Talk:2017–18 Turkish Cup

Semi-finals second leg

First of all, the provided sources don't confirm the claim that "regulations dictated a win by default" anywhere. That's just POV. Two of them even are just personal opinions. Secondly the narrative is way too one-sided and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I will try to balance it by adding content that gives a clear picture about the whole incident. Akocsg (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: They have people giving explanations of the regulations in clear language rather than someone's personal opinions. The Hurriyet article has this quote for example:

"hakem ‘sahaya atılan yabancı maddelerden dolayı oyunun devam etmesine sağlıklı bir ortam bulamadım ve tatil ettim’ diye rapor yazarsa, Fenerbahçe hükmen mağlup olur"

The cited scan of the referee's report states exactly this as the reason. Anyways, I agree that the word 'suggested' is also appropriate here. However, including that the bench was arguing with the fans is not significant because it has absolutely no way of forcing a game to be cancelled. In addition, Zengin's assault was not, to my knowledge, a reason for the game being called off. It is significant however, but if this is to be included there are other incidents (such as the one I added) that need to be here. Finally, the fact that Erdogan is a fan is important because there is absolutely no other rational explanation for someone in such a position of power to make such comments. There is no basis for his comments either as the police investigation found no such evidence. The reader can have their own understanding of why the President would hastily make such a questionable comment, but this piece of information is notable.

About your claim that the arguing is not significant, the sources I've added state the contrary. It practically led to the following events in that match and was a major factor. Concerning Erdogan, there is no such fact. In his most recent speech concerning football and sport in general, he openly urged people to support Basaksehir (even though Fenerbahçe were in the championship race), showing that he at least has symphaties for the club. Every person can make comments about a football game, especially if that person was a football player of his own in the past and is a football fan. Probably no one knows why he explicitly used the word "conspiracy/plot", but similar remarks and views are provided plentily in the sources I have added. Akocsg (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing several sources at once just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't get you anywhere. Better stop doing this. If there is a source which you think doesn't qualify, then discuss it and change afterwards. But not all of them with the corresponding content. Akocsg (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: You have just removed cited content in your latest edit. Hypocrisy does not help. I reverted your prior edit for the reason I provided while you had "altered my edit" and removed cited material. Do not accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when I clearly stated the reasons for my revert. You are clearly biased, claiming players "provocated" the stands. Who are you to say so? This is not something you decide or belongs in an encyclopedia. The player involved has said that his late mother was insulted which is why he responded. Should we add that too then, huh? No. We leave that out because it adds nothing of substance to the article. You are clearly the one making changes because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In addition, I explained the reason for including the President is a fan. It seems you have removed this again due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as this is well known and was cited in the article. Yes, he may have urged people to go watch that club's games but that does not mean he is not a Fenerbahce fan.

This is such a simple thing that you are making a big issue out of due to your clear bias. Just stop it please, you are wasting our time. Someone before us added the head injury, you added the player attacking the guard, and then I added the assault on the assistant and the objects thrown during the game. These are all cited contributions from different people. How is this not acceptable for you? -Junk2711 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that you just don't want to understand. The action between the players and the stands is what started it all, and that's stated in the sources I provided. It's not my personal opinion, so your accusation is pointless. You simply deleted the part about the substitute players, even though it was stated in the source, so don't lie now. And again, Erdogan being allegedly a Fenerbahçe fan is not a "well known fact". Your source about that is just the claim of a single person, without any reference. Definitely not a reliable source. And him openly saying that Basaksehir should be supported for the championship race instead of Fenerbahçe shows that he can't be a great fan of them. Even if he is, it's of no relevance here.

The other points are still in the article, I didn't delete them. Akocsg (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Please just stop this, please, and change your tone first. I don't appreciate you talking to me like "so don't lie now". I did not "simply delete" anything - I reverted that edit for the completely valid (and explained) reason that you are making the unacceptable claim that the players provoked the events. We are not trying to say what started the events. If we are, your claim is still false because the first events (as cited) are the repeated foreign objects thrown from the stands throughout the game. You cannot say "the players provocated the fans" - that is simply not acceptable here. Go to a fan forum then, don't to that here. I can also provide other sources that he is a Fener fan, don't even try to claim that this is not Turkish public knowledge. It still isn't acceptable for you to remove this cited information after I explained its reason for inclusion the first time. -Junk2711 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong mith my tone. Stop stirring up things and twist them. Here, from your own source: (sozcu)
"Beşiktaş yedek kulübesindeki oyuncuların Fenerbahçe taraftarları ile tartışmaları tribünleri gerdi. Sonrasında gelişen olaylarda tribünlerden atılan yabancı bir cisim..."

The current wording in the article could be changed of course, but that's what is practically written here and the fact why the events took their course that way in the match. I think you know that too. And once again, even if Erdogan is really a Fenerbahce fan, it is of no relevance here. It has nothing to do with the event, you just added it because that way it implies that the TFF and him are in cahoots and that he is responsible for the following decisions. Akocsg (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I further improved that part, now it should be more neutral and give a clearer overview of the incident. Akocsg (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: That quote from "my own source" is someone's opinion. It says it is a quote from Selcuk Dereli. Whereas my other quotes are from experts describing the TFF regulations, this quote is someone describing the events from their own perspective. If it were Sozcu's own article it would need to aim for neutrality while Selcuk Dereli's opinion does not need to be neutral, meaning it is of no real significance here.

I already explained that the reason it is included that he is a fan to offer at least some remote form of possible explanation for why he would say something like that. Otherwise there is no context or reason, and it seems quite odd that it became a political issue. When it is included, the reader can take that into consideration but it in no means says he was "in cahoots" with the TFF.

Perhaps most importantly is that nobody reading this article really cares why the events started. It said the game was called off for events including the manager being hit in the head. This was written by someone else. It did not say anywhere "this was the start of events". The reason you are biased is that you come here and add that two players were arguing with the fans. In the big picture, who cares? Nobody. Look at the articles from the international press, they are all focused on a manager being struck and some mention his assistant being assaulted. Nobody cares about a petty argument on the side, and this article is not supposed to explain who started an argument. Junk2711 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't deicde who's an "expert" or not. The source was included here for a reason. And you don't decide what is of relevance here or not. Your explanation of why Erdogan's opinion, an alleged Fener fan, does not justify the inclusion in any way. Erdogan's opinion does not need to be neutral, meaning it is of no real significance here, to put it with your own words. The only one biased here seems to be you, wanting to show the events one-sided, giving undue weight and trying to defend that by claiming that people "might not really care why the events atrted", and citing the style of tabloid newspapers, implying that it should be impemented here. Well, just in case you didn't notice: this is Wiki, not some tabloid newspaper or press organ in general.

The note is about the events why the match was called off, and that's it. As provided by the sources. All your nonsensical accusations and presumptions don't play a role at all. Have a nice day. Akocsg (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: I decided to just leave this and then come back after a while to look at it differently. The edit I just made is quite neutral I think: I have not included the president being a fan, and I have said Gunes being struck is the culmination so it is understood that there were other events. By removing the other details (including those I had added) only the official reason the game was called off is mentioned and I think there is no argument for bias either way. Hopefully this works. Junk2711 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Junk2711: You jsut reverted it to the previous unbalaned POV state with undue weight. Your edit summaries and actions don't match. If you can't/don't want to put effort into making it neutral, balanced and free of POV, then please let it be. Akocsg (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: If you think revision 845550839 is "unbalanced POV" then you don't understand that at all. This is the most pointless dispute and it seems to be caused by you having some sort of motive for justifying the events. How does there being "an electrified atmosphere" aid the reader's understanding of the subject? The most important (and only official reason) for the game being called off is the manager being struck. Look at the international coverage of the event (excluding "tabloids" if you so wish) including The Guardian, ESPN, etc. - they all focus on the manager being struck, then some mention the assistant being assaulted but how many talk about players causing "an electrified atmosphere? What a joke. That objectively does not matter. This is an article on the whole tournament, not the specific incident. Explain to the reader the reason for the postponement and move on. Done. By adding those unnecessary details, you are going against WP:UNDUE. Please try to look at it from a different perspective. If not, let's take the first step for dispute resolution because I am certain any unbiased, experienced user will agree with this. Junk2711 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself. Doing that won't change the facts. There's nothing wrong at the moment with the note, on the contrary. It sums it up pretty well. For the 100th time, those details are not unnecessary. For some reason you seem to be upset with it. Which proves that your goal is not to present the incidents as they are, in a neutral POV. There's nothing to discuss further really. Akocsg (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Yes because I'm trying to get through to you. You are biased, you are giving the opinions of only the perpetrating side equal weight with the official reason for the game being called off. You are also claiming players arguing lead to an electrified atmosphere which is false as the stands had been throwing objects at corner kicks unprovoked throughout the game before that. I certainly don't appreciate you reverting my good faith edit and then posting on my user page warning me about edit warring after only 1 revert. I have posted the same on your user page to let you know. Unless you are willing to look at this part: "including substitute players of Beşiktaş repeatedly arguing with Fenerbahçe supporters which led to an electrified atmosphere", I would like to look at steps for dispute resolution. Junk2711 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You are biased and keep pushing POV, and on top of that you start manipulating now by twisting facts. Your repeated edits are not good faith edits anymore, sorry. And I'm not claiming all these facts, they are cited in the sources which are provided in the article. Again, stop lying and manipulating. Just face the facts and the truth. Get over with it. You didn't revert only once either. There's also nothing wrong with the cited part, it is exactly what happened in the match and what is given in the source. Akocsg (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Those citations are nowhere near reliable and I can add that here. The two claiming it is a provocation and conspiracy are pro-government and just repeating what was claimed by the president. More importantly, this claim that there was a planned provocation was disproved by the police investigation. I can simply cite this to show those sources mean nothing and are now incorrect. As for the Sozcu source with Selcuk Dereli personally claiming that the players arguing "electrified the fans", that is simply false (understandable, not every source is always correct) and can be disproven quite clearly by the fact that the fans had been throwing objects unprovoked and regularly before then. I honestly don't appreciate you telling me to "stop lying and manipulating" and I really mean that, I'm not just saying this. Please try to just look at this from a different perspective. Junk2711 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

They are reliable, especially Sözcü. They are "unreliable" all of a sudden since they don't fit your POV. Hiding your POV-pushing by using an unpopular and irrelevat politician's (Erdogan) opinion here won't help you hide your true intentions. In every derby objects are thrown more or less. The (offensive) discussions started by Besiktas substitue players is what baiscally started the escalation of the situation, which is backed by various reliable sources. I haveadded another one. And I#m saying it again, stop twisting facts by playing with sources. Now you try to disprove a perfectly fine by citing a personal opinion and claim (!) of some writer who claims the person in question (Selcuk Dereli, who is a former professional referee) to be a Fenerbahce supporter, and thus discredit the source. This way of yours won't work here. Akocsg (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate sources

The Yeni Asir and A Spor sources claiming a provocation are false and their claims have officially been debunked by the police. To make matters worse, since these pro-government publications are repeating President Erdoğan's claims, their disproval (meaning disproving the President) appears to have been censored. These claims are only made by Fenerbahce (the perpetrating side in the event causing the game to be called off) and now that they have been officially disproved, they do not belong here.

For the third and final citation used in the same sentence as the previous sources, the article features a quote claiming that the argument between the Besiktas bench and Fenerbahce fans "lead to an electrified atmosphere". The person quoted has been rumoured to be a Fenerbahce fan, although this is not a certain fact but rather a side note to add. This is also false as the fans had previously been throwing objects at Besiktas players during corner kicks, as reported by more neutral sources like The Guardian.

For these reasons I am placing a "citation needed" tag for this claim. Junk2711 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You distort facts again by citing sources which are not directly in line with your own misleading claim here. First of all, the main point starting the whole incident were the offensive discussion and quarreling style of Besiktas players towards the stands. Everything else came after that part. Various reliable sources back this, one of which I'v added to the part in question. Thus your "citation needed" tag is obsolete. And you trying to discredit Selcuk Dereli now, a former professional referee, and with a personal claim by that, is just ridiculous. Selcuk Dereli cited what other several sources also reported about the incidents, which is perfectly fine and reliable. Akocsg (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References