Talk:Anders Frisk

Retaliation

Sending death threats to someone because you don't like the way they referee is beyond ghastly. To describe the sending of such threats as "retaliation" because you're a Chelsea fan and don't think he was helpful enough to your side is utterly stupid; it's not merely nonsense, but it's also a violation of our neutrality policy, unencyclopaedic in tone, and subtly suggests that death threats were an appropriate response. What's your justification for wanting to change the existing, neutral, tone of the article to full-on "ohh, it was retaliation" mode? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think for you, there is no room for discussion, that's why you keep changing it to your own version. I think I have used the most appropriate wording possible. I use 'alleged' instead of 'accused', and whether you like it or not, I maintain that 'reteliation' is the right word to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.201.209 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 February 2006.

Why is "retaliation" the right word to use? My dictionary (okay, the one dictionary I bothered to look up; I can check about a dozen if you'd like) describes "retaliation" as "payment in kind", or, "to get revenge". This is utterly incorrect, since there was nothing wrong with how Frisk refereed the match, and even if there was, a poor refereeing performance is not subject to "revenge" from angry fans. To say otherwise is a) wrong, and we strive to be accurate here on Wikipedia, b) biased, since it gives undue weight to the point of view that death threats to a football referee are appropriate if you're a Chelsea fan, and c) (as has recently been pointed out to both of us), original research, or, in other words, stuff you made up. You could at least provide a reputable source for your words. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand what 'retaliation' means you didn't need to tell me. I think you should focus on the motives why fans retaliate, rather than whether it is right or wrong act or inappropriate or whatever.

I don't think I have ever suggested Frisk 'did something wrong'. Even if he did, FIFA would deal with him, NOT the fans. That's first point.

Second, no one should subject to 'revenge' and no one deserves death threat and that has always been my position.

But there were always reasons or motives behind the 'death threats' were made. People don't make death threats for fun and it's a serious criminal act. It's very hard not to believe there is no relation between 'death threats' and 'revenge' or 'retaliation', as you have been proclaiming.

In fact, I find that some people (presumably Chelsea fans) and people like you using Wikipedia as a platform trying so hard to play down the seriousness of this event and not let the truth to be told or published in Wikipedia. I want to say, I am gutted, because people reading this article, have been reading the 'Chelsea die-hard fans' version of the story, but not the truth. So, probably, you have forgotten to change your Bio telling others you have become a Chelsea glory hunter.

If I was ever a Chelsea fan, I would think this 'death threat saga' was a 'smear campaign' on my club.

But death threats were real. They were neither Frisk's fantasy or invention. And I am just so angry that, in here Wikipedia people like you deny the fact and truth the 'death threats' were linked to Chelsea fans or trying so hard to invent 'Chelsea fans' own version of the story or to manipulate the truth. And you guys have been trying hard to let the readers remember you as a 'neutral' contributor, or would rather be called 'hypocrite' (while accepting the truth but choose not to tell it in the article)

In summary, I am just reporting on the fact that people don't make death threats for no reason. And to YOU and those who insist to manipulate the truth and try so hard to stop the truth to be told, I just want to say: a person can pretend to be neutral and also hypocrital. But a fact is a fact, a truth is a truth. The action of sending death threats is an act which usually regarded as retaliation, if otherwise, you justify yourself before me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.201.209 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2006.

"You justify yourself before me"? You should probably look over your comments here before saving them, maybe read them aloud in future, just in case.

My objection is not to the "Chelsea fan" theory, but to the description of the death-threat-senders as people "retaliating" against the evil referee who wronged them. If you can find a reputable source, I'd be more than happy to see the Chelsea theory included; it's the one I've heard most often myself. Suggested phrasings include "Chelsea fans upset over Frisk's performance" and "fuckwits who wouldn't know a game of football if they were on the receiving end of a Barthez Flying Death Kick blamed the ref because they're silly sausages". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how you can be reasoned because you just don't accept other people's view. And it is very obvious that you shun to respond to much I have said in my previous post.

'Retaliation' is an act responding to past event. I wouldn't understand if Chelsea fans sent those 'death threats' for no reason.

I don't think you read what I have written properly or you just find yourself unable to rebut me. You cannot even convince yourself what you have said never mind others.

If you insist to manipulate the truth and do it your own way as if you rule Wikipedia, change it back to your so-called "original research" then. And you should be ashamed for all the excuses you have made.

Anyway, wastes my time to reason a daft prick.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.201.209 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2006.

"Retaliation" is not "an act responding to past event"; it's an attempt at revenge. It is possible to describe the threats without using the word "retaliation", and even to explain the (quite probably true) rumour that Chelsea fans were behind the threats (provided you can get a reputable source). As for the rest, please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and if you get time have a punt at WP:NPA as well. They'll give you a hint as to what I and the others who have reverted you repeatedly on this article are talking about. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In response

Never mind. Change it back to your very own version then.

Well......sorry, I just don't think you have the capability to rebut others. So, take care of yourself before correcting others. And just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you are always right and you are more superior than the others.

I can understand why anti-Frisk campaigners don't want people to think 'death threaths' were retaliation or revenge. It is a truth rather than to smear them. Anyway, shame on you and other chelsea fans.

Uhh ... I never mentioned being an administrator here, and I'm certainly not a Chelsea fan. I think you're inventing a few things that I've never asserted here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!)

Biased or just bad language

I have removed some poor use of language in the final paragraph. "Chelsea manager José Mourinho publicly accused Frisk of having (irregularly) invited Barça manager Frank Rijkaard into his room at half-time." passes judgement on the accusation (which in later paragraphs is shown to have some merit) and is effectively original research. The validity of the accusation in UEFA's eyes should be kept seperate.

The second example is "Apparently Frisk properly told him". 'Apparently' isn't a word that should appear in professional or academic pieces and the use of "properly" is again passing judgement. This would be acceptable for a quote, not for the main text of the article. Abigsmurf 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot 2000?

Did u all forget the 2000 season when he controversially awarded 2 penalties to barcelona in extra time during the champions league? and sent off Babayaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.116.240 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 May 2007