Talk:List of hooligan firms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on List of hooligan firms is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-03-13. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Various topics

Sorry about the below entry, I see that on Amazon, that the Green Street DVD is sold in America as "Green Street Hooliganism", and here in the UK as simply "Green Street" (that's what I have). Again, I don't know how to edit the page.

I don't know how to edit this page, but the movie "the firm" at the bottom needs to be capitalised as "The Firm" (it's a BBC production, by the way). Also, the movie "Green Street Hooligans" is incorrect, it is actually just called "Green Street". Also, the book "The Football Factory" was turned into a movie (I don't know about the book, but I didn't think the movie glamorised football firms - it's pretty obvious that it's a dead end). There is also a BBC documentary out on DVD called "Hooligan". But I don't know how to insert any of this on the page because it is locked - perhaps somebody else can do it.

--- Have now removed <(cited by a BBC undercover producer investigating football firms as "by far the most dangerous football firm in Britain")> there is no need for this me thinks. Plus I'm sure McIntyre was talking about the headhunters, can someone check up on this... --87.80.126.226 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

New Firm i Believe this should be added to that list of hooligan firms on this site, Truro City - Suicide Squad. bunch of nutters, have been seen at plymouth games keep clashing with a group of other hooligans from liskeard always come out tops!!

[edit] Firms what?

Methinks some have missed other notable firms of other countries! I've added Beelgium in and will be adding Portugal too. Jar Jar don't mention the feck! Piecraft 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In Australia we don't have firms as defined (A football firm is an organized gang – mostly supporting a football club – that engage in fights with firms supporting other clubs). Therefore I've removed references to Adelaide's Red Army, Sydney's Cove and Central Coast's Marinators Dibo 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-League Firms???

hahahaha A-League Firms, don't make me laugh. The only thing Australian football has that is close to firms is the supporters of South Melbourne Hellas (now known as the CC) and the Melbourne Knight Skinhead supporters aswell as supporters of other Ehtnic teams. Both South Melboure and the Knights were kicked out of the A-League due to "Ethnic Violence". Most clubs in the National Soccer League were alligned to an Ethnic group, hence there was often violence between Greek, Croation, Serbian and Slavic Macedonian fans during the NSL and still today in the state leagues where all the ethnic teams currently play).

I hate when people mention A-League support groups just because they are the top competition in Australia. Its a joke. If your mention any Australian Soccer violence, mention that of the teams that were kicked out of the Australia's top league due to violence.

[edit] Israel

  • Maccabi Haifa - HaKofim HaYerukim (The Green Monkeys) <-- Are those really Hooligans? I thought, they're just an ultra group. Can someone verify that? --83.76.149.122 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

The links provided gave the names for only six Russian football firms, although the article names tens of them. Similar situation is for many other countires. Please obey WP:NOR and WP:V and either provide references or remove the unverified names abakharev 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All name are checked, many people know personally.--80.80.111.240 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APOEL

APOEL Pirates are also considered as right-wing extremists(87.203.188.125 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

There are loads of firms that are considered that, but the section isn't supposed to be an extensive list, and the APOEL Pirates are not one of the well-known groups, as opposed to Curva Nord and Koma Kolonne, so I don't think it needs to be added. – Elisson • Talk 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Russian Firms Please

   * PFC CSKA Moscow - Red-Blue Warriors, Kids, Yaroslavka, Gallant Steeds, Shady Horses, N-Troop, Zarya, Jugends, Hunters, Stallions,
   * FC Dynamo Moscow - Patriots, OTF, Capitals, Top Lads, MHS
   * FC Lokomotiv Moscow - SB, TT, MDF, SE
   * FC Spartak Moscow - The Union, Flint's crew, Strong active group, Gladiators Firm, War Boars, Devils Band, Mad Butchers, CWO, Opposition, Aliens, Simple Boys, North - West Side, Clenchfist, North-West, Advance-guard, Tooks,Hard Gang
   * FC Torpedo Moscow - West 5 Action Group, Supporters Group, Tubes, Showtime, Blusters, Troublemakers
   * Zenit Saint Petersburg - Beagle Boys, Brigadiers, Snake Firm, Jolly Nevsky, Coalition,North Bastion,Malice Crew, Gremlins ,British firm, Krimskyi, XXL, Guardians


What about AEK Getto? They are also considered as neonazis. Mitsos 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The part about Irish hooligans is rubbish. I've never heard of any of these "firms". This sounds like a wind up.

[edit] Disputed

This articial seems to contain alot of information thats untrue (Gnevin 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

I am thinking about blanking the whole list, and reverting all edits adding firms without proper references (which I consider litterature, newspapers or similar, not "hooligan" websites, or personal knowledge). Comments on that? – Elisson • Talk 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with that 100% only way to get this artical back to being a useful (Gnevin 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
I have referenced the Swedish section. Had to remove a few firms I know exist but I couldn't find references for them. But hey, better safe than sorry. I will bring this discussion to attention on Football WikiProject. Members there can hopefully help out with some ideas and some references. – Elisson • Talk 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and blanked all unreferenced sections in the list of firms. – Elisson • Talk 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on this page for a while, and while yes, it is true that there are some unsubstantiated items -- which I have been trying to eliminate -- it is, however, completely unnecessary to simply just blank out whole sections. My modem was down for a week and I come back to find this? There was no real reason to do it; you say it was discussed', well, you never discussed it with someone who had been working on the page before you came along and 'fixed' it. I'm switching it back again. There has got to be a better way. Ryecatcher773

There is no better way than to remove all unreferenced material and only allow material that is properly referenced. From WP:V; "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." You can not claim that the page should stay this way just because you think that your edits are good. If they are indeed good, provide a reference for them, that is all I ask. I have also been working on this article for a while, and judging by the history of the page, I've added a whole lot more information than you, but that did not stop me from removing it when I found this page to be unmaintainable in the current state.
This page is a massive IP editor meeting place, and while many of the IP additions may be entirely true, many are pure vandalism or additions that are impossible to verify. Reverting every IP edit is not fair, but reverting all edits that do not reference the additions is, IMO, fair. And to be able to start this, unreferenced material needs to go. Just reference your material and you do not have the problem of getting your edits removed. It will still be in the history for you to find, even if I remove it from the current version. Just re-add it with a source and I'll be satisfied. – Elisson • Talk 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, I could understand your concern with citations if we were talking about legitimate organizations; however, football firms -- the title of the article -- are not registered entities with legitimate sources to cite. Besides that you appear to have chosen to delete every firm besides those in Sweden, it seems a bit odd (and unreasonable as well) that you have so much concern with the legitmacy of every UK firm mentioned in the article -- the most comprehensive list in the article. This is a football related article, however, hooligans are criminals.
You cannot legitimately cite a source for the existence of every named firm, no matter how much information you may be privvy to -- short of perhaps employment with INTERPOL. But, I don't really see how anyone who even knows what a football firm is can deny the existence of Chelsea's Headhunters, Millwall's Bushwhackers, Cardiff's Soul Crew, Birminham's Zulus, West Hams I.C.F., etc; yet you deleted - wholesale - every UK firm based on speculation that they might be vandalism and/or being tired of editing. Lovely. There is not one firm that answers to FIFA or any other governing body in football. In fact, this article ought not be part of the football project in the first place. If we are going to debate on the grounds of citations and legitimacy, then we may as well delete the entire article. Then, if you are so concerned with who's who in Sweden, you can start a new article on hooliganism in your country and police it within the realms of your own unreasonable interpretation of Wikipedia Law -- there isn't an article on Wikipedia that has citations for every so-called fact.
Ryecatcher773
If football firms aren't registered entities with legitimate sources to cite, how come we have articles on for example the trolling organization GNAA or the Cosa Nostra? I doubt any of these are registered somewhere. Your first concern also happens to be connected with your second concern, why are only Swedish firms included? Well, guess what, because, as you might have noted, I've referenced them properly. Some are mentioned in the only book (I know of) written by a (former) member of a Swedish firm, other are mentioned in various articles in noted newspapers and news agencies. I even removed some of them, the ones I could not find any reference for. But note, there are legitimate sources to cite, and I know there are for English firms as well. I have no specific concern with the UK firms, as you may have noticed, I removed all firms listed, including German, Spanish, Austrian, Bulgarian, Russian, Danish, Greek and Dutch. What I have a concern with is that we need to reference this article properly as it is very controversial.
Your concern about that not every named firm can be verified, well, that goes for everything on Wikipedia. Not found in any creditable source, not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Easy as that. Yes, I know about the Headhunters, the Bushwackers, the ICF, the OCS and all "famous" firms. And I also know there are litterature out there, and articles in credible newspapers that are available for use as sources. Just do it. I don't have access to most of the books and neither am I good at surfing around on English newspaper homepages.
Regarding your rude attitude in the later part of your message, I would like to point you to WP:CIV. Please read and try not to be incivil when/if answering this message. Regarding citations for facts, well, we don't need to have a reference for the football clubs in the list of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries, because the information contained in that article is available large-scale all over the internet (the UEFA homepage, newspaper result pages, the club homepages, the local FA homepage, and on, and on), however, that is not the situation here. We are talking about a group of organizations that often not tells the whole truth, exaggerates, or outright lies. We are also looking at a group of organizatios that many want to belong to, and even though they might not, they are spreading info that they are.
To shorten this down into one easily understandable sentence; we need to reference this article because it won't fullfill WP:V otherwise. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Chelsea's Headhunters [1]

Millwall's Bushwhackers [2] Cardiff's Soul Crew [3] This articial isnt really any where near the top of my to do list but as the above 1 minute search shows finding a cite isnt really that hard if you care to send a bit of time looking (Gnevin 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Semi Protected

I wonder if it would be possible to get this artical semi'd as ip users dont seem willing to follow the requirement for a reference (Gnevin 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Massive cleanup required

This article needs major improvement. It's seems to be a hodge podge of random facts, not really tied together into proper sections.Spylab 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] List of firms

Either there should be a long, comprehensive, verified list of firms from many countries, or there should be no list at all. If someone wants to compile a list, do it in the discussion section and then put it back in the article when it's complete (and verified). It makes no sense to only list firms from Sweden, or even two or three countries. More energy should be put into making the existing article more factual and comprehensive, instead of focussing on lists of firms.Spylab 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] Sweden only

The reason sweden only has firms is that they are the only sourced firms , you can add more but blanking this useful information is not helpful (Gnevin 14:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how much work has been put into referencing Swedish firms. This article is Football Firms, not Swedish Football Firms. Either there should be lists for many countries, or none at all. You can paste that information into the discussion page, and if (and only if) verified lists from several other countries are created, it can be put back in the article.Spylab 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

RV please keep in mind that WP:3RR now applys (Gnevin 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
Either there should be lists for many countries, or none at all This is a start artical as rated above. Other countries will be added when people find referenes for them and have the time to add all articials must start somewhere (Gnevin 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
  • If other countries aren't added in a reasonable time period, then the Sweden information should be deleted. This article must not focus on one country. Spylab 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] Football only

The title of this article is clearly Football firm, so the article must reflect that. If you want to discuss firms associated with other sports like hockey, either put that information in the Hooliganism article or change the title of this article to Hooligan firm. Otherwise the title will be innaccurate and the article will be confusing. Spylab 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

As I reported on your talk page, you just broke WP:3RR and I suggest you revert yourself or be reported. The solution to the problem that the article does not have the proper article name is not to remove information from the article, but to find solutions where to move the article. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – Elisson • Talk 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Spylab your unilateral movement of an articial which you are already in dispute in is shocking am reverting (Gnevin 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
  • I'm glad I didn't wast my time fixing all the redirects. The bottom line is that there are two choices: 1) either keep the title as Football firm and make the article only about Football, or 2) change the title to Hooligan firm, so other sports can be mentioned. Otherwise the title makes no logical sense. The article can't be called Football firm if it says they can be supporters of other sports. The only thing that's shocking is that I seem to be the only one who understands basic logic in this case. See the discussion from my talk page, which I pasted below. Also, my decision to change the title was not unilateral, because User:Johan Elisson agreed with that move.Spylab 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] Make up your mind about the title

(pasted from my talk page)
You just broke WP:3RR on the football firm article. I suggest you revert your latest edit there back to the previous state, or I'll have to report you. – Elisson • Talk 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My edit is 100 percent justified. The title of the article is clearly Football firm, so the article must reflect that. If you want to discuss firms associated with other sports like hockey, either put that information in the Hooliganism article or change the title of this article to Hooligan firm. Otherwise the title will be innaccurate and the article will be confusing.Spylab 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
    • You obviously do not understand my point. The article is named Football firm only because someone (probably from the British Isles) started the article, but as firm is a dab page, he/she decided that football firm was a good title. However, that person did not know that some firms in some countries do not always support a football club. Thus, it is the title that should be changed, and not the content of the article. The solution to the problem is not to remove content. And no matter how much you think your edit is justified, you still broke 3RR. Go read the policy page, go back and revert your edit, or I will report you. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, then I'll change the title to Hooligan firm, because I'm not going to revert to an innacurate form of the article. I hope you'll help fix all the links that went to Football firm.Spylab 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
  • You make the move, you fix the double redirects. And revert your edit to the intro while you're at it. – Elisson • Talk 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the title to Hooligan firm and re-added the old version of the opening sentence (with minor adjustments for accuracy). I'm not going to change all the links that went to Football firm yet because I want to make sure nobody's going to change the title back to Football firm. Also, Wikipedia keeps locking the database today because of upgrades. If someone changes the title back to Football firm, then the article should only mention football, regardles of the 3 R rule, dab, or whatever other procedures you want to invoke. The bottom line is that the title needs to reflect what the article is about. Spylab 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
How am i suppose to find this discussion , the discussion for moving a page should be on the talk page of the artical not on your talk page , as for this articial name it what you want (Gnevin 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

My view on this whole mess is that since Spylab can't accept the more commonly used term "football firm" as long as the article text somewhere just for half a sentence happens to mention that other sport clubs in some countries have firms as well (I can not really see the problem, and it seems no one else can either, except Spylab, and I can't find a policy or guideline that prohibits the mention of other sport firms), and constantly reverted edits, removed content, messed up the article, broke WP:3RR and generally did not do anything constructive, I decided to stop this silly edit war by agreeing to move the article to the less used term "hooligan firm". This breaks WP:NC(CN) but since I am really tired of this f*cking mess, I am for the moment pleased with this solution. Let's just wait until Spylab has cooled down, learned a little about Wikipedia manner, or moved ahead to something else. Then we can discuss moving the article back to the more commonly used term. For the while, just leave it at this name to please Spylab. – Elisson • Talk 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't believe you still don't understand that you can't call an article one thing and talk about something different. If a firm supports another type of sport like hockey, it is not a Football firm — just as if a group of athletes plays basketball, it is not a rugby team (even if some of the althletes also play rugby). I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. This article is still in its early stages, and much more content needs to be added. For that to happen, first there has to be a precise definition about what the topic is. As for constantly reverting edits, you and another editor are just as guilty, so don't point fingers.Spylab 07:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] Need more firms in list

See the Ultras article for a list of more hooligan firms with Wikipedia article (to add to this article). At the moment, I don't have time to go through the list and add the verified ones, but I can help later.Spylab 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

None of those are firms. – Elisson • T • C • 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links to sites that list hooligan firms. Some of these sites might not be good enough as sources, but at least they're starting points, so other references can be found. This article desperately needs to fill out the list of firms, so it doesn't focus too much on Sweden.

[edit] Unnecessarily strict standards for references

There's no need for such strict standards of references in this article. With other Wikipedia articles (including ones about subjects way more controversial than this), a simple link to an outside source is perfectly acceptable. It's not like I'm posting claims about the orgins of the universe or the existense of God. The UK firms are all very well known, and if for some reaon people don't believe the websites are legit, there are plenty of other sites that they can look up, searching those names. People can make up their own minds whether the outside references are reliable. The article looks ridiculous with a long list of Swedish firms and only three British firms. See Wikipedia:Citing sourcesSpylab 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:Hooligan firm#disputed the references are their , just look for them (Gnevin 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
I'm sure they can be found eventually, and added as they come up, but links to the firms' own websites are at least a starting point. This article is a work in progress, and somebody has to kickstart things in order for it to get better. Constantly deleting all the non-Swedish firms makes the article look like a joke. It's not supposed to be about just one country. Spylab 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Spylab, this has already been discussed once before, and you know that. Do not threaten the integrity of this article by starting to insert names without proper references and reliable sources. And do not add a section on UK as we use England/Scotland/Wales/N.I. in football contexts. You "cleanup" articles from time to time, but then you worsen articles by not following earlier agreements. – Elisson • T • C • 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Spylab, you just broke WP:3RR. I advice you to revert your edits. – Elisson • T • C • 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. My edits were different each time. You might have broken the 3RR rule, but I'm not petty enough to check. As you can see, I finally got more references, despite you constantly deleting the list before I could finish what I started.Spylab 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I've gone and removed the Headhunters from the list since there is no reference... after all, rules are rules, yeah? Ryecatcher773, 21:49, 26 Oct 2006

It's really pointless having a short list of random European firms from the various levels of their country's league divisions. As someone else point out a while ago; we should have a major list of all firms in existence, or no list at all. Now, I am more than willing to compose such a list, but the requirements for sources/references are far too restrictive. I can use the firm's actual website as a reference, but another contributer on here does not consider it a "reliable source". So, can we either relax the rules (in which case I'll put the major list up), or just delete the whole thing? Manticore126

As discussed before, hooligan firm sites themselves are not considered reliable sources (see WP:RS#Self-published sources). Anyone could start a website and claim to be the firm of a team. Regarding the list, all "important" firms, or firms worth inclusion, should have been mentioned in a reliable source, such as a book or a newspaper article, and thus a "major list" can be put up, it just needs more time to reference it properly. Hooligan firms are controversial, and needs proper referencing. If people don't feel like referencing their material, that's not a reason to remove material that actually is referenced. – Elisson • T • C • 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

These are not just obscure sites that popped up over night, www.terracelinks.cjb.net has links to the sites of virtually every firm in England. The sites are active with postings of the firms members, and those of other firms. It is not an unreliable source. It would be impossible to locate newspaper articles or books for every single firm in the country. Manticore126

Please re-read the link I posted above. Regarding it being impossible to locate articles or books on firms, well, if it is, it's probably a pretty good reason to not include the firm in the list. – Elisson • T • C • 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Spylab. Mitsos 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Firms

The list of firms is so small so do we really need it? Drogo 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please expand the list, citing reliable sources, if you feel it is too short. – Elisson • T • C • 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm, huh?

This article is bewildering. There's a list of firms, and something about fashion, but nothing about what the firms are or why they exist.

How widespread are these groups? Of 100 fans at a match, how many belong(ed) to firms? How did these groups get organized? Why would anyone join such a firm? Why would anyone do work to get organized just to fight the other firms? I'm reading this and the only thing I can think is "are all these people mad?".

Somehow you are all arguing over what should and should not be in the list of firms at the bottom, but missed writing anything at all about the topic itself? Come on, someone out there can do a better job of this, I'm sure.

Maury 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this page - Football (soccer) hooliganism which gives more background. Some of your questions are incredibly difficult to quantify as Hooligan Firms are known for being incredibly secretive and untrustusing. Very few would openly admit for instance to being a member of a Firm. Likewise the reasons behind why the Firms existed - and still exist - is incredibly complex. Tangerines 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm ungrateful for your answers, but I have to say I find that last statement very difficult to believe. We're talking about a group who's very existence is based on getting in fights, there doesn't seem to be a lot of complexity there. When I look at this it seems to be the parallels between the football firms and biker gangs are obvious; both are groups of violent people who are joined, loosely, but an outside principle (football, motorcycles), are very secretive, wear "colors" to identify themselves, and get in fights with their rivals. Yet no one throws up their hands and says "well its too hard to write an article on bikers". There's got to be a good source on this somewhere. Maury 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, though perhaps my message didn't quite explain fully. One small thing firstly, is that firms do not wear colours (colors), certainly not in the UK, (I don't really know about other countries, but from what I have seen from Italy it certainly seems to be the same there). Firms in England, Wales and Scotland would never be seen in any colours which identify them with a specific club/firm, unlike Biker Gangs and the likes of the Bloods (wearing red) and the Crips (wearing blue) in America. General fans of a Football club do wear colours - scarves, replica shirts, hats etc which identify them as fans of that club. The hooligan firms though do not wear any team colours, and refer to the fans who do so as "scarfers".
With regard to the comment that - no one throws up their hands and says "well its too hard to write an article on bikers" - that was not what I said at all, as there have been studies made of the subject at, if I recall correctly, the likes of Liverpool University. And there are numerous books published. Maybe my "incredibly complex" wording wasn't what I should have written, but there are different reasons as to why the various firms exist in different countries which embrace politics, religion, city rivalry, country and region rivalry etc. There is also in some countries a crossover with Ultras Groups. As for good sources, as I said, there are numerous books written on the subject, and I will see if I can find some decent sources or sources. Tangerines 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Firstly, my apologies for deleting all the Scottish firms bar Aberdeen. I missed the further three pages of the source article which are hidden somewhat! (Thats my excuse anyway and I'm sticking to it!!). However, although I can see that three further firms are mentioned, from Hibs, Motherwell and Dundee + Dundee United, nless I am missing something, I can't find any mention in the article of Rangers and the ICF. And if they aren't mentioned in that article then it it not valid to be used as a source for them. I'm sure there must be other sources that name them.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has responded to the above about Rangers, I have checked online and found a Scotsman article that does mention the ICF as well as Celtics "Celtic Soccer Crew" so will amend the article accordingly linked to that. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Simply put, this article duplicates the "Football hooliganism" article (but with lesser detail) and should be merged into it. --Edwin Herdman 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to state that the result of the above was to change this article to a list. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

Following the addition of various Spanish firms by IP user 85.53.207.19, I have "hidden" the section for now, and asked 85.53.207.19 if they have any verifiable sources for each firm as per the heading. If sources are provided (and I have asked if there are sources on the IP users talk page) then the section should be restored. However, if no sources ar forthcoming then the section will have to be removed. The headings are quite clear on here as to how to add a firm. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Spain Firms: 928 Firm (UD Las Palmas), Casuals FCB (FC Barcelona), Madrid City Firm (Real Madrid CF), SFC Casuals (Sevilla FC), VCF Fan Club (Valencia CF), Vetusta Firm (Real Oviedo), Mérida Casuals Crew (Mérida UD), CPE Firm (CP Ejido). --87.223.141.56 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish firms

As this paragraph needs expansion, I am thinking about adding several Polish firms, there is plenty of them, but sources are almost exclusively Polish. What do you say people? Tymek 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is merely a list of firms so the section does not need expanding. However, the requirement for a firm to be added is not that they exist; it is that the firms name is mentioned in the source provided (which should be a reliable third party source and not the firms own website, nor sites like ave-it.net etc) and if it is confirmed that they are a hooligan firm and not as some keep adding an Ultras Group. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [4] is an interview with one of Polish hooligans, it was published in the "Gazeta Swietojanska", daily from Gdynia. He mentions the firms that are most important members of the Polish "Hools League", and all these firms are still very active: Psychofans (Ruch Chorzów), Młode Orły (Lechia Gdańsk), Sharks (Wisła Kraków), Jude Gang (Cracovia Kraków), Brygada Banici (Lech Poznań), Destroyers (Widzew Łódź), Fighters (Śląsk Wrocław), Tedy Boys 95 (Legia Warszawa), Terror Corps (Pogoń Szczecin). Tangerines, is this a good enough source? Tymek 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Gazeta is newspaper in Polish (I think?) and presumably the site is then a newspapers website? If so then it is definitely a reliable source. A couple of those listed are already included in the Poland section - Jude Gang and Sharks. But yes it seems a good reliable third party source which mentions the firms names and the clubs with which they are connected which is what is needed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, gazeta means a newspaper in Polish. I am glad that the source is OK. BTW, the interviewed hooligan is a member of Arka Gdynia firm Tymek 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding firms to this article

Just a note about adding firms, following the recent spate of adding a QPR firm without a correct source. At the top of the article and the top of each countries heading within this article there is a message stating,

"DO NOT ADD A FIRM UNLESS YOU REFERENCE IT WITH A VERIFIABLE SOURCE. Any firms added without a verifiable source will be removed. Please put new entries in alphabetical order (by team name)"

Firms should only be added with a reliable and verifiable, third party source. This means that the firms name needs to appear in that source. There is no point in keep adding a firm back in unless they are correctly sourced as no matter how many times it is added it will always be removed unless the requirements for the source are met. Please see WP:NOR. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 12:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADD PLZ Slovanic "Firms"

Czech Republic: Fc Brno: Zbrojovaci - www.zbrojovaci.cz 1913 - www.fcbrno1913.cz Fc Banik Ostrava: dont know the name - www.banicek.com Slovakia: Fc Spartak Trnava: Bili Andele(White angels) - www.spartak.sk Šk Slovan Bratislava: Belasé kriedla(White wings) Poland: GKS Katowice: dont know the name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Povolnyk (talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A firm needs to be verified by a third party reliable source. The firms own website is not third party. Also firms can't be added if the name of the firm is not known.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A firm what?

What is a hooligan firm? Where do they come from? Why do people join them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.11.84 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As you will see from the title, it is merely a list of firms and not an article about hooligan firms. Information about firms etc can be found in the article linked to in the lead, Football hooliganism.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QPR firm

Can an established user please put this in:

    • Not until it is sourced. The given source does not mention the "QPR youth wing". This information has already been inserted and removed numerous times for this reason, and it's the main reason this article is protected. Black Kite 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I see you (Bengio) have chosen to ignore the above message and add the firm anyway using the same invalid source yet again, despite also being told that this was the reason why this article was fully protected for a while. I have therefore reverted your edit. As has been pointed out numerous times now, the source needs to name the firm in full.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)