Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifier fan attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on UEFA Euro 2008 qualifier fan attack 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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 UEFA Euro 2008 qualifier fan attack falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] WTF?

We have an article for this? LOL. --Howard the Duck 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This should really be merged with its parent article. Out of context and on its own like this it will become lost. --Monotonehell 09:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should at least wait with the merger, as the attack is very much a social/legal issue that is not easy to incorporate in the "parent article".Bondkaka 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And this is even high importance? LOL --Howard the Duck 10:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
With this intellectual level of talk, I removed the tag. There doesn't seem to be any justified reason for tagging this article, and most of the article's content probably has to be deleted if merging into the Championship article. Bondkaka 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

If this article is to be kept, it definately needs a rewrite with sections such as: Background, Attack, Perpetrator and Conequences. --Bagande 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And possibly a renaming. --Bagande 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the renaming. I propose 2007 Denmark-Sweden fan attack. kalaha 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose Denmark v Sweden (2007). --Bagande 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I "vote" for Parken scandal, Parken fan attack, 2007 Parken Stadium football scandal or something like that. I don't think "UEFA", "Euro", "Denmark-Sweden" needs to be in the title to best describe it. CHANDLER   06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I support 2007 Parken Stadium football scandal.--Bagande 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pieter van Zyl

Reminds me of Pieter van Zyl [1] [2] Nil Einne 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Very much so, although note the different responses from the governing bodies - UEFA fined Denmark and awarded the match to Sweden whereas SANZAR/IRB did very little other than recommend increased security measures at grounds. Van Zyl was banned from rugby matches for life though. personally I prefer rugby's approach, punish the perpetrator not the team. Lisiate 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identity of the perpetrator

Danish media asked and rewarded people who could come up with information about the perpetrator's identity. His identity was temporary revealed by the online editions of B.T. and Ekstrabladet. --Camptown 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Danish court disallowed the publishing of his name. I think we should stick to that. Especially in the current atmosphere.--Bagande 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Do you have more information about that court order? Camptown 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
DR, Politiken and Ekstra Bladet.--Bagande 12:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the court ordered his name not to be openly published by the court itself, whereas Danish news media in a sign of self restriction and compasion don't publish his name. Right? Camptown 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No the court has issued reporting restrictions on his name (navneforbud).
"Retten kan i straffesager forbyde, at der sker offentlig gengivelse af navn, stilling eller bopæl for sigtede (tiltalte) eller andre under sagen nævnte personer, eller at den pågældendes identitet på anden måde offentliggøres (navneforbud)," From [3].
Rough translation: "The court can issue restrictions on the reporting of the name, job and place of living of the accused perpetrator or or person linked to the case. The identy of the person must not be revealed in any other way either."
I would think that the danish media would be pretty accustomed at interpretating the relevant paragraph, thus I think we should follow their lead in revealing nothing but his age, nationality and city of living. I will go ahead and make the changes. --Bagande 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by Danish law and can publish whatever it wants. If the name of the offender can be verified by a reputable source, I think we should restore it. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I realise that wikipedia is generally not bound to respect the laws of third countries. However in this case I think that it is only reasonable. I cannot qoute a specific policy other than this "guideline" which deals with something somewhat different. However were we to decide to publish his name in the of WP:NOT#CENSOR we would still need a very reliable source, and I simply don't see where we would find that when even the foreign media seems to be respecting the reporting restrictions.--Bagande 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo was talking about copyright law, not censorship law, in that e-mail, and was willing to draw a distinction between the German and English Wikipedias. American law is far looser on a lot of subjects than European law is -- for instance, the KISS logo is banned in Germany, according to the article, on the grounds that it looks too much like the Nazi SS insignia, yet we use the logo in the English Wikipedia article. That said, if it's not available from a reputable source (such as a newspaper article that came out before the court order), the question is moot. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise that he was talking something different. To quote myself: "deals with something somewhat different". However I still think this outtake is somewhat relevant: "Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument.""
Anyways, since there do not seem to be any reliable/verifiable sources, it is not a very urgent discussion. --Bagande 08:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
He was named in B.T. (reliable source) and his date of birth and other personal fact has been revealed in Swedish media. He was interviewed in the Swedish daily Expressen (reliable source) with a full picture covering two (sic) pages. Interviews with his workmates at ESAB has been published in several Swedish newspapers. There is no doubt who the man is. So the question is: should English Wikipedia observe a Danish court order? I think this is an important question, as I see a tendecy of Sweden related pages being subject of energetic self censorship by Swedish editors who are doing so, refering to a local Swedish law regarding personal information on the internet. That's why there are so litte information on contemporary Swedish crooks and others published on the English Wikipeida, even though the sources have been obtained in public records. --Camptown 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
After a discussion at the Village Pump, I have written up a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Publication bans. Comments are encouraged on its talk page. -- Mwalcoff 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see a anything like a reliable source identifying the guy by name. Google provides two Swedish message boards. Infomedia, which is an internet resource which archives articles from virtually all national and regional Danish newspapers, does not respond to the name which was briefly given here. nor does it give any relevant replies to ESAB.
It is true that the guy has given a number of interviews both Danish and Swedish media, some of which have featured full face photos. Some of them have called him "R". They have generally also given his age (29) and his apporoximate residence (Gothenburg, or sometimes, in the area of Gothenburg). None (of the ones I've seen/found) have given away his name, workplace or date of birth.
As for B.T. allegedly revaeling his name briefly on their website, I've heard that too. But that's not really providing a source, is it? --Bagande 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Provided sources can be found, the relevant guideline is WP:BLP1E. Which calls for a case-by-case evaluation of the merits of including names. Taemyr 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

How about a picture of the incident itself - or a series of pictures - or a gif-animation? Surely it would fall under the fair use guideline. This one, maybe? Or this? (link to the entire TV2/Denmark-gallery) /AB-me (chit-chat) 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could create something like this. --Bagande 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Fandel

Hi. I'll tell you what. If Herbert had regained his composure, seen out the final minute plus stoppages, and then just made the appropriate reports to UEFA and FIFA, this article wouldn't exist. I can assure you.

As an ex-ref (not to his level, admittedly), I can say that it is dangerous to get into the 'comfort zone' of refereeing, when there are always countless people who disagree with your decisions waiting on the sidelines. It should be inbuilt in a referee to expect the worst in any game.

I know this was a high-profile match, but refereeing should be applied in the same way, right from youth games to cup finals, to try to achieve the level of consistency (buzzword) that so many people are screaming for from refs. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Really bad idea, especially since as was pointed out, that isn't the final score anyway. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack → Denmark 3 Sweden 3 (2007) — this seens like a much more suitable name for the title, other articles, ie England 3-6 Hungary are not titled "England's first non-UK home defeat so that is why i should think it should be moved — CHAZA93  Talk  Contribs  07:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

CLOSEOUT

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support More logical name for article  ¢нαzα93  Talk  Contribs  19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why would you want to include a result which has subsequently been altered?. --Bagande 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose 3-3 is not the sanctioned score. Significant discussion of the aftermath (no home games, etc) makes this article more about the fan attack than the game anyway. Neier 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neier. Valentinian T / C 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neier. --Camptown 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose the fact that prevented this article from deletion is that it is regarding the pitch invasion and attack. Naming it after the score is not logical at all and focuses the article back to a sports result. --Monotonehell 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Moving this, maybe not with the 3-3 but to something like "Denmark - Sweden 2007 Euro qualifier" CHANDLER   06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article was kept on the basis of being about the fan attack rather than the game and keeping the title as is focuses the article on that. Davewild 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer to take a "10 year" view on this. After 10 years, this incident would be an extremely minor footnote, even with the large short term consequences for the 2 teams (and Ireland) and the competition. Rename but not as '3-3', as the score was never finalized as that. (3-0 maybe or leave it out altogether.) --Eqdoktor 10:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neier. —Nightstallion (?) 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

The title should be 2008 UEFA qualifier Denmark x Sweden fan attack (or something like that) because is about the 'fan attack' that occurred in the 'Denmark x Sweden' match in the '2008 UEFA qualifier'. Denmark 3 Sweden 3 (2007) is about the match as a whole. 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack sounds like the issue of 'fan attack' in the '2008 UEFA qualifier' in general, not a specific one.--ClaudioMB 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the title should be Parken Stadium fan attack scandal, as the article is about the scandal, and not the match. kalaha 19:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment As long as this is the only fan attack scandal during the 2008 UEFA qualifier, we'd better keep the name as it is. --Camptown 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it is not a qualifier for UEFA, but a qualifier for the UEFA Euro. And the title could make people think it happend in 2008 and not 2007. kalaha 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree, "2008", it was 2007, "UEFA qualifier" its was the UEFA Euro qualifier... so A have to be made. I would like something like Parken scandal, 2007 Parken match scandal or something like that. CHANDLER   12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Change it to Parken Stadium Fan Attack, there is no need for the "scandal" part, it just sensationalises the title Pennywisepeter 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

nothing less than Parken Stadium BIG OUTRAGEOUS SCANDAL will fit, kthx :P :P CHANDLER   20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] So why is this in title caps?

How about Copenhagen 2008 UEFA Qualifier fan attack? --Howard the Duck 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale?

I'm confused about why the Danish team was given such a harsh penalty for the action of a spectator. Or is the penalty simply due to Poulsen's actions on the field? The article doesn't really say. 121.222.162.148 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg

Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg

Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg

Image:Ekstrabladet-skurken.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)