Talk:ACF Fiorentina–Juventus FC rivalry

Football: Italy Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Italian football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Previous discussion

A discussion took place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football regarding this article whilst it was in draft mode. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_114#Fiorentina–Juventus_rivalry for details. Crowsus (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

As Dantetheperuvian has added the hatnotes, I invite you to please follow the instructions in the templates and improve the article to resolve the perceived imbalances and POV. My own view is that where controversial terms have been used, these have been placed in 'commas' to show that they are an opinion rather than claimed to be factually accurate, and have been fairly well explained and sourced externally. Without wishing to drag them into any argument, I think it's also fair to point out that Vaselineeeeeeee, who improved the article and moved it to mainspace, is a self-confessed Juventus fan, but did not make any major changes to the historical accounts from the original draft, from which I infer that he saw no significant issues with the neutrality or balance of the text. Crowsus (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. I honestly don't mind the quotes about Juventus. I think it's kinda "funny". They are sourced, but do they belong in an encyclopedia, that's another story. I don't mind either way. But if that's what it takes to keep those ugly templates off this article, so be it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Doesn't look like he's going to relent. What do you think about these claims? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantetheperuvian:, you keep referring to the term 'campanilism', but I'm unfamiliar with this (and it has no Wikipedia entry). I don't expect you to explain this to me, but why not put in the article if you feel that is the case? For example "However, the perception of many Juventus supporters is that Fiorentina fans' dislike for their team is based on [campanilism - is this a kind of jealousy due to their success?] and they do not consider the Florence club to be a notable rival".[And must have a ref for this]. Just stating that it's unbalanced and POV without offering alternatives is getting towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crowsus (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: "Campanilism" is explained here and defined here. As sociological term that is often applied in Italian sport as explained here at. p.3 (for example in the Palio di Siena) and, mainly, in football because it reflects since the 1920s to the Italian society and its multiple divisions (in that decade it was driven by the fascist regime and in the following decade it became a massive national sport). That is the reason of so many rivalries in Italian football. About Fiorentina-Juventus I have indicated the problems of the article in this topic in FOOTY. The guidelines of Wikipedia present it to the user who seeks to learn a concept of which he has no prior knowledge (his target audience) as a "neutral encyclopedia based on truthful information and verifiable. 'Thievery' is a word that may introduce bias and, in addition, it does not differentiate between Juventus-Torino, Juventus-Milan, Inter-Juventus (both mostly in Milan according this 2016 survey) and, in addition, Juventus-Roma (mostly in Rome), Juventus-Napoli (mostly in Naples) and the less mediatic Bologna-Juventus (mostly in Bologna) because it is commonly used for antijuventinismo, so we include it in all of them because there is a website that can be used as a source?

To the current state, in addition to the article has errors (for example, the antagonism between both factions did not begin in 1982, but after the 11-0 in 1920s and in the decade of 1950 reached greater tension with Viola in the first positions of Serie A), is non-neutral and unbalanced (the message is oriented towards the Fiorentina's local fans POV) and, however these should not be withdrawn until reaching a consensus, @Vaselineeeeeeee: insists on removing them "because he considers that these templates are 'ugly'". Qualifying someone to "cheat" without tangible evidence is not "fun", it is a serious accusation that can generate a legal process.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantetheperuvian: All that is fine and dandy, so can you then use that knowledge to improve the article? Yes, there is no need to use those 'ugly' templates if you can add better info, which you seem like you can, so please try to improve it. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of more refs to the article, from the info provided in the last update by Dantetheperuvian. Thanks for explaining campanilism. I agree this could be used as the basis for any rivalry in Italian football, so if Turin v Florence was the only general factor in this rivalry, it would be a weak background for an article. However, the sources already provided (including several by you during the discussion) support there being other specific reasons for the bad feeling, which have been described in the text. I have removed the 'certain' penalty for catanzaro which I think was the most Fiorentina-angled wording. Otherwise, I think what's written is quite fair and balanced, if you disagree please edit the article itself, as you have been invited to do several times, or add tags at the specific areas you feel are a problem. The general hatnotes don't help in this regard. If you want more input, perhaps highlight it again at FOOTY and maybe there will be more support for your side of the debate. Crowsus (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue thinking that this phrase "but rather is a development from the latter decades of the 20th century based on bitterness and accusations of 'thievery'" may introduce bias, mostly because such accusations are unidirectional (FIO --> JUV) and have not have been consequences for both clubs (if have mediatic echo is because in Italy "who is not juventino is antijuventino") and oriented to unfair. A phrase of that type should not be in the introduction of this article, which should indicate to the reader not informed why it is relevant. The political factor also exists because the Agnelli and the Della Valle (the owners of both clubs) have always been industrial rivals and this match "reflects" that antagonism.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out

that the Man Utd—Liverpool rivalry is of a similar nature and timeline to this one, rather than being from "long standing competitiveness". Don't believe me? How about United fans singing 'Liverpool' after the 1977 Cup Final as a good luck gesture for their upcoming European Cup Final? Or United fans still singing 'YNWA' as late as 1983? --Scherben808 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]