Jump to content

Talk:FCSB: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 310: Line 310:
* '''Oppose move.''' The nominator has provided no evidence that FCSB, much less the redundant FC FCSB, is the common name. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#C60C30">&nbsp;ONR&nbsp;</span>]]'''[[User:ONR/t|<span style="color:#B0B7BC;background:#002244">&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;</span>]] 09:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose move.''' The nominator has provided no evidence that FCSB, much less the redundant FC FCSB, is the common name. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#C60C30">&nbsp;ONR&nbsp;</span>]]'''[[User:ONR/t|<span style="color:#B0B7BC;background:#002244">&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;</span>]] 09:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This article has to be moved because it generates confusion as there is already another team legally using the name Steaua. FC FCSB is name used by the Romanian League, the Romanian Football Federation and UEFA and by the media: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html [[User:Gunnlaugson|Gunnlaugson]] ([[User talk:Gunnlaugson|talk]]) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This article has to be moved because it generates confusion as there is already another team legally using the name Steaua. FC FCSB is name used by the Romanian League, the Romanian Football Federation and UEFA and by the media: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html [[User:Gunnlaugson|Gunnlaugson]] ([[User talk:Gunnlaugson|talk]]) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

'''Support:''' It has been a long time since the name change and FCSB is currently the common name for the club. [[User:Splur988|Splur988]] ([[User talk:Splur988|talk]]) 10:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:26, 12 October 2017

Former featured article candidateFCSB is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 14, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Requested move 31 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Since this request was opened about six weeks following the 15 July request, it should come as no surprise that there is still disagreement about renaming this page. Normally after a not moved decision, a new request should wait several months or even a year before being made. IMHO, it would be best to wait until continued informal discussion brings involved editors closer to a consensus, agreement about the direction to take this page and its title. Please do not request another page move until there is at least a possibility of success. (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FC Steaua București → FCSB – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Lobontsa (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "FCSB" is not the common name in English. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The club's official name is "Fotbal Club FCSB" and they are not allowed to use the name "Steaua Bucharest" due to a court decision, so there is no reason to keep Steaua Bucharest in their name, Steaua Bucharest which plays in the fourth division has an wikipedia page and the name "FCSB" it is now used to name Becali's club.
  • Oppose - "FCSB" is the club which continues the traditions of FC Steaua Bucuresti, and this club has all the records of FC Steaua Bucuresti. You can easily verify this information on the official sites of Romanian Federation of Footbal, UEFA and Professional League of Football in Romania. We are talking here about the fact that this is football and the main organisations that run the professional football are those I wrote above. I'm glad Wikipedia made this page uneditable so we can't have vandalism here about Steaua anymore. ssw07 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to disagree, due to a court decision it was revealed that "Fotbal Club FCSB" was in matter of fact a hoax, they pretended to be Steaua without actually purchasing the club, the reason Romanian Federation of Footbal lists them as the rightful owner of the records is due to corruption, the court decision should be law, yet they support Becali and claim he has Steaua (without actually having it, see the name, the badge). Steaua Bucharest has a Wikipedia page and if the court said they are Steaua we shall respect the decision. And why do you call vandalism if somebody writes the truth? This is an fair encyclopedia not some FC FCSB's forum, like I said earlier the court decision already talked about this matter, go read it and then come here and try misleading the people and putting the blame on vandalism.
  • Comment: If the situation is like you say my boy then let's put the court of Romania to run the professional football in Romania and Europe. Why do we need Football Federations or UEFA if we have the romanian Court? Please come with some other arguments, because this one with corruption in romanian football is so expired. If we take what you say about corruption then let's take the corruption in romanian Justice, not in football. Agree or not as long as national and international football federations say that FCSB is the club which has all the records of FC Steaua Bucuresti then we shall respect what they said, because this is football and they run over it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.86.137 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "My boy" a federation's duty is to organise a competition and the teams which are participating not to tell who is who, if you don't know how this works then shut up and stop spreading fake news, FCSB is forbidden to use "Steaua", "Steaua Bucharest" or other signs that suggests FCSB is Steaua because FCSB is NOT Steaua, this is a fact not some poor aberations you FCSB fans come with... And again it is not UEFA's job to tell who is who, for what they care, they can ban both teams from European competitions if the problem persists. And don't tell me FRF is not a corrupt organisation because every other "supporter" from Romania (except FCSB fans) will laugh at your face, "my boy"... P.S. I'll give you a clue, FRF should have respected the Court Decision, because they are not above the law and neither is UEFA, but that's what you FCSB fans will never understand... Your club's name is Fotbal Club FCSB and this shall be the name of the Wikipedia page as well, if you have one drop of decency to not pretend, for once that you are Steaua, but you don't, just like your owner, Gigi Becali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.172.91 (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per UEFA: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html Linhart (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Legally, FC Fcsb is not Steaua, does not have the right to the Steaua Bucharest colors, name, brand and records. Any other comments are useless since these guys lost lawsuit after lawsuit. FIFA, UEFA or the Romanian Football Federation can judge matters related to football, such as player suspensions or red cards that were given by mistake. They cannot decide upon the identity of an entity, be it a football club or a company. At this moment, the only thing this page does is misinform the public. So we have to decide if this is what wikipedia wants. Do we want to spread lies or do we want to give the readers accurate information? - TPTB (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And let's not forget that Gigi Becali is not, in fact, the owner of FC Fcsb. He controls the club, but he is not the owner, not on paper. There are some Romanian laws broken here as well, but people don't really want to talk about this. - TPTB (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then explain me this: why doesn't the real Steaua (in your opinion) ask to have all the records that belong to them at federation? Ok they've won in Court, but if ask me this Court is the last one in Europe, because I think everybody knows the Justice in Romania, full of corruption. They made all this processes and now they are so lazy to go at Romanian Federation to ask what belong to them? No, it's obvious. They don't go at the federation because they know that they don't have the records of FC Steaua Bucuresti. That club is a new club founded in 2017 and have absolutely 0 records. If they will go in the 1st League and qualify for Europe Football competitions they will have 0 as coefficient and that's the truth. The Court assigned them to have just the name and the logo, not the records. It is a while since that process ended. You're trying to tell me that in this so much time they were lazy to go at federation to ask their rights? You make me laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.86.137 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The real Steaua did ask just that. When it registered for the Liga IV, its registration documents included all of the club's identity. This includes the brand, the history, the name, the honours, everything. The club even posted a press release confirming it is in fact Steaua Bucharest, the only team that can use the Steaua brand, which includes names, history, honours,etc. You can find a copy of the press release here: http://www.steaualibera.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20292988_1389555091080148_3321750527425968456_n.jpg Now, the thing with you is that what you posted above is just your opinion. There are no facts, there is no proof to back what you said. Steaua won every lawsuite it filed against FC Fcsb. That's about 13 different lawsuits. Does this also make you laugh? - TPTB (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My boy I'm looking on the official sites of all football federations, national and international. Explain me this thing: Why does FCSB got all the records of Steaua Bucuresti, even at UEFA, because someone said that Romanian Federation is corrupted (very well), after all this time since that process ended. It's been how long? 4, 5 months? I don't know for sure. How is it possible to win a process and still see FCSB with the records. It's no logic. And about that 13 different lawsuits... I don't know I don't want to see them because they are irrelevant as long as after 4, 5 months of the end of all of them we can see: FCSB won ECC in 1986. They're useless. They're about something else not about the records.

It's like you think you won at the Court a process with a bank and you have to take 50000 euros, but you don't go at the bank to get the money. Why, because are you lazy to go? You make me laugh again. For all the supporters of Steaua I'm saying this: The people who run Steaua from the 4th league... go and get what belongs to the club, because if not, FCSB, agree or not will still have all the records of Steaua. Because as long as there is this confusion you can't expect this to be a winner project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.86.137 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not talking here about the name or logo. In the link you posted before there is nothing about the records and it is a newspaper link so it doesn't matter. Again if the records are ilegally why the owner of 4th league Steaua doesn't come and force FCSB to retire that records? The fact is that you can't answer this question: Why in 4 or 5 moths after the process ended the owner of 4th league Steaua didn't come and force them to retire that records from anywhere: official site of FCSB, official Facebook page, Federation, UEFA...anywhere. You can't answer this you just feint the question and come with newspaper links. Again if the 4th league Steaua is the real Steaua, FCSB should've been forced long time ago to not claim these records anymore. But I can see all that records anywhere. So please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssw07 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB, FCSB for short. However, all the sporting associations (UEFA and FRF) regard them as the club which won the ECC in 1986. And I support this claim, because even if Steaua was stolen by Becali in 2003, this doesn't mean it's not Steaua anymore. What if someone steals your child named Bob and changes his name to Dan, does that mean you get a new Bob instead of getting Dan who is your actual kid? This may be the lamest example, but it's logical. FCSB continues Steaua's tradition even if it would be named FC Becali. CSA Steaua from the fourth league was founded this year, they hane no honours. So, this page should be named FCSB but the trophies and history will stay,8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Loan

Robert Grecu (FW, number 27) wasn't fully transfered to FC Argeș, he is out on loan to the respective team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.8.143 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017 (4)

Please change Founded from 2003 to 1947. And all the records of the club back to normal: 26 national titles, 22 national Cups, 1 ECC, 1 European Supercup, 2 League Cup, 6 Supercups.

You can see all this records assigned by FRF, LPF, and UEFA. That lawsuits that other people does involve are not about records, because it's been 4 or 5 months since that process ended, and as you can see none of this Football Federations changed any single thing about the records of FCSB, and on the official site of the club and on the official facebook page of it you can still see this things. So please do not misinform people who come on this page. I believe that in 4 or 5 months after the process ended, if FCSB is not the club which has the records of FC Steaua Bucuresti, then the owner of "real" Steaua had enough time to claim its rightful records. But they didn't do that, so that lawsuits are not about the records of the club. Thank you!

https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/history/index.html

http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/FCSB+a+facut+cerere+la+UEFA+O+sa+vedeti+voi+unde+e+palmaresul

http://www.sport.ro/liga-1/frf-face-lumina-in-cazul-fcsb-are-palmaresul-coeficientul-ramane-o-sa-vedeti-reactia-uefa-csa-steaua-nu.html

  • Comment -I'm afraid they are official (the fact that you don't want to recognize it is your problem) as long as we don't see any request from "the rightful owner" for FCSB to retire this Honours, after that process ended. FCSB doesn't have to ask for anything, it is the duty from those who got the "real" Steaua (as you say) to come and force them to retire it, if FCSB doesn't want to. But as you can see after the process ended long time ago, no one came. Why? Because FCSB has the records of Steaua, otherwise I don't see any reason why they didn't force FCSB for so much time. And please don't tell that the lazy is the reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssw07 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An official record is not a blog post on a website. An official record has at least one signature and an official seal. And, most importantly, it can be used in court. The things you copy/pasted above cannot be used in a court. In fact, if you use them, you will definitely lose the trial. So, unless you have an official document, signed and sealed by UEFA officials, stating that FC Fcsb has Steaua's history and honours, then stop lying about it. - TPTB (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FCSB plays in Europe football competitions with a coefficient. Am I right? Good. If they are not Steaua how in the world are they playing in Europe with Steaua's coefficient. Is that an "official seal" that is good enough for you? If things are like you say FCSB should be disqualified right now from european competitions. And as you can see they're not.
  • Comment - That means absolutely nothing. Do I need to remind you that Fotbal Club Fcsb also played with a false name and under a false brand for over a decade? UEFA does not investigate such matters. It posts on its website whatever info package the club sends. It's the same thing as the info package for the European Competitions. Clubs send these to TV stations. The packages include logos, information about the club and players and much more. But it's not considered official information. It's just to help the commentator and the TV station with the necessary logos and info, for the match preparation. Or did you think that the TV stations spend their own time to search for each club's logo and info? Grow up! - TPTB (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please again change founded from 2003 to 1947 and all the records of the club back to normal: 26 national titles, 22 national Cups, 1 ECC, 1 European Supercup, 2 League Cup, 6 Supercups. Is is the duty of the rightful owner to come and make some changes here. Until then please do not change those things I wrote anymore. If this 4th League Steaua is the real Steaua then its owner is the right person to come here and make changes not the fans. Thank you!
  • Oppose - The team currently know as FC Fcsb was founded in 2003. Its records start with that date. The team won five Romanian national titles, 2 National Cups, 2 League Cups and 2 Supercups. It won no European title. Proof here: http://evz.ro/s-a-stins-steaua-lui-gigi-becali-fcsb-preia-palmaresul-din-2003.html - TPTB (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What you puted above is just what one newspaper said. In my links as you can see there is a video with the Romanian Federation of footbal president that says pretty clear that FCSB has the records of Steaua. Not to mension the official UEFA site. As I said before it is the duty of those who got the "real" Steaua (4th League) to come and make changes here, because the opinion of the fans are not good enough. But I'm sure they won't come because they don't have the records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssw07 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Like I said before, words are wind. Here's the same president saying that FC Fcsb does not have the Steaua honours. http://www.mediafax.ro/sport/presedintele-frf-spune-ca-palmaresul-fc-steaua-apartine-clubului-sportiv-al-armatei-13882893 What these people say on tv or in a blog or facebook post does not count. It's not evidence of anything. It's just some guy talking rubbish. If you don't have an official documents, signed and sealed, then you have nothing. So far, the only real documents show that FC Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. - TPTB (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm sorry but I can't see any evidence in what you posted. That evz link and everything you posted here has an official seal like you say? No. It's just a newspaper link and nothing else. All the evidence I see here against FCSB are newspaper links. It's incredible how easy can be wikipedia manipulated with newspaper links. So this site has nothing in common with the truth. Shame Wikipedia! So if I open a business and a newspaper writes about my business a lie you will put it here instead of waiting from me to come here and resolve the situation. Good to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssw07 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ssw07 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

Please roll back the changes to the state they were in August, before the avalanche of vandalism brought by editors such as TPTB and others. I see some users with "weight", probably admins (?) keep asking for a consensus! Consensus for what and with whom? How is it possible that all sorts of ridiculous changes were brought to this article in the last couple weeks? How come these changes were approved without being verified?! All I am asking is for a roll back, a strict restriction mechanism for editing and SOUND VERIFICATION of any edit attempt made on this article. It's mindboggling that this article, after being subject to such blatant vandalism, is denied recovery to a "proper" state by the same ones that should enforce editing rules! Again, I ask, what is going on here?!?!?! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You've been told this many times, yet you don't listen. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - It's called evidence. We have them, you don't. That's why the changes stay. Fc Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. The entire page will be edited in the coming weeks so that FC Fcsb will only feature proper information, not lies. - TPTB (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So for wikipedia what said mr. president of the Romanian Federation is nothing and it is more important what some people post here from newspapers. I see... So this site has nothing in commom with the truth. There is no evidence about the records anywhere. It is all about the name and the logo. Wikipedia can you show me evidence with the fact that FCSB has no records of FC Steaua Bucuresti? I'm asking this because in UEFA competitions they are playing with Steaua's coefficient, and if FCSB is not Steaua how are they playing with Steaua's coefficient in Europe football competitions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssw07 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

ROLL BACK REQUEST to article status before the avalanche of vandalism brought by editors such as TPTB and others, since August 2017. Wikipedia authorized personnel should enforce a strict editing policy on this article, making sure changes are only approved after adequate verification.

I don't know how TPTB and his gang managed to get authorization to modify this page, but his late edits and actions prove that he does so in an attempt to manipulate by disseminating truncated facts and misinformation. I'm kindly asking the Wikipedia contributors to look over the recent avalanche of changes in order to realize the degree of vandalism that TPTB and others have brought to this page.

REQUEST: - roll back to the state of this article before the latest wave of changes (started August 2017) - enforce a strict editing mechanism - ban TPTB from vandalising this page (how on Earth did he get authorization to do so???)

THANK YOU Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Take it to ANI. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


How can you vandalize a page when all the information you publish there comes with valid references? Taras bulba 47 has provided no references and no evidence to support his claim. At this point, this guy is probably just a troll. - TPTB (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TPTB: the "references" brought in discussion are all in Romanian, and their translation/interpretation in English is far from reality. The only reliable references when it comes to the status, history and honours of FCSB are official organizations: FRF (Romanian Football Federation) and UEFA. None of these organizations support your claim that FCSB was founded in 2003 and that their history before 2003 would therefore be non-existant. The interpretations in the subsection "lawsuit" are proof of malevolence on your part and the gang that vandalized this article starting September 1st. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already reported you for vandalism. Discussion ends here. Will not feed the troll. - TPTB (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace all „FCSB” names in the article with „Steaua” or „Steaua București”

„FCSB” is legally Steaua București.It holds its trophies,it hold its glory,and I think the logical option to do now is replacing all „FCSB” words with „Steaua București” or at least „Steaua” because that is the real name of the 1947 founded club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzlyBear2002 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - No it doesn't. The team's real name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. And it doesn't even hold the actual physical trophies! Bring some proof to support your lies. - TPTB (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check UEFA site.This is the most powerful proof possible.Nothing is above UEFA.On their site,FCSB and only FCSB owns the UEFA Champions Cup and all the trophies. Therefore,it is Steaua Bucharest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzlyBear2002 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the club does hold all of the honours won by the former Steaua Bucuresti, that is not this club's name any more. The new name makes no fucking sense, of course (Fotbal Club FCSB? What the hell is that?!), but it is the club's name now. – PeeJay 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change date of club's foundation to June 7 1947

There is an error in the date specified as the foundation date for the club << Founded 7 July 1947; 70 years ago as ASA București >> should be replaced with << Founded 7 June 1947; 70 years ago as ASA București >>

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Taras bulba 47 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html
  2. ^ http://www.ziare.com/steaua/stiri-steaua/istoria-clubului-steaua-bucuresti-298442
  3. ^ http://www.prosport.ro/sport-life/special/incredibil-doi-agenti-sovietici-au-pus-la-cale-infiintarea-stelei-cum-a-scapat-echipa-de-retrogradare-in-primul-sezon-8032549
  4. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3216379/steaua-bucharest-renamed-fc-fcsb/
  5. ^ http://www.espnfc.com/fcsb/story/3092319/steaua-bucharest-change-name-to-fc-fcsb-after-military-row
Not done for now: You have likely mis-formed your request, since you are asking for the same text as both the "before" and the "after" text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn :) Please read the request again. The date should be June 7 1947. At the moment is July 7 1947. Thank you. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: any change? Taras bulba 47 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Like I said, the people that wrote that page had no idea what they were doing. They did no research, they just went with what they thought they knew. And Taras bulba 47 is lying. FC Fcsb was founded in 2003. This page should either be deleted or updated with the right information. The right name, the right history, the right logo. FC Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. - TPTB (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TPTB Really? The page was very well maintained until you vandalized it! As a result of rollbacks, this error slipped through : << Founded 7 July 1947; 70 years ago as ASA București >> The correct date is June 7 1947, so please change the previous quote with this one: << Founded 7 June 1947; 70 years ago as ASA București >> Jesus, this has become impossible! We're hostages of some ill-willed contributors. Don't tell me, do I need to reach a consensus for this change too?! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page or update it with the correct information

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TPTB (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is fake

With the information currently published here, this page can be considered fake. The team known as Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003. It has nothing to do with Steaua Bucharest. In fact, the Romanian justice system forbade FC Fcsb to ever use the names Steaua, Steaua Bucharest and any other name that might suggest this team is Steaua Bucharest.

Currently, there's an ongoing lawsuit for the team to change even the "FCSB" name, since the team's de facto owner has publicly claimed that FCSB means Football Club Steaua Bucharest, which goes against the rulings I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Additionally, in 2014, judges from the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice decide that FC Fcsb was using the Steaua brand illegally. In their decision, they explained that the team, which was formed in 2003, was not Steaua, did not own the Steaua brand, Steaua name, or the Steaua records. However, due to the fact that the Romanian Football Federation is a private instution which lives by its own rules, Becali and FC fcsb have continued to use that brand and name. They keep using them illegally even today.

All of this is already well known in Romania. The fact that some people here continue to ignore solid facts and lie by pretending that a private entity such as the Romanian Football Federation or UEFA have the ability to ignore Romanian law.

What we know for certain so far: 1. Fotbal Club Fcsb is prevented by law to use the name Steaua Bucuresti. 2. Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003. 3. It does not have any claim on trophies won by Steaua Bucharest. 4. Fotbal Club Fcsb used the Steaua brand illegally. 5. Fotbal Club Fcsb asked the Steaua Bucharest sports club for the right to use the Steaua brand and was turned down. 6. After being turned down, Fotbal Club Fcsb still used the Steaua brand. 7. Fotbal Club Fcsb was registered illegally to the Romanian Football Federation.

These are facts! There's no maybe. There's no debating these things. The only debate here is should this page be deleted or should it be updated with the real information? However, by this time next year, FC Fcsb will probably be disolved. The team is currently involved in a lawsuit to pay reparations for the decade in which it used the Steaua brand illegally. It is expected to pay around 37 million euros. It does not have this amount. When the decision becomes final, Fotbal Club Fcsb will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy and shut down. - TPTB (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the things you said are backed up by some five hundred fans who hate FCSB... The real honours and coefficient are on UEFA and FRF page. Stop the misinforming.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TPTB

There's no decision made by any court of law in Romania mentioning anything about Steaua records, about CSA or FCSB date of foundation or anything else you're trying to imply. The only decisions made in the courts are regarding the Steaua logo and name. They are property of CSA Steaua and nobody can use them without accord, including FCSB. Your following paragraph is therefore a blatant lie:

"Additionally, in 2014, judges from the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice decide that FC Fcsb was using the Steaua brand illegally. In their decision, they explained that the team, which was formed in 2003, was not Steaua, did not own the Steaua brand, Steaua name, or the Steaua records. However, due to the fact that the Romanian Football Federation is a private instution which lives by its own rules, Becali and FC fcsb have continued to use that brand and name. They keep using them illegally even today." Taras bulba 47 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TPTB A few clarifications:

"1. Fotbal Club Fcsb is prevented by law to use the name Steaua Bucuresti." Correct

"2. Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003." Incorrect. The entity controlling Steaua football re-organized in 2003 as an S.A. (Societate pe Actiuni) / A.G. (Aktiengesellschaft) / Corporation by issuing shares.

"3. It does not have any claim on trophies won by Steaua Bucharest." Steaua football means ASA, CSCA, CCA, CSA Steaua Bucuresti, FC Steaua Bucuresti and FCSB, that is all the names this team has had throughout its existence. Consequently, all trophies ever won in football by Steaua are claimed by this team. To consider the adverse would be irrational.

"4. Fotbal Club Fcsb used the Steaua brand illegally." Correct

"5. Fotbal Club Fcsb asked the Steaua Bucharest sports club for the right to use the Steaua brand and was turned down." Correct. But it's worth mentioning that following this refusal, CSA Steaua Bucharest still allowed FC Steaua (actual FCSB) to use its brand for another 10 years!

"6. After being turned down, Fotbal Club Fcsb still used the Steaua brand." Correct, see above

"7. Fotbal Club Fcsb was registered illegally to the Romanian Football Federation." Incorrect. There is no reference for this whatsoever, just assumptions made by partisan fans. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look likes a simple solution was spiting the club history using incorporation as S.A. as a watershed. Trophies won after that year/season, even (illegally) under the name Steaua, should belongs to FCSB. Matthew_hk tc 10:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FC Steaua București. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History section blanking

What's going on?

First SupervladiTM reverts to a version [1] by an IP who has not edited Wikipedia since 2006, complaining that the content had been reused on another page, nad so he is removing his own contribution from 2007.

This was immediately undone.

SupervladiTM then removed even more content (more than half of the article) [2] claiming that it was not vandalism but a legitimate removal of 2007 content by its author under Wikipedia:Content removal. That is just an essay, and this material does not even qualify under it as it had been modified by other editors since then (or it would not contain references dated after 2007). The part of the essay SupervladiTM is relying on appears to violate Wikipedia's terms of use. Users do not have the right to change their minds and retroactively remove the content they have added. As the edit notice says By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution...

This was undone by a different editor that the first undo.

It was then immediately removed again by Gabinho [3] again claiming that it was a valid removal rather than vandalism.

I've restored the material again pending discussion. If there is some valid reason to remove it please explain, but reverting 10 years worth of edits is not acceptable, and removing extensive long-standing content because the author no longer wishes it to be used or because it has been reused elsewhere is not acceptable. Meters (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous, I have fully protected the page for a week to get this to stop. @SupervladiTM: I strongly suggest you get involved in this discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. I can't see any reasonable argument at the moment for using an essay, not even a guideline to remove content you provide and released under commons licensing ten years ago. There have clearly been significant changes over time and frankly, it is just too late in my opinion, but this is the forum to air your views, not simply removing vast chunks of text from articles. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you this is getting ridiculous, albeit for different reasons. I have been through all the talks and discussions you mentioned, all this while offering countless arguments yet no one seems to be interested in listening. I strongly suggest to you too, Fenix down, to run through the bigger context of a story before getting to action. Not just on Wikipedia, but in life and society as well. The content in cause is not 10 years worth of edit. It's more like half a day worth of writing, by me and no one else other, and has not been edited ever since. Meanwhile, on a different page that's currently in dispute with FC Steaua București, everyone seems to be able to do all the vandalising in the world and even get it protected that way, out of reasons that evade me - despite countless references to prove the accuracy of my information. But what really is upsetting is that my own content (which I initially had no intention of meddling with on the FC Steaua page) was argued as being copy-pasted to the CSA Steaua București (football) page and used as copyright-infringement argument against this page. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased. I haven't got all day for this charade. This is the last time I'm explaining my actions to anyone. SupervladiTM (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:C, when you clicked on save changes a decade ago, Permission was granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts. It is no longer your writing and you have no ownership over it whatsoever. I don't place a great deal of stock in WP:CRV as it is simply an essay, not a guideline, but fundamentally Consensus on Removal is how things work here. You have not uploaded anything potentially harmful, non-neutral or copyrighted prior to your submission, so I see no reason why it should be removed. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Fenix down, the original author does retain copyright in their contributions, it's just released under a CC BY-SA licence which allows copying if attributed. Copying text from one article to another without attribition is a copyright violation - though all it needs, for example, is something in the edit summary saying "Copied from xxx" (or there are templates which can be added to the talk page, I believe). None of this, however, is justification for removing the text from the original article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2017

FC Steaua București → FC FCSB – There is a final court decision regarding the name of the club. This page should be moved to reflect the new name of the club, Fotbal Club FCSB Gunnlaugson (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It has been a long time since the name change and FCSB is currently the common name for the club. Splur988 (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FCSB&oldid=804988057"