabloids pander to their readership, and thus if what they report is truly accurate or significant, it would be also be reported in the more reliable organs of the media. Rockpocket 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests section[edit]

According to the arrests section in the article, source no. 14 says 42 Rangers fans were arrested. However, the source says only that 41 people were arrested, but that 11 Rangers fans has been charged with criminal offenses. Okay to correct this? Thaum1el (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the Oldham Advertiser (sister publication of the Manchester Evening News under the Guardian Media Group) that it was 42. I imagine other sources reported 42 too; we probably need to pool our sources to see what seems to be most verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current source states 41, so I have changed it to that for the moment. Also, the police statement explicitly lists 34 of the 41 as "Rangers fans", lists 1 and a Zenit fan and the other six are not listed. Therefore I have changed it to "mainly Rangers fans". Rockpocket 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the arrests so far cannot reasonably be attributed to the "riot", e.g. ticket touting, possession of forged tickets, possession of drugs, etc. Even the stabbing of the Zenit fan inside the stadium is not part of the riot. I'm sure many more arrests will follow once the hours of footage is studied. Also, is this admittedly quite bad outbreak of public disorder really worthy of inclusion in the "History of Manchester" category? Grievous Angel (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about the correlation between the arrests and the riots. I think however that the inclusion of the History of Manchester category is appropriate though. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a new section to state that of one of the men arrested he was later completely cleared of all charges and he later revealed the extent of the attack by the police on him and that his life had been completely ruined by manchester police (i.e. lost job, scarring for life). Monkeymanman (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.... --Jza84 |  Talk  20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want some evidence of what i have just said before you will kindly update this, okay http://news.stv.tv/scotland/86860-fan-says-police-ruined-his-life-after-wrongly-accusing-him-of-rioting/

That link shows the incidence i am talking about but while i am on the subject there was also a policeman from essex in the rioters 'evidence' i hear you ask http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7905499.stm

Also while i am here so that you can build a decent new section there was also a very ill man who was dragged from his home to manchester questioned then dumped on the street hours later uncharged 'evidence' http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/06/13/exclusive-rangers-fan-with-huntington-s-disease-blasts-cops-after-being-wrongly-arrested-in-uefa-cup-hooligan-raid-86908-21437223/ (Monkeymanman (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So you will ignore this evidence and just print what you want is that it? That is great from a so called 'veteran editor'. Just shows that wikipedia has no substance for the truth what so ever (Monkeymanman (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Editors aren't here to serve you. If you want to edit the article, you're quite free to do so, as long as your edits are WP:NPOV and from WP:RELIABLE sources. People don't have unlimited time you know. Parrot of Doom 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

Better context about the riots is needed: “Historically, Rangers fans have caused problems when they have travelled to games in England, there's a track record,” [1]

This should link to the following: 1969 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Semi-Final riots, 1972 European Cup Winners' Cup Final riots, 1976 Aston Villa v Rangers Friendly riots,

90.202.125.74 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

90% of the article lays blame with rangers fans and can be seen as nothing other than an attack upon rangers fans 10% of this article offers the counter point that the evil, sick and twisted policed were to blame for the incident

the entire neutrality of this article is in question facts 1 - the police state, they ordered the jumbo screen switched off 2 - this was the flashpoint for the riot 3 - the police then send thousands of officers towards the rangers fans with batons drawn and attack them 4 - you are beyond evil for supporting these abhorrent actions....

TAG STAYS till bias removed and neutrailty of the article is in good standing 94.168.211.137 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to either add these "facts" to the article, or add paragraphs saying that people believe these things, if and ONLY if you have reliable sources to cite that either describe these viewpoints or the "facts" you listed. —Darkwind (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the complaints are POV. If there are reputable sources please cite them. Ytic nam (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


can we get some citation for the complaints above? Without citation it's just a set of accusations and I don't see why the tag should stay forever if you can't support the accusations.Ytic nam (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the citations already exist in the article there is just undue weight to the polices version of events94.168.209.187 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me directly at the citations please - I can't find anything that suggests there is a problem with neutrality. There are no citations that say that "the evil, sick and twisted policed were to blame for the incident". If you have constructive and cited information to add to the article, please do so. Ytic nam (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_UEFA_Cup_final_riots&oldid=1196524871"