Talk:Galatasaray S.K./Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

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)

    • In extreme cases we can request protection for the article but this would stop all edits. We can report it to an admin. Englishrose 15:23, 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)
          • You will also noteherewhere it also mentions the Turkish TV crews being attatcked outside elland road stadium on the return leg therefore leeds not denying their past--Chappy84 16:29, 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)

Protected

I have fully protected the article from editing due to heavy revert wars that have been going on here. Please resolve the issues that you have been edit-warring over for the past day or two, and then the article can be unprotected again. I suggest you try to reach consensus here on this talk page. But if you fail, I suggest you take a look Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.--Konstable 20:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why you took no action on the anonymous user (who goes by many IP's and user names) and the user Chappy84? They both broke the 3 revert rule, were breaking the civility rule and were adding misleading information that in almost all cases was outright wrong. The so-called issue with Leeds United is ridiculous. UEFA has never taken any consideration of it because it had nothing to do with the match. Two drunken English supporters had urinated on the Turkish flag and were assaulting local women. An angry local (not even a Galatasaray supporter) was angry and took action. It seems disgusting to justify hooliganism and even glorify it. Now what did have to do with the semifinal is the way the Hakan Sukur was hit with a projectile during the match (shame on Leeds) and the Galatasaray team bus were attacked in the away leg because the Leed United supporters were being sore losers. And the anonymous user who not surpisingly supporting Chappy84's contentions is adding false information also. Erdal Keser WILL NOT be manager of Galatasary next year. Eric Gerets' current contract will last for years. The anonymous user just has a problem admitting that a foreign manager is in charge at Galatasaray. That is why he cannot verify this with a source.--GS1905 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this article is way too messy.
  • First, winning the UEFA Cup does not make the club European Champions. The UEFA Cup is the second tier of the large European club competitions, behind the UEFA European Champions League.
  • Second;
“
 Galatasaray also topped the world club ranking to be named "Best Football Club in the World" in January of 2001. [1]
”

If you check the link, it shows that Galatasaray where in fact 8th in 2001, and were never first.

  • Third, these lines;
“
 Galatasaray also holds the world record of most games won in a row at home (24 games in a row: 13 May 2001 - 8 December 2002). Galatasaray is the most known team in Turkey abroad with fan shops all over the world.
”

Both also have no source and the second sentence is just somebody's opinion.

  • Fourth, where is the source that Erdal Keser will replace Eric Gerets? Before it was Suat Kaya, but whoever is keep editing this in does not identify where this information may be found.
  • Fifth, Galatasaray won the UEFA Cup Final after beating Arsenal 4-1 on penalties. The list states it as if they had won that as the final score, when it was really 0-0. *Sixth, the transfer section and the diagram of the squad should be taken out. These aren't used in the guidelines of what should a football/sport club have in compliance to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.
  • Seventh, there are an immense ammount of external links, bulk of which are just spam links for fan or player websites. Thank you for protecting this long overdue project, and I hope many a member would agree with me on these problems. CanbekEsen 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the from my last edit and current. I can not track what changes made after my revert, but that anon vandal again reverted in the middle of edit war of Chapman and GS1905. So at the end he succeded:) I've a suggest, start editing from this version, there may be a newer and unvandalised version but i don't think so. Canbeksen some of your suggestions will be solved just starting edits from this version. After that, we must start to work just to improve. Remove nonsense parts like diagram, achievements, great matches. The article is currently disgusting. For example, "1999-00 Turkey Galatasaray 2 - 1 Italy Bologna", is this a great match. Maybe that part can be replaced with a stub paragraph. --Ugur Basak 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Konstable since you started interesting with this article. You can handle this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Football_vandal.3F. I don't know what to do, they all blocked several times. Also, some requests passed without blocking just because either they are not reported or admins don't take action rapidly as assuming good faith. But he doesn't seem to stop. --Ugur Basak 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this article is way too messy.
And these are not the only problems with it.
  • First, winning the UEFA Cup does not make the club European Champions. The UEFA Cup is the second tier of the large European club competitions, behind the UEFA European Champions League.
I agree. The anonymous user is causing that problem.
  • Second;
“
 Galatasaray also topped the world club ranking to be named "Best Football Club in the World" in January of 2001. [1]
”

If you check the link, it shows that Galatasaray where in fact 8th in 2001, and were never first.

Canbek, check this link: http://www.iffhs.de/?bca384f02788705f94b40385fdcdc3bfcdc0aec70aeed400
  • Third, these lines;
“
 Galatasaray also holds the world record of most games won in a row at home (24 games in a row: 13 May 2001 - 8 December 2002). Galatasaray is the most known team in Turkey abroad with fan shops all over the world.
”

Both also have no source and the second sentence is just somebody's opinion.

The first was in an article on galatasaray.com a a soccer news site but someone would have to back to their archives to find the information. I am almost sure I saw it but some citation requried notation would be nice. Just take out the second one because it has no point.
  • Fourth, where is the source that Erdal Keser will replace Eric Gerets? Before it was Suat Kaya, but whoever is keep editing this in does not identify where this information may be found.
The anonymous user.
  • Fifth, Galatasaray won the UEFA Cup Final after beating Arsenal 4-1 on penalties. The list states it as if they had won that as the final score, when it was really 0-0.
I would like it to mention 4-1 on penalties but again the anonymous user is causing problems.
  • Sixth, the transfer section and the diagram of the squad should be taken out. These aren't used in the guidelines of what should a football/sport club have in compliance to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.
I agree but there are at least hundreds of pages (many of them major) on Wikipedia currently in violation of this.
  • Seventh, there are an immense ammount of external links, bulk of which are just spam links for fan or player websites.
I agree completely.

Thank you for protecting this long overdue project, and I hope many a member would agree with me on these problems.

The article was alright until the anonymous user and Chappy added their personal opinions to it.

--GS1905 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I apologise if i caused that much offence. The section to which I added about the Leeds fans is in some way, whether it is liked by people or not, related to the history of Galatasaray SK as it has relation to the match which took place. With this in mind i felt that people may come looking for the information on wikipedia and may look on the page for Galatasaray for the information. The information wasn't meant in a bias or personal opinion and was meant to simply inform of what happened. I did try to today compromise and simply place a link on the page, directed to the football hooliganism page (which up until today i did not know existed nor did i know contained information on the subject), yet this was rejected by the user Waya 5/Rigobert Song/GS1905, whichever alias he is under. Other two reverts 1. To display the result of the UEFA CUP Final 199-00 to "0-0 (4-1 on penalties)" (which has also kept on being changed on the UEFA Cup page relating to that season) 2. To remove "Champions of Europe" from after the statement saying they won the Super Cup as the Champions of Europe are generally regarded as the winners of the Champions League. 3. The club is never actually listed as "Best Football Club in the World" they are however, when I was directed to the correct page after several links just sending me to the base address, listed as "The Leader of the Club World Ranking" in the month specified of January 2001. "Best Football Club in the World" is just the writers take on the actual title given. I do feel Waya 5 has a somewhat derogatory view of the Leeds fans yet all of the information in his derogatory views is based on reports of what happened that night and not actual fact. I will admit I have a derogatory view of the person whom committed the crime but not of the actual club as it is the same in England that people intent on violence attach themselves to the club but it is not the club that causes this violence (although he was, according to Waya 5 a Besiktas fan, I still feel the deaths are linked to the semi-final as the fans would not have been there otherwise, Leeds fans or the Besiktas fan). The Leeds United page does contain information on Leeds' 3 year ban after the 1975 European Cup final violence by the fans and also about the attacks which took place against the Turkish TV crew on the night of the second leg a point to which Waya 5 has stated that information on hooliganism does not exist on English club pages so why should it do on Galatasaray page. --Chappy84 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 2 Leeds "supporters" (if you want to call them that), no one is denying two drunken hooligans were killed in Taksim square in an event completely UNRELATED to the match because British airport security let them through. They were urinating on the Turkish flag and assaulting local women so naturally the natives aren't going to allow that to happen without a response. Obviously, killing them is extreme (by the way the stabber was a Besiktas supporter according to the media and had no interest in that day's game whatsover). Turks can be very hospitable but foreigners, and especially the English, should not think they can act like they do in Africa or Southeast Asia and harass the local people without a response. This article posted by Waya 5 is good: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/4808246.stm In this case, a group armed with weapons and AFFILIATED with AS Roma carried out the stabbing of 3 English supporters who were not even drunk but the English user does not insist on posting this on the AS Roma page. Not suprisingly, only the English media (not exactly known for their favorable opinion of Turkey) took interest in the event, and it was completely ignored by UEFA as being unrelated to the match and so the reason why the match went on as scheduled, another reason why it is ridiculous to suggest putting it in the Galatasaray article, as it had nothing to do with the Galatasaray organization or its supporters. Leeds United supporters have also been stabbed in Italy while away on a away match to AC Milan. (Google search will provide this) The English national team and English clubs have a long history of racism and hooliganism that goes unreported on Wikipedia. However, suggesting Galatasaray has a hated rivalry with English clubs is ridiculous. Galatasaray had two draws with Liverpool in 2002 and nothing happened between the supporters of the two teams. Liverpool won the Champions League final in Istanbul in 2005 and nothing happened with even some English supporters staying in the city for up to a week. Leed United supporters have a long history of hooliganism. Several Leeds United players including Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate ganged up on and assaulted a Muslim Asian student a few years back. The Busby babes were regulary given death threats from Leed United supporters. Wikipedia is not a place to glorify hooliganism, especially English hooliganism.
This hooliganism article appears to have been worked on by Rigobert Song and he cited sources and information which has since been removed and distorted and it would not surprise me if the said article includes a distortion of the events and removal of the material he added.
1. Regarding the UEFA Cup final score, you yourself have tried to modify so that the 4-1 penatly score appeared next to Galatasaray's name. It appears some are still sore as to the result of the tournament.
2. If you'll check, Waya 5 insisted on including the edit that has "Champions of Europe" removed. The anonymous user, who, like you, insists on adding the irrelevant Leeds United information, keeps adding it much to the annoyance of the other Turkish users.GS1905
3. About the ranking, they were clearly #1 in January 2001 in what the German IFFHS that year called their "Best club in the world" ranking. You will notice they have "World's Best" rankings on this page: [5] which they have since changed for the club ranking because of obvious football politics reasons. You repeatedly lied about Galatasaray being #1 and in the ranking and misleadingly kept pointing to some August ranking for some reason. Even in reporting an irrelevant event, you manipulate and selectively leave out information that was even mentioned in the biased English media. For example, the Galatasaray team bus was stoned by Leed United supporters as it passed an underpass in England. In the match in England, Hakan Sukur was hit with a projectile from Leed United supporters in the same match he scored his terrific goal in. Turkish-British citizens and non-citizens and their businesses/homes were attacked by English racists around the year of the match. You say the "Turkish TV crew had a fight with supporters"? Good comedy. More likely, a group of racist skinheads attacked them. You say the "Turkish FA let the match go on". Wrong, only UEFA can make that kind of decision. The Turkish FA could care less about an event that does not concern them. Not surprising the British media (not surpisingly, only the British media) produces an Islampophobic storm but thankfully UEFA has wiser heads in charge and treats irrelevant events like they deserve to be treated. I sense an Orientalist Islamophobic view here which is ill-conceived and hypocritcal considering the LONG history of hooliganism and racism that has gone on and even continues in English football. Remember the Heysel Stadium disaster? It's very arrogant of you to think that in the long history of Galatasaray, we have room in a very constrained Wikipedia (there is a constant requirement to condense information) article to include some mention an obscure event involving a team currently in the Championship.GS1905

By the way, the home and away kits are changed each other. The owner of this article should rearrange that.


I do take your comments on board but if you would properly read my view point I have stated several things which have been misconstrued by your interpretation. Firstly I did not put that Turkish TV crews were involved in fights, I put that they were attacked which means no reciprocation by the Turkish TV crews, I do condemn this attack on the Turkish TV crews as they had nothing to do with the two deaths. Secondly I, as you have failed to realise, have stated that I am not against the Turkish nation or the Galatasaray club, I did state I have a derogatory view of the person who carried out the crime, but this view is only against the individual. I would also like to point out that I stated that even if the individual was a galatasaray supporter I did not hold this against the club as individuals intent on violence attach themselves to the club. No club would actively recruit supporters intent on violence. There are large campaigns in England against both racism and violence which are actively working in the most part. You state that the Turkish FA had no kind of input on the situation and that only UEFA could make a decision on the subject yet you also state that UEFA made no decision on the match, they must have decided the match still had to go ahead as reporters were informed by official sources at UEFA that the match must go ahead. It was also UEFA's decision to stop galatasaray supporters from travelling to the leg at Elland road as so close to the murders there is going to be bad feeling in any nation against another yet the attacks which occurred on Turks living in England were condemned by all including Leeds united.

Several of the events which have been presented in your comment are from hear-say and the actual events of that night, due to different stories from each side involved in the violence, are very hard to identify. You called them drunken hooligans, yet they may or may not have been there simply drinking with friends and got caught up in the violence which erupted on the night. You also state several points of provocation such as urinating on the Turkish flags and insults aimed towards Turkish people, which is the reason for the violence presented by the individual who committed the crime and the people with him. English individuals present have suggested that they were simply set upon by the gang (and you yourself have suggested that the individual whom committed the crime was there just to cause trouble), I do not know which of these to believe as it is hard to determine which side of the story is correct. Maybe they were provoked or maybe the individual was, as some in England are, just at the match for a fight. I would however point out to you that since France 1998 English hooligans have had their passports removed to try and curb violence from occurring abroad, yet obviously I admit that some may get around this whether they have or haven’t had their passports removed.

I have seen on television over the past decade or so that whenever an English club has visited galatasaray they have been met with banners displaying "welcome to hell" and this is why I added that information. You also have a bad view of the English football fans stating that the English have a long history of football hooliganism. I myself have admitted this yet have also pointed out that this is very much a minority now and on the whole doesn't happen anymore.

Overall my point for inclusion on the page is that, at least in England (if not other countries, I obviously have no source for those), the events are connected to the match, due to the Leeds fans being there for the match and the person convicted of the murders being there looking for trouble with the visiting Leeds fans (as you have stated he was looking for trouble), and therefore people looking on this encyclopaedia may be likely to look at the galatasaray page for information on the events which occur, I understand why you may not want these on you page yet they are tied in with your clubs history, that's why I eventually placed a link to the football hooliganism page and just a brief comment on the subject.

One thing I would point out to you as a person is that you claim a lot of this is down to an Islamophobic view in England and by myself. I would like to point out on record I have nothing against Islam as a religion or indeed its followers and would never blame a religion for terrible events which happen in the world. I know that a religion, or its true followers, would never condone murder. The press in England are overall not Islamophobic and try to present information to our public from the least biased position as possible. Obviously some members of the society in this country are against the religion of Islam due to their quickly ill-conceived ideas from not being able to judge an individual and a society/religion separately. I would like to point out that from reading your comments that you seem to have a less than good view of the English society as a whole. We are not all skinheads that are up for a fight, infact the large majority of our society live in peace and harmony, which is the same all over the world and it is only the select few, which exist in all societies, that cause the problem and bad perceptions of the society throughout the rest of the world.

I am obviously not going to view the galatasaray page as much as you and so the information will probably be edited from the page more than I can re-add it therefore I will simply make a request and leave this page in peace. I ask you to add a small comment on the event to the page, so that people who look here may, via a link, find information on the event that is not derogatory towards either Leeds, galatasaray or either of their fans. The following I feel is all of this:

For information on the two Leeds fans deaths that is, via press coverage and writings, associated with Galatasaray SK see Football hooliganism

--Chappy84 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah the football hooliganism article. Rigobert Song used to be a part of editing that until it got out of control and decided it wasn't worth spending time on. I wonder how much of the information and links he added to it have been removed? Instead of repeating everything GS1905 has said I will just direct everybody to his post at higher in this page as he makes some good points. First off, you seem to assume Galatasaray supporters put up "Welcome to Hell" banners exclusively when they are being visited by an English team. Untrue. This is for all visiting teams to Istanbul. Second, Leeds United seems to be the only team that has had this problem in Turkiye. Liverpool, Aston Villa, Manchester United, Chelsea, Blackburn Rovers, etc. have all visited Turkiye with nowhere near as sizeable a scandal as with Leeds United. Also, you will note that Leeds United supporters were stabbed in away matches to AC Milan during the 2000-01 Champions League. Also, an AS Roma Ultras group (an active supporter organization) attacked Middlesborough supporters. Apparently becuase they are european christians they are given the benefit of the doubt, "Oh those hooligans!" as opposed to Galatasaray's case, "I hate those Turks, and all Muslims while we're at it" where the British media tried to have it mentioned as a characteristic of Turkish football. Or how about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2323345.stm. The British media felt it was worth mentioning for a week, perhaps because slovakia was a small orthodox country that they weren't at war with throughout the age of imperialism. Try and get that posted on the slovak national football team page. I have battled with many an Islamophobic skinhead on the internet because of the wonderful (sarcastic) treatment of the Brtish media of the event. Again, the Galatasaray team bus and Hakan Sukur were both attacked. And this was by people I can easily say were supporters of the Leeds United football club. Since UEFA didn't rule in favor of a christian european team, than that is a pretty sure indicator that if even they didn't think it was worth stopping the match, then there was no reason to stop it at all. Maybe you should add a damning link on the pages of all the Australian teams because an English tourist was murdered in their country because of an outback killer.The incident needs no mention on the Galatasaray page as the organization had no responsibility for it and had nothing to do with it and instead were attacked because of it.--Waya 5 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am, however I present my view, never going to convince you of my viewpoint, you clearly have an unchangeable view of the English people and Leeds united supporters. We are not all skin heads hell bent on causing trouble at football matches. I have been to well over 500 myself and NEVER seen or been involved in trouble both home and away. I have seen trouble on TV when both Chelsea and Liverpool visited turkey (there is infact still a Liverpool fan in jail in turkey from when they visited for the champions league final for being involved in a fracas during his time there, although he claims he was set upon and the people on the other side claim he started it, I don't know, I haven't seen enough of it) over the past decade and I stated the information about "welcome to hell" about English clubs as I have only ever seen coverage of English clubs visiting because these are the matches I have watched on TV. I have also stated that, as I suspect is the same in turkey, the vast majority of supporters in England are legitimate supporters simply wanting to watch the football as entertainment, it is only the few (the violent people wanting a fight) that spoil it for the many. Leeds United do NOT have a problem with Turkey or Galatasaray. You state that the English media have an Islamaphobic view, yet as I have already stated this is not the case, particularly in the BBC who pride themselves on being as neutral as possible, and from reading the first paragraph of the article you have just presented, they clearly blame the English fans for the initiating the trouble at that event. I would also point out that just because I didn't point out that the team bus was attacked doesn't mean I deny it, I thought however that attacking a bus and attacking several Turkish TV crew were not on the same level as material possessions and actual peoples lives are clearly on a different level. and yes i acknowledge what you mention about hakan suker being his on the head by a projectile and apologise for not including this in the original information i placed on the page.

I have stated on several occasions that I do not blame Galatasaray or the Turkish nation for the supporters deaths yet you keep on reading this in to what I say.

there was a supportable argument for stopping the match in that the players, particularly on the Leeds united team, would be horrified by the events that occurred and due to those exceptional circumstances not normally present at any football match would have been severely traumatised and not in an emotional state to take part in the game. I do however accept that Galatasaray were the better of the teams over the two legs and from that deserved to go through to the final

The reason this subject has kept on coming up is that Leeds united fans, the same as the club, do not want the deaths of these supporters to be forgotten because as you have stated the person who killed them was there to stir trouble up with the Leeds supporters (although I’m not saying whether or not they antagonised the situation as to be honest only the people that were there will know) and people should never be killed whatever they do, never mind for footballing reasons

I will direct you to the last few paragraphs of my last post starting "Overall my point for inclusion on the page is...." --Chappy84 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the Leeds info has been removed, again, by Waya5. There is also no mention of the Leeds-Galatasaray incidend on the hooliganism page. This is important information (it's what Galatasaray is known for in the West). Why is this page not protected? --alexwoods 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"There is also no mention of the Leeds-Galatasaray incidend on the hooliganism page."
Nor should there be because it had nothing to do with the Galatasaray organization or its supporter base. They should do something about the Islamophobic skinhead educational system.
Also, it's "incident", not "incidend". Whatever you mean by the "West", its obvious you're not from it with your spelling and grammar.
"This is important information (it's what Galatasaray is known for in the West). "
Wrong again. Galatasaray is actually known for beating down Arsenal and Leeds United (2nd and 3rd in the English Premiership at the time) to win the UEFA Cup and defeating Real Madrid to win the 2000 UEFA Super Cup.
And no, what you're saying is in fact NOT important information. Also, nobody in the "West" associates that with Galatasaray except brainless Islamophobic skinheads who didn't make it past grade school. Again, the reason why UEFA didn't call off the match. UEFA didn't concern itself with useless drunkards so why should anybody else?
""Why is this page not protected?"
Yes it should be protected from people like you and the anonymous user (I suspect he is Kurdish, judging from his edits in the past, and he is carrying out an anti-Turkish agenda; the English often go hand in hand with Kurdish terrorists that have been recognized by the EU and the USA as terrorist organizations) who does nothing but do damage to this page. Just give up. The only other user who agrees with you just puts misinformation and lies on this page anyway.
--Waya 5 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request fix

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page; I don't know why he asked me.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect! 1974-1975 was Don Howe!!!! The official website: http://www.galatasaray.org/kurumsal/tarihce/teknik_direktorler.aspWaya 5 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this? http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php this is the official site of Galatasaray here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)

.org is not a official site check out the link i gave you there it says that Gokdel was the first coach then Howe took it over

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.galatasaray.org is the OFFICIAL website. Go ahead and try to lie. No one believes you with your history of article vandalism. All you do is post false information. And the site you are trying to pass off is galatasaray.com and everybody knows that is a fan website. The official site says Don Howe. http://www.galatasaray.org/kurumsal/tarihce/teknik_direktorler.asp Deal with it liar!

Waya 5 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are really a stupid fuck if you dont even know your teams history Yilmaz Gokdel was a real Galatasarayli and he coached galatasaray in the seventies your list says Gokdel was never coach.

thats not corret

Gokdel was succeeded by Don Hawe !! that means that Gokdel started off as coach of the 74-75 he even won a Cup with Galatasaray Ataturk Cup

1974-1975 Yilmaz Gokdel - Ahmet Karlikli - Don Hawe 1975-1976 G. Mansell - Tamer Kaptan

see this?

this means that Yilmaz got succeed by a interim coach Ahmet and then finished off the season with Don Hawe

Wow, you are full of it. Let's see. You have said that www.galatasaray.org is not the official website of Galatasaray, an obvious lie. You have said that Suat Kaya will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said Erdal Keser will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said that Ertugrul Saglam will be coach of the national team, an obvious lie. And now you are getting frustrated because everybody knows you are lying. And by the way, I'm not an Galatasaray supporter but it looks like I know more about Galatasaray than you ever will. And now you have resorted to cursing like that because you know you are wrong. :)
http://www.galatasaray.org/kurumsal/tarihce/teknik_direktorler.asp. The OFFICIAL website says Don Hawe was manager in 1974-1975. Somebody just has to look at your "contributions" and see that you make false information all the time. And it is no surprise that you, the person adding all of this false information to Turkish football articles, are the only one who agrees with that English user trying to tarnish Galatasaray's image with lies. You are trying to pass off the Turkish assistant managers of that time as the managers because you hate to admit that a foreign manager was in charge.Waya 5 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down; don't make personal attacks, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

can a administrator please protect his article because the english rivalry section is being removed by turkish users Chappy84 is right about the facts

Attention, the message above mine is by an anonymous user that has been anonymously vandalising this page and other Turkish football pages. It is no surpise that this user, who has added nothing to this article, is the only one who agrees with the user Chappy84 who also lying, manipulating and adding false information. There are no "facts" from either of these users who have done nothing to add to this article. Ask the administrator Konstable if you want to know more. Let's see. You have said that www.galatasaray.org is not the official website of Galatasaray, an obvious lie. You have said that Suat Kaya will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said Erdal Keser will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said that Ertugrul Saglam will be coach of the national team, an obvious lie. And now you are getting frustrated because everybody knows you are lying. And by the way, I'm not an Galatasaray supporter but it looks like I know more about Galatasaray than you ever will.
http://www.galatasaray.org/kurumsal/tarihce/teknik_direktorler.asp. The OFFICIAL website says Don Hawe was manager in 1974-1975. Somebody just has to look at your "contributions" and see that you make false information all the time. And it is no surprise that you, the person adding all of this false information to Turkish football articles, are the only one who agrees with that English user trying to tarnish Galatasaray's image with lies. He like you, was lying, and purposely manipulating and leaving out information. You are trying to pass off the Turkish assistant managers of that time as the managers because you hate to admit that a foreign manager was in charge.Waya 5 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Waya 5 is removing info of Chappy84 facts about the Leeds Killing in Istanbul please protect this page.

Attention, the message above mine is by an anonymous user that has been anonymously vandalising this page and other Turkish football pages. It is no surpise that this user, who has added nothing to this article, is the only one who agrees with the users Chappy84 "Alex" and who also lying, manipulating and adding false information. There are no "facts" from either of these users who have done nothing to add to this article. Ask the administrator Konstable if you want to know more. Let's see. You have said that www.galatasaray.org is not the official website of Galatasaray, an obvious lie. You have said that Suat Kaya will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said Erdal Keser will be coach of Galatasaray next year, an obvious lie. You have said that Ertugrul Saglam will be coach of the national team, an obvious lie. And now you are getting frustrated because everybody knows you are lying. And by the way, I'm not an Galatasaray supporter but it looks like I know more about Galatasaray than you ever will.
http://www.galatasaray.org/kurumsal/tarihce/teknik_direktorler.asp. The OFFICIAL website says Don Hawe was manager in 1974-1975. Somebody just has to look at your "contributions" and see that you make false information all the time. And it is no surprise that you, the person adding all of this false information to Turkish football articles, are the only one who agrees with that English user trying to tarnish Galatasaray's image with lies. He like you, was lying, and purposely manipulating and leaving out information. You are trying to pass off the Turkish assistant managers of that time as the managers because you hate to admit that a foreign manager was in charge.Waya 5 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing revert wars

This article is really difficult to contribute for several reasons like edit warring, and carelessly reverting:) my last edits look like carelessly but really i try to add everything like rivallary and stadium part. If i removed any important part or added unnecessary part please change it. But don't just revert to an old version like this. As seen on diff that anon user, who has blocked several times, just reverts. Even he reverts interwikis, external links and notes section used for references. The best way to improve this article will be discussing, and writing reasons of important changes in this talk page. I hope this month this article starts improving. --Ugur Basak 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts page with the information I posted a while ago

I would like to point out that although I feel that some information that I have added previously should be included, for reasons I have placed above, I have GIVEN UP on reverting this article since I do not see the point in revert wars.

I would also like to point out yet again to Waya 5 that the England is NOT full of "Islamaphobic Skin heads" and the educational system is not an "Islamophobic skinhead educational system" where people "didn't make it past grade school".

Galatasaray are known mainly as a football team in England but are, as i have pointed out in the past, associated via press coverage at the time to the incident which occured. This has stuck in peoples memory, as english hooliganism has stuck in yours associated with english teams. The information I added was not lies, and anyone was free to edit it to include further information they found on the subject. I tried to make my information from as neutral a point of view as possible yet obviously on a subject as strong as this, a large proportion of people are going to feel strongly on the subject and thus may interpret the information to be biased.

My attention was brought to this subject as people wanted backing on the subject and saw from previous edits that I had added information on the subject, but I have told them I will no longer participate in adding this information.

Please read my previous comments on this talk page for my complete wiew on the subject. --Chappy84 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very pompous and ignorant to think that an incident solely involving drunken Leeds United supporters and NO ONE from the Galatasaray organization or its fanbase should be associated with the club more than one of the greatest points in its history. I'm pretty sure if the topic of Galatasaray was brought up to UEFA president Johansson he would think of the team he awarded the UEFA Cup to in 2000, not some drunken Leeds United supporters making fools of themselves in a country they were expected to act like guests in.
Murders happen every year in Istanbul as it does in any other metropolitan city in the world and that was a case of nothing more than that. The only "football hooliganism" around was the drunken Leed United supporters and it's very ignorant to assume that every single one of the millions living in Istanbul are Galatasaray supporters. Probably less than half of the population of the city is interested in football and then less than a third of those are Galatasaray supporters. The incident you keep trying to include in this article is nothing more than a murder and you're welcome to try and include it in the "Istanbul" article but good luck with that as I'm sure there is no place in what is a very compact article covering more than 2000 years of history for a common murder.
It is not surpising that the user trying to add this information was deliberately making and adding false information and leaving out critical information himself. Again, not surprisingly the only non-English user interested in adding the Leeds United misinformation is a notorious and previously banned vandal who keeps editing the page to an outdated state. See my above contributions for more on the case. I cannot stress those points enough but it's tiresome having to repeat them for people who can't seem to understand.Waya5 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
To reword what you said, it's very pompous and ignorant to think that the incident solely involved drunken Leeds United supporters and NO ONE from the Galatasaray organization. I think you should readWP:V especially "Verifiability, not truth2, BBC and CNN ARE reputable sources. It can be verified, it can also be conflicted with other reputable sources to show both sides. Once you have read WP:V you will realise that sources from the BBC and CNN sail through the guidelines. Englishrose 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also very pompous and ignorant to lie like you just have because NONE OF YOUR SOURCES MENTION THE GALATASARAY ORGANIZATION OR THEIR SUPPORTERS BEING INVOLVED but they do however mention Leeds United supporters and their drunken behavior. Maybe you should try reading them yourself. So much for their ability to "sail through the guidelines". Again, you have no rebuttal for my many other points such as the lies, the manipulation of information and the way you and the other user have left out a great deal of information.Waya 5 24:24, 3 October (UTC)
So Leeds fan fought with themselves did they? Englishrose 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Waya - I think that a paragraph on this incident is worthy. I'm not sure about giving it an enitre section , and I think some of the wording in the original is a little subjective. I think the idea of a rivalry and anger between England/Turkey is also over-played a little in the 'other' version of the article. --Robdurbar 08:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

History Stub

I tagged the history section as a stub; it says nothing about the club between 1912 and the 1990s. --Robdurbar 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/l/Talk%7EGalatasaray_S.K._Archive_1_db5c.html"