Talk:History of Juventus F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from History of Juventus F.C. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 August 2007.

[edit] Calciopoli

This section reads like a Juventus fan launching a tirade against Inter Milan, so I edited it since Wikipedia is not a soapbox; as well as the fact that much of the material presented against Inter is already covered in the Calciopoli article and that this article missed Juventus' pursuit of the case in civil court (which the section did not), a much more prominent event than former Juventus officials sounding off. Before I finish, I'm not trying to state that Inter did nothing wrong or and/or that information doesn't belong in Wikipedia- it should be in the right place, and the right place isn't here.-RomeW 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make a cover up for Inter, the things stated are sourced by real media outlets on football! including ref designator Bergamo saying Inter was as bad if not worse than the teams punished. This is perfectly the right place, because Juventus were the most effected by it. - Meddi (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not making "any cover up for Inter", I simply said "put it in the right place". Paolo Bergamo saying "Inter should have been punished too" belongs at the main Calciopoli article since it's a comment about the process as a whole, but it doesn't belong at the Juventus article since Bergamo's statements only peripherally applies to Juventus' situation (since Juve wasn't the only team Calciopoli punished). Meanwhile, Juventus' pursuit of the matter in the Italian civil courts threatened to have FIFA suspend Italy from its membership, potentially not allowing it to compete at Euro 2008- *that* is far more notable here than Bergamo's comments.

Second of all, much of that section draws itself from one article- a reader article from Goal.com. I could not find any news articles or other, independent (as in, not affiliated in some way to Juventus or its fans) Sites that backed up what the reader stated (like the "Gazetto dell'Inter" comment, the allegations of law-breaking and of the whole thing being an Inter-led conspiracy, etc.), nor does the reader actually identify what kind of authority he is (we don't know if he's some random guy on the street ranting about an injustice against his favourite team or someone "in the know" (like a prosecutor, a FIGC official, a club administrative official, etc.). It's a source of questionable reliability, and if what the reader says is true, then there should be no problems with finding news articles backing it up.

(By the way, that Reuters link is no longer valid, so if you've got another good source that says what it said please use that)

Third of all, I've included many different and independent sources in my version of the section, and not all of it is rosy towards Inter- you do notice I kept sources from Juventus officials that accused Inter of favourtism (even going as far to allege so in court). As far as I can tell, the extent of the Inter role in Juventus' demise is that Juve officials accuse that of happening but it's never actually been shown (unless you have hard evidence of such).

I've never said that if Inter did anything wrong it shouldn't be mentioned- of course it should. However, if it is mentioned it's got to be 1) relevant (as in, there's a direct action by Inter towards Juventus), 2) properly sourced (as in "not a rant coming from a single fan or a reader" but hard evidence such as a transcript or a recording coming from an investigator or an official in the probe and documented by a news agency, the FIGC, UEFA, or similar bodies) and 3) cannot ignore anything else that is relevant to the section (such as Juventus' actions nearly causing the Italian national team to be suspended from FIFA). If all the section said is all that happened with regards to Juventus during the Calciopoli scandal (and it's actually backed up by hard evidence) then I'd have no problems with it- however, that is *clearly* not the case.-RomeW (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Added the "neutrality" tag here in hopes of resolving the disputes.-RomeW (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Meddi, I'm trying very hard to get a section we can both agree with but you revert without any attempt at discussion. I haven't written a "pro-Inter" section (why don't you actually read what I've written) and, again, I'm asking you to please provide *better source material* for the section you wish to have- and to quit removing pertinent information (like it or not, Juventus *did* try to bring the matter to the civil courts and almost cost Italy their place in Euro 2008. If that's not notable I don't know what is). I don't mean to sound antagonistic or anything like that but I'm very frustrated at the moment that you're not even trying to discuss anything. So, please, let's discuss this so we can stop reverting all the time. Thanks.-RomeW (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added this entry to WP:THIRD in the hopes of reaching a resolution.-RomeW (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Both versions seem a bit rough and even tabloid-esque in their presentation. For example, a person's fall from some height that was speculated to have been a potential suicide attempt seems a bit seedy and unrelated to the club itself. The section should focus purely on what the events meant for the club, its staffing and its players. Salacious details of potential suicide attempts, speculations about what merit allegations possess, commentary about other organizations roles in the scandal, etc. really should not be discussed in this article. This article is about a football club and information not related to that topic should be discussed elsewhere, if at all. Vassyana (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PessottoRecovering.jpg

Image:PessottoRecovering.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)