This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Watchlist to be watched by the community. Londo 06 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Current revision has removed cited sources about non Liverpool details, dealing with racism from the Spain-England match a few years back. There is no indication of any problems from the Liverpool support, that word indicates inside the ground, and anyway would be POV. Also removed were details on how Platini distanced himself. Londo 06 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
the other material that was removed was not needed and gave undue weight to one instnace that is largely forgotton. ive put back in that platini distanced himself from the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
your source does not in anyway support your statement that he was "shouting from the terraces", as i said its inclusion is meaningless. as for tony snow, NO press releases he made are included in his article. as i said we shouldnt be replicating eveything everyone has ever said. 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs)
Apologies, should read 'Whilst that may be true that he was not shouting from the terraces...' Londo 06 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
you fail to see my point. the tony snow quotes concern tony snow. the quote you want to reintroduce is conernced with racisn in football. gaillard is not the story, racism is. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
how about you provide a valid rationale for its insertion? Dead-or-Red ( talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking to get this article back on track. I have answered all the questions put forth by a user and the article can go forward from there. Londo 06 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
answered, maybe. in detail and good enough to revert to the last version, no. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
you have no reading comprehension skills. after saying "in detail and good enough" i added the word NO as you clearly have NOT addressed any of the issues to a satisfactory level. yet you continue to revert for NO good reason. please, try and articulate a valid justification for the current version. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
... per request at WP:RPP. Guys, please settle the content dispute here on the talk page. When you have reached some agreement, just let me know and the page protection can be lifted. Also - to those who are logging out to edit, please don't do that - Alison ❤ 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Reading through your major concerns were the contextualisation of the furore that surrounded the 2004 Spain vs England match and Gaillard's dismissiveness of the subject. I am not calling Gaillard a racist but it was something that brought him into the public spotlight for a period of time, and as such as noteworthy. Hopefully this can be the starting point for movement forwards with the article."
the reason it was included in the article in the first place was to accuse him of being a racist after he upset a few scousers by highlighting their behaviour accross europe. many press agents have wikipedia pages, none detail every statement that they have ever made, and inclusion of such statements are not necessary. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
you havent justified its place on the page, and therefore it should go. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
it has in no way been justified. if you want to bring back a re-worded version please do so Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
but weve already concluded that theres no need for it to be there in the first place, get a grip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
where?????????????? why not add every single word that gaillard has ever said? because it is entirely pointless, thats why. god knows why youre insisting that this non-event remains. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested mediation to bring the situation to a head. Londo 06 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_Gaillard&oldid=135648993 Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thats it, imply the man is a racist, totally deny your actions and then deflect your behviour onto others. escalate the matter if need be. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
im not surprised given your proven lack of reading comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fully protected the page because of edit warring. Please discuss below this line. PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor requested a WP:3O as the first step in dispute resolution; however, it looks like you have also asked for informal mediation. I'll stand by and be available to help on request. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
fine with me. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Can each of you give me a short synopsis of the dispute, without rebuting the other's position, and give me a link to a recent version of the article which best represents your goal for the article. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, does
this diff show the content dispute we're concerned with?
JeremyMcCracken (
talk) (
contribs)
05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate Jeremy saving us some time. Thanks. However, for a Third opinion, I'd prefer to work here rather than fragment back to the Medcab page; to that end, I've copied some comments here and reformated with Jeremy's comments removed. Is this a reasonable starting place?
It would largely focused on that issue ( this diff), and I was happy for that edit. Another editor flipped the citation saying he has been involved in anti-racism work, which I have no problems with, it's just that BBC article chooses to focus on the furore of a Spain v England match in 2004, and the racism suffered by England's black players. I offered to add context, offered the other editor to add context, show the anti-racism work, but they simply wished to remove the section. Londo 06 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In relation to the press coverage it was widespread in the print media, television and radio coverage, covering both incidents and over a number of deays. Londo 06 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My main contention about the article was that it was first added as an attack page on its subject. If you look at the earliest versions this becomes clear. I still feel my first edit said more than enough for somebody who is a relatively minor character. Over time most of the hyperbole has calmed down. There are however two main things with the article that I feel need to be adressed. 1) the racism slur and 2) The Champions league final.
In summary, the current article does more than enough (perhaps even now, too much) to document Gaillard and racism. And that the article excessivley documents last years Champions League Final. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This 3O is being asked for as part of a Mediation Cabal case. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: I like Londo's addition of context explaining why Gaillard came to prominence as an activist against racism, but I don't understand the reason to include the "merely technical" phrase. Is the issue here that using the word "merely" in the context of racism generated some controversy? If so, why is that important or related to gaining "prominence" in anti-racism work? That section doesn't have a coatrack problem (prior versions did, it seems), but right now I'm not getting a feeling of positive or negative bias in that section.
The section that follows (tagged as under development) looks like it needs more cleaning up, to me. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting for a bit more feedback from the parties before offering an opinion. My concern is that there is a bit of coatracking and also recentism in the article. Also the quotation about "merely technical" is taken out of context. The entire discussion should be included or carefully summarized: "But Uefa spokesman William Gaillard, told BBC Radio Five Live that leaving the pitch would have set a precedent. "We would not condone such behaviour for the very simple reason it could lead to all sorts of abuse," he said. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons, because we would have hundreds of cases in which players could walk off the pitch and say 'I heard someone shouting something'."
The salient point is "not setting a precedent" not "merely technical reasons." Taking the latter out of context makes his statement seem bureaucratic rather than logical.
This article should have more information about the man and his career and how his successes and controversies have affected him. We should try to steer clear of editorial comments. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All hold a wealth of quotes and could be used as a reference to show that Mr Gaillard is indeed towing the UEFA line. Londo 06 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the article was fine to go forwards as it was, I have seen no viable argument beyond I didn't see it, and I don't see it that way from some people. Although well mediated it has become a bit of a farce, and an indulgement to the wims of some. Londo 06 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been more than willing to take part in the whole process so far, and would be happy to take part in any further discussion about the article. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This diff shows the two disputed versions. Two other issues were raised with this paragraph:
1) The quote is taken from a larger context. Compare what is in the diff with what is in the source: "We would not condone such behaviour for the very simple reason it could lead to all sorts of abuse," he said. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons, because we would have hundreds of cases in which players could walk off the pitch and say 'I heard someone shouting something'. "I don't think this is the right attitude." [1]
2) The supplied source is a news article from 2004, about the event. Gaillard is not the subject of the article, and it does not make mention of his level of prominence.
JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Set it to the version as reported in the British newspapers and television. Can't speak for how it was reported on the continent, but this current version is consistent with reports from Britain at the time. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that further sources are required for both sides, as various editors have voiced opinions over the verifiability of both POV's. Let's use this as a jump-off point and improve the article. Londo 06 08:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You guys had the article protected and yet there wasn't a single comment on the talk page. That's not a good sign. Either the discussion was settled or people aren't actually working to discuss the issue and just want to revert each other to get the version they liked. I'm not that interested in the dispute but if there's just going to be wholesale reversions without any attempt to actually talk, there is nothing gained by removing protection. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's still quite twisted. It now sounds like he is leading a one man crusade to rid the world of soccer of racism. Think it still needs attention to bring it back to that verifiable middle ground. Alexsanderson 83 10:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Watchlist to be watched by the community. Londo 06 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Current revision has removed cited sources about non Liverpool details, dealing with racism from the Spain-England match a few years back. There is no indication of any problems from the Liverpool support, that word indicates inside the ground, and anyway would be POV. Also removed were details on how Platini distanced himself. Londo 06 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
the other material that was removed was not needed and gave undue weight to one instnace that is largely forgotton. ive put back in that platini distanced himself from the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
your source does not in anyway support your statement that he was "shouting from the terraces", as i said its inclusion is meaningless. as for tony snow, NO press releases he made are included in his article. as i said we shouldnt be replicating eveything everyone has ever said. 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs)
Apologies, should read 'Whilst that may be true that he was not shouting from the terraces...' Londo 06 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
you fail to see my point. the tony snow quotes concern tony snow. the quote you want to reintroduce is conernced with racisn in football. gaillard is not the story, racism is. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
how about you provide a valid rationale for its insertion? Dead-or-Red ( talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking to get this article back on track. I have answered all the questions put forth by a user and the article can go forward from there. Londo 06 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
answered, maybe. in detail and good enough to revert to the last version, no. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
you have no reading comprehension skills. after saying "in detail and good enough" i added the word NO as you clearly have NOT addressed any of the issues to a satisfactory level. yet you continue to revert for NO good reason. please, try and articulate a valid justification for the current version. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
... per request at WP:RPP. Guys, please settle the content dispute here on the talk page. When you have reached some agreement, just let me know and the page protection can be lifted. Also - to those who are logging out to edit, please don't do that - Alison ❤ 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Reading through your major concerns were the contextualisation of the furore that surrounded the 2004 Spain vs England match and Gaillard's dismissiveness of the subject. I am not calling Gaillard a racist but it was something that brought him into the public spotlight for a period of time, and as such as noteworthy. Hopefully this can be the starting point for movement forwards with the article."
the reason it was included in the article in the first place was to accuse him of being a racist after he upset a few scousers by highlighting their behaviour accross europe. many press agents have wikipedia pages, none detail every statement that they have ever made, and inclusion of such statements are not necessary. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
you havent justified its place on the page, and therefore it should go. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
it has in no way been justified. if you want to bring back a re-worded version please do so Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
but weve already concluded that theres no need for it to be there in the first place, get a grip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
where?????????????? why not add every single word that gaillard has ever said? because it is entirely pointless, thats why. god knows why youre insisting that this non-event remains. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested mediation to bring the situation to a head. Londo 06 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_Gaillard&oldid=135648993 Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thats it, imply the man is a racist, totally deny your actions and then deflect your behviour onto others. escalate the matter if need be. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
im not surprised given your proven lack of reading comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead-or-Red ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fully protected the page because of edit warring. Please discuss below this line. PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor requested a WP:3O as the first step in dispute resolution; however, it looks like you have also asked for informal mediation. I'll stand by and be available to help on request. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
fine with me. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Can each of you give me a short synopsis of the dispute, without rebuting the other's position, and give me a link to a recent version of the article which best represents your goal for the article. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, does
this diff show the content dispute we're concerned with?
JeremyMcCracken (
talk) (
contribs)
05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate Jeremy saving us some time. Thanks. However, for a Third opinion, I'd prefer to work here rather than fragment back to the Medcab page; to that end, I've copied some comments here and reformated with Jeremy's comments removed. Is this a reasonable starting place?
It would largely focused on that issue ( this diff), and I was happy for that edit. Another editor flipped the citation saying he has been involved in anti-racism work, which I have no problems with, it's just that BBC article chooses to focus on the furore of a Spain v England match in 2004, and the racism suffered by England's black players. I offered to add context, offered the other editor to add context, show the anti-racism work, but they simply wished to remove the section. Londo 06 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In relation to the press coverage it was widespread in the print media, television and radio coverage, covering both incidents and over a number of deays. Londo 06 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My main contention about the article was that it was first added as an attack page on its subject. If you look at the earliest versions this becomes clear. I still feel my first edit said more than enough for somebody who is a relatively minor character. Over time most of the hyperbole has calmed down. There are however two main things with the article that I feel need to be adressed. 1) the racism slur and 2) The Champions league final.
In summary, the current article does more than enough (perhaps even now, too much) to document Gaillard and racism. And that the article excessivley documents last years Champions League Final. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This 3O is being asked for as part of a Mediation Cabal case. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: I like Londo's addition of context explaining why Gaillard came to prominence as an activist against racism, but I don't understand the reason to include the "merely technical" phrase. Is the issue here that using the word "merely" in the context of racism generated some controversy? If so, why is that important or related to gaining "prominence" in anti-racism work? That section doesn't have a coatrack problem (prior versions did, it seems), but right now I'm not getting a feeling of positive or negative bias in that section.
The section that follows (tagged as under development) looks like it needs more cleaning up, to me. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting for a bit more feedback from the parties before offering an opinion. My concern is that there is a bit of coatracking and also recentism in the article. Also the quotation about "merely technical" is taken out of context. The entire discussion should be included or carefully summarized: "But Uefa spokesman William Gaillard, told BBC Radio Five Live that leaving the pitch would have set a precedent. "We would not condone such behaviour for the very simple reason it could lead to all sorts of abuse," he said. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons, because we would have hundreds of cases in which players could walk off the pitch and say 'I heard someone shouting something'."
The salient point is "not setting a precedent" not "merely technical reasons." Taking the latter out of context makes his statement seem bureaucratic rather than logical.
This article should have more information about the man and his career and how his successes and controversies have affected him. We should try to steer clear of editorial comments. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All hold a wealth of quotes and could be used as a reference to show that Mr Gaillard is indeed towing the UEFA line. Londo 06 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the article was fine to go forwards as it was, I have seen no viable argument beyond I didn't see it, and I don't see it that way from some people. Although well mediated it has become a bit of a farce, and an indulgement to the wims of some. Londo 06 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been more than willing to take part in the whole process so far, and would be happy to take part in any further discussion about the article. Dead-or-Red ( talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This diff shows the two disputed versions. Two other issues were raised with this paragraph:
1) The quote is taken from a larger context. Compare what is in the diff with what is in the source: "We would not condone such behaviour for the very simple reason it could lead to all sorts of abuse," he said. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons, because we would have hundreds of cases in which players could walk off the pitch and say 'I heard someone shouting something'. "I don't think this is the right attitude." [1]
2) The supplied source is a news article from 2004, about the event. Gaillard is not the subject of the article, and it does not make mention of his level of prominence.
JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Set it to the version as reported in the British newspapers and television. Can't speak for how it was reported on the continent, but this current version is consistent with reports from Britain at the time. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that further sources are required for both sides, as various editors have voiced opinions over the verifiability of both POV's. Let's use this as a jump-off point and improve the article. Londo 06 08:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You guys had the article protected and yet there wasn't a single comment on the talk page. That's not a good sign. Either the discussion was settled or people aren't actually working to discuss the issue and just want to revert each other to get the version they liked. I'm not that interested in the dispute but if there's just going to be wholesale reversions without any attempt to actually talk, there is nothing gained by removing protection. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's still quite twisted. It now sounds like he is leading a one man crusade to rid the world of soccer of racism. Think it still needs attention to bring it back to that verifiable middle ground. Alexsanderson 83 10:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)