Talk:Racism in association football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lack of balance[edit]

At the moment this article infers that racism is only prevalent in Italy & Spain. As racism pervades most if not all societies it similarly appears in football all over the world, and over time. For instance, in England as far back as the 1930s, Dixie Dean received abuse from the crowd for his dark complexion; also many black players received racial abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. In the modern day (Eric Cantona & Patrick Vieira famously received racial abuse for being French while playing in England, from a Crystal Palace fan and Neil Ruddock respectively. There is also the infamous Ron Atkinson/Marcel Desailly incident. And that just covers football in England - I can imagine there are many more incidents I am not aware of from around the world and through time. There are also the related (but not mentioned) issues of hooliganism and sectarianism.

This is a half-decent history of racism in English football. I'm sure there are books out there which would give wider scope. Qwghlm 13:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


__________________________________________________________-

Edit (sorry I can't figure out how to post). I'm a casual reader who happened upon this page. The entire page is a copy and paste from the website you just linked, http://www.le.ac.uk/snccfr/resources/factsheets/fs6.html

It is not even linked to or credited in any way. Something should be done about this.

Will try to work on editing, although in fairness it is referenced. GiantSnowman 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the balance[edit]

Racism is rife in Spanish and Italian football with monkey chants being the norm at football games. The big difference between racist incidents in Spain, Italy and England is that in England they are challenged, in Spain and Italy they are ignored or the player who is racially abused is acused himself of causing the problem. When Spanish fans made monkey chants at England players during a recent international friendly the Spanish press accused the black players and the English press of making too much of it. When the Spanish coach made a racist comment about Henry again the blame was directed at the English media and Henry. Fact is Spain is living in denial concerning racism.

The topic should also cover racism in Turkish football which is rife. Take for example the England player Campbell who was racially abused by the chairman of Trabzonspor. The media jumped to the defense of the Trabzon manager accusing Campbell of making too much of it. The next major even was the racist abuse from Galatasaray players towards a Brazilian player who was playing for Roma, again the Turkish press went into denial until the said player spoke out and said "I know exactly what was said as I have played in Turkey" More recently there is Emre of Newcastle who is now under investigation for 3 counts of making racist comments against 4 different players! Even todays (17/02/07) Hurriyet newspaper defends Emre having a front page picture of him thanking everyone for sending him faxes, e-mails etc... in support of him.

Excuse me sir, the article is biased, In Great Britain people think thar monkey chants are the norm in Spain because since the match Spain vs England in 2004 the British Media has created that false image. There was only 2 monkey chants in the last 20 years, (England vs Spain, and Zaragoza vs Barcelona), 2 times in 20 years is the norm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.52.39 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DaMarcus Beasley[edit]

"Following racist abuse from FK Zeta fans, DaMarcus Beasley previous instances of racism from Red Star Belgrade.[30] However, Red Star has been defended by black players Segundo Castillo and Franklin Salas, with Castillo saying that "Red Star fans are not racist". [31]"

This looks like it has been mangled during an edit, I can't work out what it is trying to say, so can someone that does please edit it? Pennywisepeter (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll edit it to actually make some sense! GiantSnowman (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion on Tymek edits[edit]

What does hammer and sickle has to do with racism in football [1]? This user might have some grievances with left movements, but sadly this has nothing to with a topic of this article, which is racism in fooball M0RD00R (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am hoping that somebody not involved will present their opinion, since user Mordoor keeps on removing referenced information which does not agree with his POV. Tymek (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If the information is properly referenced then it should remain in the article. GiantSnowman 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple question Hammer and sickle is connected to Racism in football how? M0RD00R (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And isn't the source ("Gazeta Polska" that is) a far-right weakly? Because this source says it is [2]? and, I'll cite "should not be considered mainstream". [3] Interesting case of WP:FRINGE I'd say. M0RD00R (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please move speculations about Gazeta Polska to the talk page there Gazeta Polska. And sorry to disappoint you, look here:[4]. Tymek (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not speculations it's sources. How about answering how Hammer and sickle relates to Racism in football. M0RD00R (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hammer & Sickle is an important symbol of the left; the left is at the head of anti-racist activities. GiantSnowman 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourced information I have provided gives a more complete picture of the list of banned symbols. The list itself is notable, also its contents. Readers have the right to know who prepared it, what it covers and what it does not cover. This document, because of its pro-Communist bias, has been criticized by the minister of sports in the Polish government and Polish Football Federation has promised to make changes in it. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about deleting information that does not agree with your POV. Tymek (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll have to source it far better than that before including it. It's certainly nothing to do with racism, so you'd have to show that this was a widespread commentary on the lis before including otherwise off-topic remarks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, readers when clicking on Racism in association football expect to read about racism in football, and not poorly referenced WP:OR and WP:SYN about mystical pro-Communist bias. Of course there might be some readers interested in this topic also, so why don't you write Pro-Communist bias in association football for them, instead of inserting off-topic content here. M0RD00R (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not introduce the debate at WP:FOOTBALL for a wider perspective? GiantSnowman 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. M0RD00R (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with M0RD00R. The decision not to include leftist symbols doesn't pertain to racism in football, so it should be removed. WP:V isn't our only policy. Also, since I don't speak Polish, could someone point out where the infopatria article characterizes Nigdy Więcej as an "extreme left-wing organization?" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question should be not "where infopatria says this or that", but "what is infopatria". Banners linking to Endecja websites, news taken from nationalist portals such as www.nacjonalista.pl suggest it's just another nationalist portal. M0RD00R (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User Mordoor has an interesting way of dealing with sources. Whenever he sees one that does not agree with his bias, he calls this source nationalist or extreme right wing. Anyway, move the discussion to WP:FOOTBALL, if other editors disagree with information provided by me, then the article should be changed. And I have a proposal. Let us keep this part like this:

According to The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism football stadiums in Poland are recruiting ground for extremist organizations (such as antisemitic National Rebirth of Poland)[28][29]. Neo-fascist symbols a few years ago were a common sight there[30][31]. Polish Football Federation, together with extreme left-wing organization Nigdy Wiecej prepared a List of 25 symbols, banned on Polish stadiums during games [32], and this list was criticized by minister of sports in the Polish government, Tomasz Lipiec.

I will create an article on the list when I have a little more time. Still, the phrase football stadiums in Poland are recruiting ground for extremist organizations is totally stupid, extreme organisations of any kind can recruit their members also on sidewalks, in shops or synagogues. Tymek (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw this dispute, so just a quick comment from an outsider: The article is about racism in football, so this should state if the stadiums are recruiting grounds for racist organisations, not any extremists. Somebody can be an extremist without being racist at all; I'd probably replace 'extremist' with 'racist and/or antisemitic' (if that is true). That the recruiting happens in the stadium is relevant because this is about racism in football. The sentence about the list seems o.k. in your proposal, except that you should probably strike the "extreme" from Nidgy Wiecej if it's not an undisputed fact. Mentioning the facts about the list and the controversy is ok, but I think it should go into specific details. Averell (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tymek it would be way more productive if instead of yet another personal attack you would presented evedince of reliability of infopatria.pl M0RD00R (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And not M0RD00R calls your sources like "Gazeta Polska" article [5] extremist or far right, but sources. Gazeta Polska is called "extreme nationalist" here [6] , "far right weekly that should not be considered mainstream" here [7], it is known for publishing of anti-Semitic materials [8]. M0RD00R (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, strangely enough, other sources do not call Gazeta Polska far right, but conservative. Anyway, keep your POV-ish opinions about newspapers to yourself and concentrate on the article you are trying to censor. Tymek (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat it is not mine opinion, but opinion cited in sources. WP:RS is still valid policy. WP:NPA, WP:CIV, as far as I know, are not cancelled as well.M0RD00R (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

3O is meant for one on one disputes, which this doesn't appear to be, so you may need the Mediation Cabal to settle it. However, in my opinion, the information to be included looks on-topic to the section it's going into, as well as being sourced. I'd say keep it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Infopatria.pl[edit]

Since evidence of reliability of infopatria.pl as a source has not been provided, and almost a month passed since the request has been made, this source is a subject of deletion, and information based on this source is a subject of removal. M0RD00R (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need? Infopatria is a Christian, conservative internet news service, same news service as onet.pl or interia.pl or gazeta.pl. There is no reason to delete the information, please do not use IDONTLIKEIT again. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please reference Your statements because unrefrenced they are of little worth. And please stop empty accusations of IDONTLIKEIT because I clearly stated what I don't like, lack of evedince of reliability of this source per WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY policies. It is up to you to present referenced evidence of the reliability of this source. To say this website this or that, it's just not enough, you MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE, that this website is reliable source. I'm looking for REFERENCED information who runs this website, positive reviews in academic publications about this website, evidence that it is used as a source in academic publications as source etc. So far banners on this site linking to websites of Endecja, movement with openly antisemitic past, or fact that is republishing material from nacjonalista.pl is strong indication that we have a piece of WP:FRINGE here. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, please delete the sentence Polish Football Federation, together with organization Nigdy Wiecej prepared a list of 25 symbols, banned on Polish stadiums during games [32], as this is based on that page. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Glad we're moving somewhere. Now how about my concerns raised about another source? M0RD00R (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not understand. Minister Tomasz Lipiec was interviewed by Gazeta Polska and he himself criticized lack of communist symbols. Your speculations go a little too far and this source will not be removed. Tymek (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I can totally get where you're both coming from, but simply being stubborn and refusing to take into consideration another editor's opinions will get us nowhere. Let's try and come to a compromise, if we can! GiantSnowman 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, thanks for expressing your opinion.. I agreed to delete the infopatria source, but Gazeta Polska is way too much and it will not happen unless we go elsewhere with Mordoor's claims. Tymek (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough time has passed to cool down. Really do we have to argue that extremist text can't be used as a reference here in Wikipedia?. M0RD00R (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What extremist text do you mean? As for Gazeta Polska, I am afraid you are not the one to determine what this weekly is, if you have doubts I invite you to the WP:RS. Let somebody uninvolved decide. Tymek (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Do I really need to? Gazeta Polska written by extremist author isn't reliable per common sense, I think. This pointless discussion wasted enough time already, but if you'll insist I'll bring it to WP:RS/N to put end to it, at least in this article once and for all. M0RD00R (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Article scope[edit]

This article has completely lost focus of what it should be doing and is quickly becoming "List of racist incidents at football matches by country". The current information should be used to form a coherent view of racism in football, which happens both internationally and at club level. The fact that no mention of South African apartheid is made is a glaring omission. There is not a single description of the roots of racism in football. How racism differs on a continental basis should be addressed. There is no coverage of the turning point: when racism became unacceptable in football. There isn't a section which clarifies the governing bodies or campaigns which aim to reduce/eradicate racism in the sport. The Stand Up Speak Up campaign was widespread in Europe and should receive more coverage in the article. If no one else does I'll try to completely rewrite the article at some point in the near future and move and reduce the existing information into a "list of" type article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I started the article with similar intentions to the ones you have just expressed - so fully chronicle the impact racism had (and still has) on football. However, with such a tricky topic, we need to carefully reference anything. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nacho Novo Scottish racism?[edit]

Nach Novo is actually Spanish and would have had to have changed his passport to play for scotland even so the reason they didn't consider him was because of a gentlemans agreement between the home nations not play players without a relative from hat country how can this possibly be considered racism?Scotland the brave1297 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotland1297 (talkcontribs) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes up again. Novo is now a scottish citezen as he has resided here for over 7 years. He is elligible to play for scotland. But the sfa said he cannot because he does not have a scottish bloodline. Although he is a scottish citezen. That is racism is it not(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
Agreed; in simple terms, it's someone being denied to represent a country they are eligible to purely because of heritage - discrimination pure & simple. English equivalents are Manuel Almunia and Carlo Cudicini. GiantSnowman 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
So it can go in the article thank you(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
Yes, I would say so, as long as it is properly referenced :) GiantSnowman 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no reference that says it's racist. Please provide a credible reference that says its racist and it can go in. Indeed the current policy is not based on blood line. You can be five years at school in the country and then play for the national side. Cfc.csc (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If the current policy isn't based on bloodline, then why is bloodline being used to keep Novo out of the national team...? GiantSnowman 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention that the treatment of Manuel Almunia was racist in the England section too. So there is a clear inconsistency if you want Novo in the Scotland section but don't want (or can't justify why) Almunia in the England section. Cfc.csc (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because Almunia isn't yet eligible for the national team...? GiantSnowman 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know "Spanish" was a race. I thought it was a nationality. In fact, this whole article seems to be confusing nationalism with racism. Racism, by its definition, is discrimination based on your race, of which, according the US census bureau, there are just five: causasian (white), negroid (black), mongoloid (east asian), native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. A lot of the entries in the article mention players being abused because of their national origin, not the color of their skin. Here's a link from the US Census Bureau: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68184.htm --JonBroxton (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article's opener states, "Racism is not simply targeted at players because of their skin colour; players, officials and fans are also the victims of abuse because of their nationality, religion or ethnicity." GiantSnowman 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JonBroxton. It appears that the SFA is taking a nationalist view (i.e., that only "Scottish" athletes may represent the national football team), not a racist one. The policy is certainly subject to criticism, but let's make sure it's reflected properly. Jogurney (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole concept of national football teams is, by definition, nationalistic. I am not comfortable with a panel of sporting bureaucrats imposing a definition of nationality that differs from that of the legal authorities, but an accusation of racism seems disproportionate. As regards comments further up the discussion, there is of course no such thing as Scottish citizenship, and if Novo were to acquire a UK passport, he would become eligible for all four of the home nations' teams. Kevin McE (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The SFA selected a Somali refugee last night for the national under-17 side (Islam Feruz), this followed a recent rule change that allows players without a bloodline to be selected if they have spent five years at school in the country. The bloodline rules (and now this school rule) is in place precisely because there is no Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish citizenship. If you allowed anyone with a UK passport to play for any of the Home Nations you would have a shambolic situation. The smaller three home nations would scramble to pick the better English players who aren't being selected by England (Gary Cahill, for example); equally, England would try to induce the better players from the smaller home nations to play for them. It isn't racism at all, and frankly anyone who accuses this doesn't know what they're talking about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Further research has revealed there is a gentlemen's agreement between the Home Nations never to use naturalised foreigners - so Cudicini/Almunia will also never play internationally in the UK - so it's a moot point. It seems the Scotsman souce that was being used to support accusations of racism by mentioning "bloodline" and all that was simply exaggerating. GiantSnowman 10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
But in effect Novo is a Scot now, and he is not being allowed to play for the national team because he does not have 'scottish bloodline' i.e. scottish blood. If you are talking about races of people and novo being part of the same race, then why did a panel of judges state that a song sung by the rangers support in the past was called 'racist' because it asked decendents of the irish race to 'go home'. If that is racist then not allowing someone who has a scottish citizenship to play for scotland is racist aswell. Nationalist????(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
Nobody has Scottish citizenship, not Alex Salmond, not Gordon Brown and certainly not Nacho Novo. As I said above, any organisation has to have rules, and the British rules wrt international football selection are clear and reasoned. As I said above, if anyone with a British passport was eligible for any of the British Home Nations, then you would have wholly English players by blood playing for the other three countries, and England would quickly become a defacto United Kingdom national football team. The other three would cease to exist in a practical sense; hence why the rules are there in the first place. It's sheer practicality - unless you have separate Scottish, Welsh, English and Northern Irish citizenship, you cannot base selection for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland on citizenship. Got it??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether the Famine Song is racist or not is completely irrelevant. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It gives you a basis on what to judge racism on these days. Does nacho novo have the right to live here as a british citezen??(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
The Famine Song and Novo's citizenship are irrelevant because there is no such thing as Scottish citizenship (not yet, anyway). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they are not going to select him only down to the fact of his heritage is racist, plain and simple. It cannot get any clearer than that. For the SFA to say that he does not have scottish blood makes that statement the right to be in this article on the basis of that alone.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
You got a reference that says this is racist? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent):No, that is a statement of fact. In what way is a statement of fact racist? If they are being racist, why are they selecting Islam Feruz??? You are taking a statement of fact and applying your original research to that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Monkeyman - it's nothing to do with bloodline, there is an agreement between the Home Nations never to use a naturalised foreigner! GiantSnowman 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that a recent development? John Barnes was naturalised, and had no traceable "English Blood". Players born overseas had long been allowed to choose any of the 4 home nations: Maik Taylor, Steve Lomas, Matt Le Tissier etc. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2008 GiantSnowman 21:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Taylor, Lomas and Barnes were born overseas (Germany, Germany and Jamaica), but they had parents who were British citizens (Barnes' father worked in the civil service when Jamaica was part of the Empire). This meant that each of them were automatically entitled to British citizenship, but as they had no specific birthplace within any of the four nations but were clearly British citizens, they were entitled to play for any of the four. Le Tissier and Graeme Le Saux had similar status because they were born in the Channel Islands, which entitled them to British citizenship, but they weren't allocated automatically to any one of the four Home Nations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
So it is not by "bloodline" that they play for England, Scotland, Wales or N Ireland, which is precisely the point I was making. If foreign born players with a UK passport can play for any of the four home nations, then on what grounds is a foreign born player with a UK passport not eligible to play for any of the 4 home nations? Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I just think its a bit of a contradiction on the sfa's part when there is this 'rule' with the home nations and the sfa suddenly spring this new 'scenario', to get players like andrew driver in to play when he is no more scottish than novo.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
You mean Andrew Driver, who has played for the England under-21s...? GiantSnowman 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeh that boy, he is supposedly eligible cos of this 5 years at school thing(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
Being technically eligible - as Driver, Novo, Cudicini, & Almunia all are - and actually playing are two very different things. GiantSnowman 08:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well the sfa will call him up, believe me they will.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC))
WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 13:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think its fair enough to leave this out of the artice at the moment but if Andrew driver gets picked then it could be reopened, agree?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC))
No, because there is no reliable source stating that the SFA is being racist. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We will see(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC))
What will we see? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Accused Racism[edit]

Should events that have been accused of racism by one set of supporters be in this article or should it only be left to racism that it undeniable. For example racism of celtic player nakamura by saying he 'ate my dog', or by a celtic supporters group who 'accused' rangers fans of racist remarks i.e. gypsy. That was a celtic supporters group who made that statement / accusation on their own website.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Again, WP:RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Having a ref that says 'The song, branded racist by Celtic fans' does that mean it is racist if they say it is?Or is this not an accusation by celtic fans?(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
The source confirms that Rangers fans sang this - are you arguing that "Nakamura ate my dog" is not racist? The source says it was branded racist by Celtic fans. Do you have a source which contends that it isn't??
Using this semantic argument to group several referenced incidents of Rangers fans' racism into one sentence, mitigated by the words "Celtic fans' accusations" is pathetic, even compared to your usual transparent agenda. --hippo43 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The other refs there are about a celtic supporters group who 'accused' rangers fans of racism, there is no proof that was the case, they said it happened and made a complaint and the complaint was reported in the 3rd party website.This racism is accused was there any proof that fans called someone a gypsy? Or just the word of a CELTIC fan.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
The Nakamura ref says "A section of the Rangers support has used the Nakamura dog song to taunt the star Japanese midfielder." It states this as a fact, not an accusation. Again, are you arguing that it's not racist?
The Agathe/Moravcik/Petrov source says "Black French player Didier Agathe was subjected to racist remarks during the 1-1 draw and Celtic's east European players Lubo Moravcik and Stillian Petrov had chants of �Gypsy� hurled at them." It states these as facts - unlike some parts of the article, they are not quotes from the Celtic supporters group.
Your implication that a statement is inherently questionable if it is the "word of a CELTIC fan" says so much about you. --hippo43 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clear to me that those remarks have been simply restated from the celtic supporters club website. I said, word of a CELTIC fan, not to say anything about trust, but to say something about the fact that it was an accusation from opposition fans, how is that third party. But you will not move on that will you(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
Oh well, as long as it's clear to you... If that sentence has been lifted from the supporters' website, can you link to it?
If opposition fans are so inherently dishonest, why should anyone pay any attention to a word you say on these subjects? --hippo43 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you not agree that there is a certain element of trying to 'get one over' the other team in the old firm environment, and this could be an example of that?(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
It is also quite convenient that it does not say what supporters group.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
Of course some people are obsessed with trying to get one over their rivals. It's obvious to me that this is behind most of your edits here, and explains why you see others ("the word of a CELTIC fan") in the same light.
As for the specific supporters group website, try reading the source. --hippo43 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I realy cant be bothered with this ongoing debate of what side of the fence we both shout from. I could say the same about some of your posts. I am going to alter some words on the article, please read what i have edited before just undoing it.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
The thing is, with most editors, it's not about their own preferences, and you shouldn't make ill-informed assumptions about which teams they support. In your case, there is a transparent pattern of editing to score points in Rangers and Celtic-related articles, to the point that your contributions can't be taken seriously. You might dislike some of my points (perhaps because they don't sit well with your desire to push a particular POV under the guise of seeking 'balance') but there is no such one-eyed consistency to my edits. --hippo43 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In your view(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Clean-up?[edit]

This article is becoming a list of some random and not always notable accidents. In my opinion it should be rewritten and should focus on general tendencies rather than on separate incidents.M0RD00R (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sourced information 12.8.10[edit]

If editors are serious about improving the article (rather than edit warring/point scoring/being an apologist) it is incumbent on them to look through the material they have deleted and actually state objections, if any. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your pov edits across Wikipedia show that this is not a good faith edit to improve the article.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss content rather than indulge in baseless personal attacks. If you - or anyone else - is unable to raise any credible objections to the content then it will be restored. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Your pov inclusion of cherry picked sources is not a good faith edit to improve this article.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you appear unwilling to discuss content on this occasion, when you have done so in limited form at other pages. Having criticised other editors for being quick to run and complain, I look upon dispute resolution as a last resort.
So, I ask you again, please will you look at the content objectively and allow us to move forward on that basis? 90.200.240.178 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Your editing history across Wikipedia from the numerous IP addresses, have shown a pattern of editing. This pattern consists of adding negative, controversial and dubious material onto peoples BLP’s. 90% of which has been rejected by numerous experienced editors, not including myself. You are now trying to include similar material here, which you obviously have a POV about and COI, therefore it is not a good faith edit to improve the article.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Regional Bias of Article[edit]

I've added the overcoverage template in this article to reflect the disproportionate coverage of Europe to the detriment other areas of the world, where similar events occur. Let's work to improve. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "abuse"[edit]

I recognize that "abuse" is the most frequent verb used to describe the actions described in this article, but is there any way we might make it more clear to, say, American readers for whom the word conjures up entirely different associations? Kansan (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What term do you suggest? Be bold and change it! GiantSnowman 11:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Race vs. religion[edit]

The Chelsea visit to Malaysia cites Benayoun's booing as racism because the NEWS MEDIA labeled it as such. WP is not here to parrot the words of the media, as an uncyclopaedia, race is different from religion(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)).

It is not for us to decide that; if a reliable source describes it as "racially abused [...] racist booing", therefore it is valid. Anti-semitism is racism. GiantSnowman 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats why we have article for it. Sources are from the medi anot an encyclopaedia, such we have media sensationalism/yellow press. Just because a source says it doesnt bmake it truth or fact. At any rate that has to go with the caveat then that X said so.(Lihaas (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)).
A source desribes an event relating to football as racism - twice. How is that not valid for inclusion? GiantSnowman 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have asked for more input from WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
because it is quite clearly NOT racism just because a source says it is. See the above intra-wikilinks. Race is a different thing from religion and the crowd was targetting his religion nto whether hes an askenazi/mizrahi/sephardic (which is more akin to race...do note there are multitude of races in the Jewish world as well as in israel (even WITHIN the Jewish-community...there is plenty of documentary evidence of zionism within different and vaied sections of Judaism)) Likewise, all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc are not the same race. For discussion on the issue of race/religion as opposed media terms and here
But lets wait on the others. Will they come here or we have to go there?(Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)).
It was Racial antisemitism, as a source confirms. You are basing your opposition on nothing. GiantSnowman 09:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why the sentence in the article about Benayoun in Malaysia attributed the booing to anti-semitism. Whatever the quality of the source, and I'm far from convinced that a tiny piece without a byline on the Mail Online counts as a reliable source for anything, it was the only source cited and it didn't mention religion at all. We'd be wise not to start equating anti-Israeli with anti-semite.
I do agree with Lihaas that where incidents aren't widely reported, it'd be sensible to attribute any interpretation to the source making that interpretation: along the lines of
In Chelsea's 1-0 win against the Malaysian national soccer team, Yossi Benayoun, an Israeli footballer, was booed by Malaysian fans during the match. According to the Mail Online, this was because "Malaysia is a staunch supporter of the Palestinians, and Benayoun is the first player from Israel to play in the Asian country in recent memory."
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good compromise to me. Lihaas? GiantSnowman 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

There are a lot of irrelevant links on the apge above sections where the link has nothing to do with the racism topic on hnad. If ned be they can be merged int the sections.

There are also many dubious assertions of racism (per above). Thhis is more a "list of incidents page" then anarticle on racism in football as it just mentions a few incidents in such countries. There was also unsourced info here for over/almost a year (tags cant wait forever) which i removed. Since its apparently controverisal iv duly mentioned in the summary the reasons.(Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)).

Not sold[edit]

This article says nothing of Asia. I demand extra spaghetti.140.198.45.66 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Utter crap, deliberately factually incorrect[edit]

I've only read the entry on the Netherlands, but that was enough. This is pure propaganda and has nothing to do with facts.

For instance, Edgar Davids wasn't dismissed from the Euros over allegations of racism. No such allegations were ever made except by the tabloid press, and subsequently denied by all involved. Here's just one source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/feb/27/holland-euro-96-racism-england , but I dare anybody to find a source that states the contrary.

The translation of "kleine rotneger" to "short fucking nigger"(WTF!) is not just wrong, it's deliberately false. In fact, it's pure slander, and would be cause for litigation if the accused ever read it...

The rest of the entry is of the same level. Tabloid level trash.

Why have you removed the entire section then? GiantSnowman 07:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, lack of neutrality and minimal content quality is appalling[edit]

There is more wrong with this segment of the article. It starts - without explaining historical or any other context - with the claim that "German fans are antisemitic towards the Netherlands national selection". This sentence turns the whole segment towards a biased stance and treats the neighbouring German citizens as a whole and as, seemingly self-evident, anti-semites.

I've taken this one (written in horrible casual style) sentence out, as it is not backed by any reference and provides no further explanation (i.e. about the historical nearness of Ajax Amsterdam to Dutch and German Jewish communities, nor does it relate to anything else in the segment) and because it disparages the rest of the segment. But as soon as I removed the rude opening sentence, I was promptly warned by an overzealous editor that I would need to provide an explanation for this edit (???), and instead of changing or at least reordering the text, it was merely reverted. And thereby an unsourced claim was placed into an otherwise minimally cleaned-up text (WK : POV). Horrible!

Sure, my IP is based in Germany, but - fun fact: I am, indeed, a German national of Jewish faith and nevertheless still expect Wikipedia to provide a minimum of neutrality, as well as standards when it comes to factual information.

I'm appalled at the level of lack of professionalism this article demonstrates. This issue is far too serious to be left to biased political radicalism. This segment is "utter crap", I agree. How does one mark an article for thorough review by administrators? --217.189.199.116 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess[edit]

Racism in association football exists and should be represented by a proper well thought out article however this page is just an archive of sentences about a mish-mash of various news stories. Not to mention a few of the stories are either not very noteworthy or sometimes not even related to racism. It almost seems as if someone just scoured google for anything to deal with racism and football than linked them to a sentence one-by-one without entirely reading the source. I'm not good, or brave, enough to edit an article as sensitive as this but it would be nice if someone could give the article a look over, or at the very least make it a bit more readable as currently it just seems to be a listing of events. Mishka Shaw (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lilian Thuram[edit]

He doesn't belong in the lead of the article, as it then gives undue weight, violting WP:RSUW. Why include him in the lead, just because he's a prominent black player? Do we include the views of Mario Balotelli and Ashley Cole in the lead of this article too?

I'm removing it because it just doesn't fit at the start of the page. Maybe under "France" sub-heading of this article, but why is he at the top otherwise? Why not just put Pele or Luis Suarez or Mario Balotelli there? Solntsa90 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

His quote was added as he is a very prominent footballer and one of the few to comment in detail on the topic; you should move him to a different section rather than blindly remove an entirely valid reference. GiantSnowman 11:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)