Talk:Galatasaray S.K./Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Cardiff City F.C. instantly springs to mind in needing their own hooligan section as well. Englishrose 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leeds fans

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Cimbom''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving the 2000 incident to a sub-section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Waggers, thanks. noted John wesley 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: Colours

message: 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)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: 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)
replies: text: Note, I've now moved the paragraph to the Football hooliganism article. Englishrose 09:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feel free to believe this, or not 

message: It is better if we used the proposed manual of style  since it is used more for football clubs. Can 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Squad templates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  last changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable players