Talk:2011 Turkish football match-fixing scandal

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

Untitled[edit]

table of contenst need some fixes. now all waves are under the basketball point. -Koppapa (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rivaner, 24 August 2011[edit]

To whom it may concern, This article's Investigation of Football part's last paragraph states that UEFA banned Fenerbahce from the Champions Leauge but this not the case. There is still not an offical explanation from UEFA and every TV chanel in Turkey is stating that Turkish football federation banned Fenerbahce from the Champions Leauge. If you want more details you can visit Fenerbahce's offical(www.fenerbahce.org) web page or some web pages of the Turkish News channels which have english translations like; www.todayszaman.com Thanks in advance. Rivaner (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. It's fixed. -Koppapa (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Copyedit[edit]

Just wanted to point out that I copyedited the previously rather ungainly investigation section. Hope this hasn't caused any problems, please discuss any issues. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalizm but the facts[edit]

Unfortunately, this article is written by Galatasaray holigans, and most of the information is speculation and majority of the refences are not trustworthy. To be subjective, please keep removing the following edits.

On 3 March 2012, another scandal broke involving Galatasaray SK in the match fixing case, [1] when a letter written by Bülent Tulun (former sport director) to former Galatasaray President Adnan Polat was revealed. In this letter, Tulun was asking the whereabouts of missing 1 million dollars to Polat, as follows: "Dear president, you were talking about me granting 75,000 dollars for myself from Ilic (former GS player)'s contract. Everything was done for the favor of GS. I hope 1,5 million your driver took from the club was also used in the favor of the club. I do have the receipt of the following transaction.".[2] Immediately after this, prosecutors started an investigation on former president Adnan Polat, Mustafa Kabasakal (driver) and former sports director Bülent Tulun.[3]. Although the club reported this transaction as a payment for former player Song, they were not able to prove it. The allegations against Galatasaray, however, are based on the 2005-06 football season. A relegation-battling Denizlispor surprisingly held then-leader Fenerbahçe to a 1-1 draw, allowing Galatasaray to win the title.

Fenerbahçe fans reacted to the TFF's decision on banning their team from Champions League and sending Trabzonspor (who already played a CL qualification game) to directly to CL at a friendly match between Fenerbahçe and Shaktar Donetsk in Istanbul,[4] The fans eventually invaded the pitch, throwing flares at security staff and protesting that Fenerbahçe should participate in CL.[5] The match was abandoned by the referee.[6][7] Fenerbahçe were ordered to play two matches behind closed doors following the violence[8]. Following this decision, Fenerbahçe played their 1st Turkish League game without any fans, however the 2nd game at home was allowed to children under 15 and their female guardians. A record was broken when 40,000 (only) women and children filled the stadium for the first time chanting for their beloved Fenerbahçe and protesting the injustice of TFF's decision on banning their team from Champions League. [9].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguvendiren (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 May 2012‎

Yeah the article could use some work. TOugh to check references when you don't speak turkish. THe whole "on xx march..." doens't read good.-Koppapa (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Galatasaray joins fellow big teams in rigging case".
  2. ^ "Ex-Galatasaray boss Polat testifies to police".
  3. ^ "Adnan Polat'a büyük şok".
  4. ^ Organize şüphesi (in Turkish)
  5. ^ Hazırlık maçı yarıda kaldı (in Turkish)
  6. ^ Şükrü Saracoğlu'nda olay! (in Turkish)
  7. ^ The game "Fenerbahçe" – "Shakhtar" interrupted due to excesses of fans
  8. ^ PFDK Kararları - 27.07.2011 (in Turkish)
  9. ^ [http://www.ligtv.com.tr/haber/kadinin-fendi-tarzani-yenemedi

Overly Detailed[edit]

I've just tagged this article as overly detailed. It is, frankly, extreme. The first prose section is approximately 3 times to long. We should never have a day by day accounting of an ongoing event/investigation. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The "effected matches" section is probably also unnecessary, though on that matter I could be persuaded otherwise.

Holy heck, I just scrolled down. I've just removed the entire "arrests" section. This is an absolute WP:BLP violation. WP:BLPCRIME explicitly says that for people that aren't particularly famous, we shouldn't mention their names at all. WOrse, the 80% of the section was unsourced. We may never under any circumstances include negative claims about living people without impeccable sources. Only sourced information could be re-added, and that could only be re-added per WP:BLPCRIME--that means, at a bare minimum, that only people with WP articles could appear...and even then, it would be questionable. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to strip out almost all of the info about individual people. There must be an inline source for each individual negative claim. WP:BLP trumps every other concern in the case of negative accusations against living people. I understand that this will be hard work to fix, but we must always err on the side of protecting living people. Anyone who can source the big table I just cut should go into the history to recover the parts they can source and re-add only those parts with inline refs. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit biased?[edit]

Unfortunately, in Turkey football is taken seriously more than it should and every fan is looking for a way to make their team "better-looking" than the other teams. Although this investigation started with 8 teams, in this article it seems that the whole scandal is about Fenerbahce and Besiktas. For example, in the first paragraph it is implied that Emenike was caught up in the scandal but he was cleared off all charges hence his return to Fenerbahce. I don't know why it was not corrected by the people who put it there in the first place.

Secondly, when I wrote this part at 18th of November; this scandal was in the hands of the high courts in Turkey and they haven't had given any final verdict about this investigation but if you read this arictle, there is no room to belive that Fenerbahce is not guilty. What happened to natural point of view?

Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look ay my last edit with updated news about this investigation, I have shared 5 names from a news article but if you read the article from top to bottom, It is the first time that their names are stated even though those 5 people were also a part of the investigation. This is my proof of this article being biased. Again, thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best to clear the article a bit and gave reason for my every edit, hope it will help to wikipedia's policiy of natıral point of view.Rivaner (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete sourced material.LardoBalsamico (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From your answer, it is obvious you're hiding behind this wikipedia rule but what about the neutral point of view rule? I wrote a really long answer about my edits, you didn't respond to these you just stated a rule. I already wrote about this to the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard) and still waiting for a response, hopefully someone will clarify this situation for both of us, in the meanwhile, I will coopoerate with you and won't be reverting your edits. Hope they will come to a conclusion soon.Rivaner (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@LardoBalsamico: Instead of edit warring (Wikipedia:Edit warring)) we should reach a consensus on this, can you please tell me how a top selling newspaper is an unverifable source?Rivaner (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) @LardoBalsamico: Your most recent edit is not news, In the article the information that you've given is already written at least 2 times and also to prove that this is "old news" you can check this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_Süper_Lig In the edit you made on 00:27 19 May 2014, you reverted another user's edit with the reason of: "We have to know the reason!". So you knew that Fenerbahce was not going to play in Europe after this season on 19 May! That's the reason I deleted your edit. If you disagree with this reasoning, please discuss so that we can reach a consensus on this subject as well.Rivaner (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) @LardoBalsamico: Even though you don't join the discussion on the talk page, as a reason for your revert on my last edit you wrote "reverted vandalism". This is the vandalism page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism and as you can see it is not what I am doing. Can you please explain me how is my reverts are always vandalism but when you do it it, it is to remove "misleading info?"Rivaner (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More recent edits[edit]

I don't understand, the last edit thas been made by LardoBalsamico was putting some references tor the article. But if you read the references, they are claims and unproven. This same situation is everywhere om the article, for example a whole section of Basketball investigation is all claims and unproven. @Ca2james:, what do you think of this? As I put a edit like this, it is removed by LardoBalsamico because it is "misleading info" but if I revert his edits now it will be vandalism :).Rivaner (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC) LardoBalsamico shared a picture of the phone recordings with the said people on this article. All the people involved are cleared of all charges and he's putting a picture of phone-recordings in the article, there's nothing there that proves the match-fixing hence the involved people are cleared of all charges. This is a clear violation of WP:LIVE.Rivaner (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affected football matches section[edit]

@LardoBalsamico: This article is a little over-detailed and I'd like to try to pare it down a bit with your and @Rivaner:'s help, starting with this section. I'm confused about the purpose of this section and the information in it and so I'd like your help. My first thought is that including a detailed list of all matches examined is too much for the article per WP:NOTNEWS.

Rivaner is a fanboy of Fenerbahce. Just take a look at his contributions. He is here just for this article. He's been appointed by his club. Because of this I do not care him.LardoBalsamico (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read these articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bundesliga_scandal .

I don't speak Turkish and so I have to rely on Google translate which we all know is imperfect. It seems that the references for the "suspicious persons" in this section note that these people have been arrested but there's nothing saying that they've been convicted. Is that right? Per WP:BLPCRIME, we need to give serious consideration to not including all of those names, and this is where I think the section could first be trimmed. If we do decide to include that information, per WP:BLP we need to use language other than "suspicious persons" because that language is not neutral.

They have all been convicted.LardoBalsamico (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does "rigorous evidence found" mean? Does it mean that evidence of scandal was found for those matches but not for the others? If so, what do you think about rewriting the section to include only those matches?

Rigorous means exact or strong in law. You can check it --> http://medya.zaman.com.tr/2011/12/09/iddianame.pdf Thanks for your time. LardoBalsamico (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --Ca2james (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca2james:: Thanks for your help, I will try to explain the references to you. As you know my case is already on the NPOV board and I am following this article really close. Let's start:

1) The reference of "17 March 2011 Trabzonspor - Bursaspor  1:0 - Rigorous evidence found" which is this one, says this from the Turkish football federation's ethical court and this game is not even in the final court verdict. So it is just claims.
2) The reference of "13 March 2011 Fenerbahçe - Konyaspor 2:0 Match-fixing with Konyaspor" which is this one, even the title of the reference is Match-fixing claim for the Konya-Fener game. Like the one before it is just claims.
3) The references of "22 February 2011 Manisaspor - Trabzonspor 1:2 Incentive bonus to Manisaspor from Fenerbahçe S.K."", "26 February 2011 Fenerbahçe S.K. - Kasımpaşa S.K. 2:0", "6 March 2011 Beşiktaş J.K. - Trabzonspor 1:2", "16 April 2011 Fenerbahçe S.K. - Gaziantepspor 1:0" are all the same which is this one. This reference is all about police investigation and police's claims, lots of them remain unproven and, again, none of the games are the reason that both Fenerbahce and Aziz Yıldırım is punished by the courts.

As you can see I can go on about all the references but I think it is for the best if we go step by step. This was just to prove how biased this article is, in this reference you can see the games that Fenerbahce and Aziz Yıldırım is punished for. It will help you a lot. Thanks for your help and also thanks, again, for taking the time to read my reply.Rivaner (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must add the whole basketball investigation part is against the rule WP:BLPCRIME. All the people involved in the case is cleared of all charges but it is there in the article.Rivaner (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see user LardoBalsamico is still continuing his personal attacks to me and also breaking another wikipedia policy even though he was warned about it before. Also the pdf file that he shared is the " bill of indictment" that is given to the court which is, again, just claims.Rivaner (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for both of your replies! I thought I'd replied to each of you yesterday but for some reason there was a problem and the edit didn't go through. @LardoBalsamico:, please reply to another person's comments in a block underneath their comment and not interspersed through it both to make the history easier to read and so you don't change another's comments. The other sports scandal articles are good models for this one - thanks for the links!

I've been doing some reading and it seems that of the 93 people originally charged, only 44 plus Aziz Yıldırım were convicted (and he was released from jail pending appeal, which then upheld the conviction, but he doesn't recognize that result -all of that plus his position means his situation should have its own separate mention per WP:DUE). Using "suspicious people" and "rigorous evidence found" could be seen as violations of WP:BLP so I'd like to change that section to comply with that policy. I think it would be more useful to show a table of the people who were convicted, what they were convicted of, and which club they were part of. The matches that were investigated could be listed separately.

I know that you're both blocked right now and so I'll wait to make any changes until you're back. --Ca2james (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca2james: Actually, that is not the case with Aziz Yıldırım. He was in France when his conviction went through and people were saying that he's not going to come to Turkey, he is going to escape...etc but he came back. Before the new prosecutor's demands from the courts, it was said that he can go to prison any time and waiting for the police to come and get him. LardoBalsamico would agree with this. Also, can you please share your comment; about the information that I've given about the references that is in the article which are breaking WP:NPOV, basketball investigation part which is breaking WP:BLPCRIME policy and finally the user's personal attacks? (which he even used on his report to block me.) Thanks for your time both spending on this article and also reading my comment.Rivaner (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Aziz Yilidrim: he was convicted, his appeal was upheld, and a new trial will be held. All of that should be detailed in his article but deserves some mention here because it's related to the consequences of the scandal. Yes, the articles appear to show that people were charged and not convicted, which is why I said that the list needs to be modified to show only those people that were convicted. I haven't looked into the basketball scandal so I can't evaluate your statement.
I've already given my opinions on whether the article is neutral and conforms to BLP. Instead of saying that the article doesn't conform to these policies, it would be more helpful if you supported your statement with what the reliable sources do say, or suggestions for improving the article. LardoBalsamico hasn't been all that nice to you; his comments have been dismissive of you and your views, yes. Are these personal attacks? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. Either way, it would be better if no one called anyone any names as doing that doesn't help people collaborate. --Ca2james (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrial[edit]

The retrial process has started, since the article was lacking a neutral point of view and it didn't have any presumption of innocence I deleted the whole article except the lead-in paragraph. Also, the previous version could have effected an on going trial. Main editor LardoBalsamico, who I have a long history because of this article has agreed with me.Rivaner (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You two agreed to stub the article instead of improve it? I'm not sure that makes sense as the article could have been improved. I also disagree that the previous version could have affected the trial as the facts of the previous convictions and appeal are already out there. Things that are going to trial have articles written about them all the time, and it's fine as long as everything is supported by reliable sources.
What is your proposal for re-writing the article? How are the two of you going to work together? --Ca2james (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca2james: Thanks for your comments about the questions that I've asked. About the article, LardoBalsamico suggested that we should delete the whole article but since this is a very important case in Turkish football history, I think it should be in wikipedia. If you read my earlier comments you can see that even though references were reliable, they were all put in the article in an incriminating way. Also, if you check my case on the NPOV board you will clearly see that most parts of the article was biased as I've proven more than once. There is also a comment from an impartial user who is agreeing with me.
I am sure that all the articles on wikipedia about on-going trials are OK with the policies but in this article's case, unfortunetly, it didn't have any presumption of innocence and also very biased. If you read my request on the NPOV board, you will see what I mean. Other than that, I am open to your suggestions on how to improve the article and always willing to help. Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the affected matches section didn't agree with BLP and I think it would be better to remove that section pending a rework. However, the timeline section, although overly detailed and needing tidying, was OK, I thought. Why not restore that section, and if you think it violates NPOV, add a tag at the top for that? --Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hımm, I think I know what I should do, on February I made a big edit on the article to make it more neutral, maybe that edit should be fine again.Rivaner (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I made a major edit to the article to clear out the biased views and also repetitions. (You can see the detailed reasons for each of my edit here), I am sure there are some parts I missed but I think the article looks better now, I think that the only thing missing now is a section called "Courts Verdict" which can include previously convicted people with a note of the retrial. What do you think @Ca2james:?Rivaner (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Today, to improve the article I created a new section called "Events after the investigation". Hope it will be better now.Rivaner (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better - great job! Thank you for your work! --Ca2james (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal. 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 01:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Turkish_football_match-fixing_scandal&oldid=1196600111"