Talk:2011 Turkish football match-fixing scandal

Untitled

table of contenst need some fixes. now all waves are under the basketball point. -Koppapa (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rivaner, 24 August 2011

To whom it may concern, This article's Investigation of Football part's last paragraph states that UEFA banned Fenerbahce from the Champions Leauge but this not the case. There is still not an offical explanation from UEFA and every TV chanel in Turkey is stating that Turkish football federation banned Fenerbahce from the Champions Leauge. If you want more details you can visit Fenerbahce's offical(www.fenerbahce.org) web page or some web pages of the Turkish News channels which have english translations like; www.todayszaman.com Thanks in advance. Rivaner (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You were right. It's fixed. -Koppapa (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Major Copyedit

Just wanted to point out that I copyedited the previously rather ungainly investigation section. Hope this hasn't caused any problems, please discuss any issues. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalizm but the facts

Unfortunately, this article is written by Galatasaray holigans, and most of the information is speculation and majority of the refences are not trustworthy. To be subjective, please keep removing the following edits.

On 3 March 2012, another scandal broke involving Galatasaray SK in the match fixing case, when a letter written by Bülent Tulun (former sport director) to former Galatasaray President Adnan Polat was revealed. In this letter, Tulun was asking the whereabouts of missing 1 million dollars to Polat, as follows: "Dear president, you were talking about me granting 75,000 dollars for myself from Ilic (former GS player)'s contract. Everything was done for the favor of GS. I hope 1,5 million your driver took from the club was also used in the favor of the club. I do have the receipt of the following transaction.". Immediately after this, prosecutors started an investigation on former president Adnan Polat, Mustafa Kabasakal (driver) and former sports director Bülent Tulun.. Although the club reported this transaction as a payment for former player Song, they were not able to prove it. The allegations against Galatasaray, however, are based on the 2005-06 football season. A relegation-battling Denizlispor surprisingly held then-leader Fenerbahçe to a 1-1 draw, allowing Galatasaray to win the title.

Fenerbahçe fans reacted to the TFF's decision on banning their team from Champions League and sending Trabzonspor (who already played a CL qualification game) to directly to CL at a friendly match between Fenerbahçe and Shaktar Donetsk in Istanbul, The fans eventually invaded the pitch, throwing flares at security staff and protesting that Fenerbahçe should participate in CL. The match was abandoned by the referee. Fenerbahçe were ordered to play two matches behind closed doors following the violence. Following this decision, Fenerbahçe played their 1st Turkish League game without any fans, however the 2nd game at home was allowed to children under 15 and their female guardians. A record was broken when 40,000 (only) women and children filled the stadium for the first time chanting for their beloved Fenerbahçe and protesting the injustice of TFF's decision on banning their team from Champions League. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguvendiren (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the article could use some work. TOugh to check references when you don't speak turkish. THe whole "on xx march..." doens't read good.-Koppapa (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Overly Detailed

I've just tagged this article as overly detailed. It is, frankly, extreme. The first prose section is approximately 3 times to long. We should never have a day by day accounting of an ongoing event/investigation. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The "effected matches" section is probably also unnecessary, though on that matter I could be persuaded otherwise.

Holy heck, I just scrolled down. I've just removed the entire "arrests" section. This is an absolute WP:BLP violation. WP:BLPCRIME explicitly says that for people that aren't particularly famous, we shouldn't mention their names at all. WOrse, the 80% of the section was unsourced. We may never under any circumstances include negative claims about living people without impeccable sources. Only sourced information could be re-added, and that could only be re-added per WP:BLPCRIME--that means, at a bare minimum, that only people with WP articles could appear...and even then, it would be questionable. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just had to strip out almost all of the info about individual people. There must be an inline source for each individual negative claim. WP:BLP trumps every other concern in the case of negative accusations against living people. I understand that this will be hard work to fix, but we must always err on the side of protecting living people. Anyone who can source the big table I just cut should go into the history to recover the parts they can source and re-add only those parts with inline refs. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit biased?

Unfortunately, in Turkey football is taken seriously more than it should and every fan is looking for a way to make their team "better-looking" than the other teams. Although this investigation started with 8 teams, in this article it seems that the whole scandal is about Fenerbahce and Besiktas. For example, in the first paragraph it is implied that Emenike was caught up in the scandal but he was cleared off all charges hence his return to Fenerbahce. I don't know why it was not corrected by the people who put it there in the first place.

Secondly, when I wrote this part at 18th of November; this scandal was in the hands of the high courts in Turkey and they haven't had given any final verdict about this investigation but if you read this arictle, there is no room to belive that Fenerbahce is not guilty. What happened to natural point of view?

Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please look ay my last edit with updated news about this investigation, I have shared 5 names from a news article but if you read the article from top to bottom, It is the first time that their names are stated even though those 5 people were also a part of the investigation. This is my proof of this article being biased. Again, thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tried my best to clear the article a bit and gave reason for my every edit, hope it will help to wikipedia's policiy of natıral point of view.Rivaner (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced material.LardoBalsamico (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

From your answer, it is obvious you're hiding behind this wikipedia rule but what about the neutral point of view rule? I wrote a really long answer about my edits, you didn't respond to these you just stated a rule. I already wrote about this to the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard) and still waiting for a response, hopefully someone will clarify this situation for both of us, in the meanwhile, I will coopoerate with you and won't be reverting your edits. Hope they will come to a conclusion soon.Rivaner (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

@LardoBalsamico: Instead of edit warring (Wikipedia:Edit warring)) we should reach a consensus on this, can you please tell me how a top selling newspaper is an unverifable source?Rivaner (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) @LardoBalsamico: Your most recent edit is not news, In the article the information that you've given is already written at least 2 times and also to prove that this is "old news" you can check this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_Süper_Lig In the edit you made on 00:27 19 May 2014, you reverted another user's edit with the reason of: "We have to know the reason!". So you knew that Fenerbahce was not going to play in Europe after this season on 19 May! That's the reason I deleted your edit. If you disagree with this reasoning, please discuss so that we can reach a consensus on this subject as well.Rivaner (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) @LardoBalsamico: Even though you don't join the discussion on the talk page, as a reason for your revert on my last edit you wrote "reverted vandalism". This is the vandalism page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism and as you can see it is not what I am doing. Can you please explain me how is my reverts are always vandalism but when you do it it, it is to remove "misleading info?"Rivaner (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

More recent edits

I don't understand, the last edit thas been made by LardoBalsamico was putting some references tor the article. But if you read the references, they are claims and unproven. This same situation is everywhere om the article, for example a whole section of Basketball investigation is all claims and unproven. @Ca2james:, what do you think of this? As I put a edit like this, it is removed by LardoBalsamico because it is "misleading info" but if I revert his edits now it will be vandalism :).Rivaner (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC) LardoBalsamico shared a picture of the phone recordings with the said people on this article. All the people involved are cleared of all charges and he's putting a picture of phone-recordings in the article, there's nothing there that proves the match-fixing hence the involved people are cleared of all charges. This is a clear violation of WP:LIVE.Rivaner (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Affected football matches section

@LardoBalsamico: This article is a little over-detailed and I'd like to try to pare it down a bit with your and @Rivaner:'s help, starting with this section. I'm confused about the purpose of this section and the information in it and so I'd like your help. My first thought is that including a detailed list of all matches examined is too much for the article per WP:NOTNEWS.

I don't speak Turkish and so I have to rely on Google translate which we all know is imperfect. It seems that the references for the "suspicious persons" in this section note that these people have been arrested but there's nothing saying that they've been convicted. Is that right? Per WP:BLPCRIME, we need to give serious consideration to not including all of those names, and this is where I think the section could first be trimmed. If we do decide to include that information, per WP:BLP we need to use language other than "suspicious persons" because that language is not neutral.

Also, what does "rigorous evidence found" mean? Does it mean that evidence of scandal was found for those matches but not for the others? If so, what do you think about rewriting the section to include only those matches?

Thanks for your help. --Ca2james (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ca2james:: Thanks for your help, I will try to explain the references to you. As you know my case is already on the NPOV board and I am following this article really close. Let's start:

1) The reference of "17 March 2011 Trabzonspor - Bursaspor  1:0 - Rigorous evidence found" which is this one, says this from the Turkish football federation's ethical court and this game is not even in the final court verdict. So it is just claims.

2) The reference of "13 March 2011 Fenerbahçe - Konyaspor 2:0 Match-fixing with Konyaspor" which is this one, even the title of the reference is Match-fixing claim for the Konya-Fener game. Like the one before it is just claims.

3) The references of "22 February 2011 Manisaspor - Trabzonspor 1:2 Incentive bonus to Manisaspor from Fenerbahçe S.K."", "26 February 2011 Fenerbahçe S.K. - Kasımpaşa S.K. 2:0", "6 March 2011 Beşiktaş J.K. - Trabzonspor 1:2", "16 April 2011 Fenerbahçe S.K. - Gaziantepspor 1:0" are all the same which is this one. This reference is all about police investigation and police's claims, lots of them remain unproven and, again, none of the games are the reason that both Fenerbahce and Aziz Yıldırım is punished by the courts.

As you can see I can go on about all the references but I think it is for the best if we go step by step. This was just to prove how biased this article is, in this reference you can see the games that Fenerbahce and Aziz Yıldırım is punished for. It will help you a lot. Thanks for your help and also thanks, again, for taking the time to read my reply.Rivaner (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)