Jump to content

Talk:Steaua București football records dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NB: This article was moved from FC Steaua București on 2 January 2024. All discussions before that date refer to the article as it then existed.

Proposal for deletion

[edit]

This is a very false article and should not be on Wikipedia. Its first sentence is extremely false. There is no club in Romania called ”FC Steaua București”. Additionally, there never was a ”FC Steaua București” club which was part of the CSA Steaua București club. It in fact makes no sense that a club should be part of another club. The third sentence in the article is also false. The guy that is mentioned in the sentence, Viorel Păunescu, actually is on record for stating that he has never acquired a football club (https://ziare.com/steaua/stiri-steaua/declaratie-incredibila-a-omului-care-a-preluat-steaua-de-la-armata-adevarata-steaua-e-la-becali-sau-nu-1381452). The fourth sentence is also false. CSA Steaua București never did not sue another club in 2011, ”claiming it was a new entity”. It did sue Fotbal Club Fcsb, because it was using its trademark without consent, but not because it was a new entity. What UEFA and the Romanian Professional Football League do is of no consequence here. Those two are private entities and have no rights over the property of another private entity - TPTB (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

[edit]

There's no compelling reason for this article to exist - FCSB has its own article and so does CSA Steaua Bucharest, so I'm somewhat confused as to why there needs to be a third article that sort of seems to take up CSA's storyline from 2016 onwards without adding any extra details. 109.12.124.29 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is still a battle over the history and the name, makes the article useful. The Banner talk 00:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so you saw this already... thing is if 2 clubs separated and both articles have well described history, this looks like third club. even hard to explain how one section can be separated from main history article, merge that at least 93.143.52.223 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would agree with the OP. There was a dispute, sure, and the Romanian courts may have made certain rulings, but most reliable sources as well as UEFA regard FCSB as the successor club to the historical FC Steaua București. FCSB also gets more page views than the other two combined.[1] And indeed, the page at FCSB was originally at the page we're discussing here. As such, this page here should simply be a redirect to FCSB, with a hatnote pointint people to CSA Steaua București (football) if that's where they want to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole battle over name and honours make all participants notable. Why delete some of the participants in this battlefield? Is there any doubt about the notability of each of the entities? The Banner talk 20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You refused to merge and its only question what this article means; everything is covered in history / csa / fcsb, why number 4 with one section. someone with so long wiki years should know what merging or deletion is, as well not to respond by reverting if someone has arguments. *i wont discuss part of dutch guy in ireland with seemingly huge interest in rimanian sports.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.52.223 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we have a dutch user sticking to this as third club, avoiding to reply, someone has to notify more adminis to take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.52.223 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant #banner wont reply...keep asking and make him delete fake page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radical change needed

[edit]

I don't remember how I found myself here. I was following a different paper-trail altogether.
While I in no way condone 93's incivility or battleground mentality, I have to agree that this article as it stands gives the impression that it is about a third Steaua Bucharest club. The opening sentence is FC Steaua București, often known in English as Steaua Bucharest, is a Romanian professional football club. So, different from FCSB and CSA Steaua București then? I had to read all three articles to finally understand that the article is in fact about about conflicting claims to the old club's legacy. According to the other articles, the old club wasn't even called FC Steaua București! It was called ASA București, CSCA București, CCA București and CSA Steaua București.
The dab page of May 2021, while bare, does a much better job of explaining the topic. The expanded June 2021 version also explains it fairly well. By contrast, the current version begins by telling us about the Romanian Cup and the European Cup. The History section looks like a machine translation from Romanian: A new non-profit organization...was created...which was handed over the right to use the Steaua brand name and the Steaua Stadium, while FC Steaua București retained ownership of both and the tutelage over the new entity?? In 2000, on the upswing of eliminating state owned teams from ever participating in the first football tier, an article was added to the National Sports Law to help this matter?? What does any of that mean? And do we really think that "fake news" is encyclopaedic language? Either a major edit to make the article comprehensible, or a reversion to the dab page is needed. Scolaire (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page isn't really the most logical outcome, it should be a redirect to FCSB. Most reliable sources, 14 years of club history from 2003 to 2017 and also UEFA and the Romanian league assert that FCSB is simply the successor club of FC Steaua Bucharest, it's only the Romanian political establishment and its CSA sports club that is trying to claim otherwise; it also leads on page views so is the primary topic. The 2018 discussion that led to the move of FCSB was based on a change of name for the club, but it didn't say anything about changing what the original title FC Steaua București actually referred to. The current page is simply a WP:POVFORK. A dab page is obviously preferable to the current weird state of affairs, but going back to the original redirect for this page is better.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that CSA Steaua București should - IMHO - be turned into a disambiguation page with as content (at least): CSA Steaua București (omnisport club) and CSA Steaua București (football). That is already mentioned on the dab-page Steaua București.
But there are so many claims of fake news, acts of vandalism, unsourced edits, rows and court cases and other nastiness, that it is very difficult to determine what is the truth. Still I am convinced that every entity in this affair is notable, just because of all the rows and court cases. The Banner talk 18:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited to give a better sense of what this article is about. There is, as you say, a pressing need to unravel the mess and determine what is what. Somebody sued Becali's club in 2011. Was it the Ministry of Defence, and is there a reliable source for that? (Hint: a headline like "INCREDIBLE! CSA defies the court and refuses to provide the documents that show who the real Steaua is!" does not inspire confidence.) That club changed its name to FCSB in 2017. Why? Was it the result of the same court case? Whether or not, is there a reliable source for it? When exactly did the Romanian League come down in favour of FCSB? When did UEFA? When did the courts come down in favour of CSA Steaua București, and was that still part of the 2011 case? This could be a reasonably good article if the facts could be ascertained and the hyperbole removed. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that edit. A step in the good direction. But imho the merge proposal is not very helpful. The Banner talk 17:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a rewrite to make it intelligible, using mostly English-language, neutral sources. Scolaire (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was... not merged. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging FC Steaua București into the history section of FCSB since it seems like consensus might lean towards that. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All entities in this affair are notable on their own. The Banner talk 17:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be at Talk:FCSB#Merge proposal. --Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move proposal

[edit]

@The Banner, Amakuru, and BuySomeApples: I propose to move this page to FC Steaua București records dispute. The FC Steaua București page can then become a redirect to FCSB. I won't go through a formal move request if we can get a consensus among ourselves. The IP is also welcome to contribute, as long as he remains civil. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be added on wikiproject football page as here is a particular user who will keep insisting to infinity about third club existing. Even as infobox was added, he reverted in panic, knowing it never ever played. Old trick of locking from unbothered foreign admins, but at very least this is now kept to look as useless piece of 2 sections. Thanks, kind regards! 😃😇 93.138.220.238 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadionul_Steaua_(2021)
besides i would like mr peter as native speaker to check how some simple format clearing was took care of here...proving there is deeper link between dutch (irish based!) editor and romania. but things will move to something better hopefully. 93.138.220.238 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love to see what you mean with "deeper link between dutch (irish based!) editor and romania". Please, inform me! The Banner talk 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thats not important at all but if you cant understand fast enough:
noted above irish user its your proud residence too.
but it is interesting how a non football editing user picked one seemingly unrelated team and clings to it. (sorry if avid wp football member not recognised).
finally it gave anyone with more similar edits right to wonder how such person can have all facts. and this will resolve a bit unlike your initial ideas.
👋🤝 93.138.220.238 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really want to know what you mean by that. The Banner talk 10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be alright with that move. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mwah.. Convinced? No. The best option to stop the misery? Yes. So I reluctantly agree with the renaming. The redirect, not so much. There is still fighting going on who is the real successor of the European Cup-winner. The Banner talk 10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the renamed article will be linked from the FCSB, CSA Steaua and History of FC Steaua articles, via a {{see also}} at the top of the relevant sections. Its not as if the "fighting" will be swept under the carpet. As to the redirect, it can't go to this article, as that would defeat the whole purpose of the move; it can't go to two different articles; and FC Steaua Bucharest already redirects to FCSB. Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this proposal seems fine. Move the page and redirect to FCSB. Sure, there's a dispute, but I don't see reliable sources saying anything other than that FCSB is the same club with the full history. Hatnotes can deal with any other issues as and when.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good outcome...still this now small dispute article could be merged with history.
Point is, if someone randomly picks side and wants to have few articles different in minor name details, its fraud. "fc ... bucharest ... bucuresti ... football club ... etc"
Now at least mentioned dutch user cant claim third club existed! There was one from which came two and thats the case. Thanks for anyone's effort. 93.140.217.166 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no other arguments then insults, IP? The Banner talk 22:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me be clear: this block evading (See here) Croatian IP (see here) is now also wikiwide vandalising pages "belonging" to me (see here). So sad. The Banner talk 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There are two different entities that claim the same history. There should be a 3rd article (this one), talking about the dispute. Merging the articles will only make things worse and even more confusing. Dante4786 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dante4786 edits

[edit]

Re these edits by Dante4786:

  1. They state that "the separation in 1998 is only an allegation, not yet proved." There is a source in the article, Gazeta Sporturilor (English translation), that states, "This protocol...stipulated how the ownership of Steaua was transferred from MApN [the defence ministry] to AFC Steaua, owned by [Viorel] Păunescu." That sounds pretty definitive to me. Is there a reliable source that states that the ownership was not transferred to an organisation outside the military? If not, you can't use the word "allegedly".
  2. Likewise, there is a source (The Guardian) that states that Gigi Becali gained control of the aforementioned AFC Steaua in 2003. Is there a reliable source that states that Becali created a brand new club in that year? If not, we can't say that FCSB was "formed by Becali in 2003".
  3. To say that CSA Steaua was "reactivated" in 2017 suggests that the players and staff of CSA Steaua had been inactive since 1998, and that a directive from the ministry caused them to become active again. There is a source in the article (the BBC) that states, "In that same year [2017], a Steaua Bucharest claiming authentic continuity with the great old club founded 75 years ago began a new life in Romania's fourth division." I think "re-formed" covers that, but perhaps another word would say it better; "reactivated" just isn't it.

I'm open to a re-writing of the lead, but as it stands it is merely making unverifiable claims that push the CSA Steaua point of view. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to a blank revert due to POV-pushing. The Banner talk 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And with an edit like this, we can expect more misery. I class that edit as vandalism. And this edit is also suspicious. Is he trying to steam-roll the compromise reached? The Banner talk 16:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Scolaire, please, read again your source. "so the takeover of the team, produced in January 2003, is now officially questioned by several courts in Romania." Does this sound definitive to you? Being questioned by the Justice System? The article you quoted was from 2017. Since then, FCSB lost all legal actions. There are many sources even on wikipedia, in English, stating the current situation. Steaua has the records from 1947-1998 & 2017-present, Fcsb has (maybe) 2003-present. What is the logical conclusion? You want sources stating how the separation is not proved? Fine. 1. https://www-prosport-ro.translate.goog/fotbal-intern/actele-lui-becali-protocolul-invocat-acum-de-patronul-fcsb-a-fost-semnat-in-1999-intre-armata-si-afc-steaua-si-anulat-de-cabinetul-adrian-nastase-prin-hg-128-2003-prosport-l-a-publicat-in-urma-cu-doua-16088348?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp "The protocol was signed (...) and CANCELED" We are talking about a nullification act. It's void. But let's say, just for sake of it, this is not true. Read again your source. You didn't quote the whole thing. "In fact, it was a partial privatization, because there was no definitive sale, but the non-profit association was given the right to use for a certain period everything that means the base in Ghencea." It wasn't a definitive sale. The non-profit association was given the right to use FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD, everything that means THE BASE. That means training grounds and other annexes. And the right to use the players (but that may be a different document, I'm not sure). He bought the players and the right to TEMPORARY use the traning grounds, the stadium and so forth. But again, it was nullified. The separation is not proved.
  2. https://orangesport-ro.translate.goog/cand-a-fost-infiintata-fcsb-mts-raspuns-oficial-document-ce-scrie-in-raspunsul-semnat-de-eduard-novak-20991117?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp "FCSB was established in 2003" It's written multiple times. https://www-prosport-ro.translate.goog/sport-life/special/acte-raportul-interzis-tradatorii-din-armata-romana-comandantul-csa-anunta-sefii-mapn-in-2001-ca-afaceristi-politicieni-si-ofiteri-comploteaza-sa-fure-echipa-de-fotbal-generalul-rosu-spune-ca-s-a-urma-15992381?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp "This, because in February 2003 the football team had been moved from AFC Steaua to the newly founded SC FC Steaua București SA, where Gigi Becali had become the majority shareholder." Newly founded. Also, fun fact, AFC Steaua (1998-2003) had shares in FCSB. AFC Steaua was a shareholder in FCSB. They are clearly not the same team. CSA Steaua is from 1947. AFC Steaua is from 1998. FCSB is from 2003. I hope that clearifies things.
  3. Only the football team was inactive. CSA Steaua Bucuresti was still active. And according to Romanian law, the sport sections from a club don't have legal personality. They can't exist separated from the club. The club has the honours and the records, via the sport sections. Another thing: https://www-gsp-ro.translate.goog/fotbal/liga-2/steaua-bucuresti-trofeu-cce-684008.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp "According to the regulations, UEFA allows each winner of the competition to make a replica, which can resemble the original by up to 80%. The one won by Steaua has been used since 1967, but since then the trophy has been modified several times." If CSA Steaua's football team was reformed 2017, how can it officialy have the replica of the 1986 trophy? If I am not mistaken, a similar discussion was on Ranger's talk page. "Reformed" implies an interruption of continuity and track record. It's clearly not the case here. https://curierulnational-ro.translate.goog/steaua-nu-am-cedat-niciodata-sectia-de-fotbal/?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp "The military club reactivated its football section in 2017"
  4. The Banner, I'm tired of your harassment. This is not the first time you come up with false accusation and undo my edits with no valid reason whatsover. If I was trying to push Steaua's point of view, I would have erased all references towards 2017. But I didn't. I only added 2003 for FCSB. If you don't allow this, you are pushing FCSB point of view. Either we present ALL relevant information in a neutral manner, or we don't. No double standard. I believe we should explain, very briefly, how these 2 entities came to be. And we can't do that without a short specification of the years involved. And please explain why you undid my edit, which is clearly the most neutral aproach. It doesn't redirect to either team. Are you sure you aren't the one who is pushing a point of view? Dante4786 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So where are we now? There was an agreement signed in 1998 between the military and Viorel Păunescu. That much is undisputed. It now appears, from your first link, that there was a government decision to approve this agreement, but that the government issued another decision, annulling the previous one, in 2003, after Becali took control over the organisation. But that does not mean that no agreement was signed. There was an agreement. That is a fact. Facts are what we deal with on Wikipedia. Per WP:ALLEGED, we can't say that Steaua was "allegedly" separated from its parent club if that, at the time, is what happened. In the years after 1998, CSA Steaua did not have responsibility for the football club, its players, its staff or its grounds. AFC Steaua did. Regardless of ministry statements or court rulings, that was the case on the ground. There was no football club in suspended animation for 19 years, and therefore, regardless of the legal niceties, it was not "reactivated". "Restarted" could be used, or "relaunched", which is used on History of Rangers F.C.. As for Becali, there do seem to be reliable sources to say he formed a new club in 2003, but to state that bald fact implies that he started it from scratch, with new players and staff, which was very clearly not the case. As you say, either we present ALL relevant information in a neutral manner, or we don't. No double standard.
I'm not biased towards either side, and I'm certainly not arguing that CSA Steaua is not entitled to a replica of the 1986 trophy. I just want to see the facts presented in a way that is not confusing to the reader. Scolaire (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an agreement - Which is void. That means, it produces no effects (and deletes all previous effects). That means the effect we are talking about ("the separation") is not a real thing and, at best, jus an allegation. But again, please don't skip the fact that the agreement you mentioned was from the beginning a TEMPORARY agreement and the subject was about something else (training grounds and so forth, not the actual football team). From my understanding, it was never a separation. It was never valid and it was never about a separation. But I do admit, people did, at some point, think this was the case. So, for the moment, the middle ground would be to write about the separation, but to describe it only as an allegation. Also, to give an analogy. We can't say X was married to Y, when the marriage was annulled. The marriage never technically existed and was never valid. It's not like a divorce. Or to put it in football terms: you can't count a goal which was canceled for offside. "Restarted" could be used, or "relaunched", which is used on History of Rangers F.C Yes, on history, but on the infobox it still appears as "Founded". And I believe the case is much clearer at Steaua, since there is a parent club who owns all the history and records and it never ceased to exist. And about 2003 for FCSB and 2017 for Steaua: my point is this: we either write the years for both teams, or we skip them both. Dante4786 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely can say on Wikipedia that X was married to Y, when the marriage was annulled. What we absolutely can't say is that X was allegedly married to Y. What the good folks at AN/I keep trying to tell you is that we report facts, regardless of any court ruling to the contrary. The agreement happened; no court ruling can make it un-happen. As for 2003, I'm only saying that we should state clearly that it was a takeover of an existing entity, not just the founding of an entirely new club. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say X was allegedly married, no, but you can't say X was married when the marriage was annulled. Like stated here, it has a retroactive effect. Meaning it is literally erased. If we write X was married to Y, when we know this is not the case, we imply it ended in a divorce, which is misleading. So you would at least have to make further clarifications, and the equivalent here is stating that the so called "separation" is only an allegation. "The agreement happened; no court ruling can make it un-happen" Completely false! That's the whole point of retroactivity. It doesn't mean things "ended", it means they never happened in the first place. To further explain it, you can't achieve a legal agreement with somebody, if you or the other side do not comply with the conditions imposed by the law. And the agreement was never about the separation, it was about "borrowing" facilities, for a certain period of time. The agreement wasn't valid, wasn't about a separation (or a definitive sale) and wasn't permanent. It's an allegation AT BEST. Not only it is not proven, it actually is contradicted by current affairs. I am willing to agree to a middle ground and thus write about the separation, but it has to be described as only an allegation. I cannot, in good faith, agree to a false statement. Dante4786 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have the reliable, independent sources to prove this version of events? The Banner talk 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read above. Besides my sources, it is stated even in Scolaire's source. Dante4786 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification: when you sign a concession, you just borrow something? The Banner talk 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in quotation marks. I'm not sure of the terminology, since English is not my native language and I don't want to spread misinformation. But yes, something similar, in this case. Basically, in '98, AFC Steaua borrowed from CSA Steaua (which is owned by the state) the rights and obligations to temporary exploit some public properties, like the stadium and the training grounds. Dante4786 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concession (contract) The Banner talk 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are trying to say and to be honest, I didn't read your link. You have to explain your point, not just drop a random link. But I guess you think I am lying. We are talking about concession in terms of Romanian legislature. ,,Crime" in English is not the same as ,,crime" in Romanian https://ro-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Crim%C4%83?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. "Criminal" in Romanian means "murderer" https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=ro&text=murderer&op=translate. And "Concession of public property" means [The contract for the concession of public property is that contract concluded in written form by which a public authority, known as the grantor, transmits, for a determined period, to a person, known as the concessionaire, who acts at his own risk and responsibility, the right and the obligation of exploitation of a public property, in exchange for a royalty.] Dante4786 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A concession is far more a type of rental agreement. The Banner talk 14:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to get back on track here. Look at Lucrezia Borgia. It says, "He [Giovanni Sforza] married Lucrezia on 12 June 1493 in Rome", and then a few paragraphs later, "Giovanni finally signed confessions of impotence and documents of annulment before witnesses." And it's there in the infobox, too: "Spouse – Giovanni Sforza ​(m. 1493; ann. 1497)". By your logic, Wikipedia cannot say that Giovanni married Lucrezia; and yet, it does. In law, annulment has a retroactive effect, but that does not mean it is literally erased. It was recorded, and 500 years later it is still stated as fact. The same way, the Romanian government annulling its approval of the 1998 agreement does not mean the fact of the agreement is literally erased. That sort of thing happened in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four but, thank goodness, it hasn't happened in real life yet.
Now, you say, "I am willing to agree to a middle ground and thus write about the separation, but it has to be described as only an allegation." But that is precisely what you did in the disputed edit, so how can you call it the "middle ground"? The whole problem is the word "allegedly". It implies dishonesty: that somebody is deliberately and maliciously deceiving others. If you want a middle ground, you have to get rid of that word. You said to The Banner that in 1998, AFC Steaua borrowed from CSA Steaua certain rights and obligations. If so, then it's equally true to say that in 1998, CSA Steaua transferred those rights and obligations to AFC Steaua. Scolaire (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, what did I say?:) "If we write X was married to Y, when we know this is not the case, we imply it ended in a divorce, which is misleading. So you would at least have to make further clarifications" Now let's look at your link. "On 26 February 1491, a matrimonial arrangement was drawn up between Lucrezia and the Lord of Val D'Ayora, in the kingdom of Valencia, Don Cherubino Joan de Centelles, which was annulled less than two months later" In fact, most of the paragraph is about the anullment. Now, let's look at the infobox you mentioned: "Spouse Giovanni Sforza (m. 1493; ann. 1497)" Again, it does NOT simply state they were married and that's it, the end. Now, where are the clarifications for the so called separation? You are asking for the equivalant of "let's write Sforza was married to Borgia and leave it at that". And no, I'm afraid you can't contradict real life legislature with fiction and literature, like the book "1984". If you don't like it, you don't like, you are entitled to your opinions but we can't deny facts. Now look at this, I googled: "do annulment erase". Let's see the first link: https://trustandwill.com/learn/annulment-after-death "An annulment is a legal ruling that voids a marriage. It erases all legal validity of the marriage. Though the marriage records will still exist, an annulment makes it so that the marriage that did happen has no legal standing. It’s like it didn’t exist". However, we are talking about Romanian law. So let's see what the Romanian legislature states: [1.254. - (1) The contract struck by absolute nullity or canceled is considered to have never been concluded.] Yes, obviously, the records are kept. The law does not encourage the rewriting of history. But we aren't talking about that, and neither is the law implying that. By "erasing", we are referring to a "practical" (and legal) point, if you will. Or from the perspective of the consequences, which are now considered to be erased. And to clarify: My view is that the separation never happened. The agreement wasn't valid, wasn't about a separation (or a definitive sale) and wasn't permanent. If it was up to me, I wouldn't even write about the so called "separation", since it didn't happen. But, as a middle ground, I am willing to accept to write about it, as long as it is described as an allegation, only because people did used to think the separation was real, so I think it would be helpful for the readers to read about it. "You said to The Banner that in 1998, AFC Steaua borrowed from CSA Steaua certain rights and obligations. If so, then it's equally true to say that in 1998, CSA Steaua transferred those rights and obligations to AFC Steaua" Nope. I was stating facts as known in 1998. I was trying to clarify that it was not a separation. I was discussing the content, not the validity. After 1998, further documents along the line erased the deal. Secondly, I'm not sure about the terminology you suggest. "Tranfering rights and obligations" entails a transfer of ownership, a selling. It wasn't that. In colloquial terms: it was a loan, not a sale. Which was cancelled. Dante4786 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire I'm confused. Why are we even discussing the validity, anullment and so forth when you asked this: "Is there a reliable source that states that the ownership was not transferred to an organisation outside the military? If not, you can't use the word "allegedly". I already explained this. To you and to The Banner. It wasn't a sale. It was a loan for 20 years. It's stated even in your own source. It's even in the title :) Why continue the discussion when I did what you asked for? It was never a transfer of ownership. Dante4786 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know more now than I did then. Certain rights were transferred to an organisation outside the military. "Transferring" does not entail selling; it entails handing over certain things to another party, just as "borrowing" entails receiving certain things from another party. If you are not willing to discuss giving up the word "allegedly", you have no interest in finding common ground. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your position. Let me get this straight. You are reproaching me for asking for the middle ground from the get-go? In other words, if I was more radical at the beginning, and asked to erase ALL references towards the so-called "separation", you would have been happy if now I accepted for it to stay, as long it is described just as an allegation? Is that it? I should have asked for more at the beginning? Come on, don't be like that :) "Transferring" does not entail selling" I admit, I thought so too. But I had my suspicions, since I wasn't sure about the translation, so I did a little research and found this: https://www.yesmypatent.com/en/transfer-of-right-agreement/#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20tranfer%20of,similar%20to%20a%20sales%20contract. "The transfer of rights agreement is a contract by which the transfer of ownership of an immaterial good and the rights attached to it takes place. It is similar to a sales contract. Often used for intellectual property rights, it can be adapted to industrial property rights (patents, trademarks, designs and models) as well as to copyright (artistic creations, software). The transfer of rights agreement entails the full transfer of ownership of the intangible property and must therefore meet a number of conditions." and this https://www.contractscounsel.com/t/us/rights-transfer-agreement "A rights transfer agreement, also known as an assignment agreement, is a legal document that transfers the ownership of certain intellectual property rights from one party to another." Again, I'm not sure about the terminology, but it seems at least some people do understand "transfer of rights" as a "transfer of ownership". But again, we digress and let's not mix things up. At the very beginning, you didn't ask to prove there wasn't a transfer of rights. You asked me to argue against there being a "transfer of ownership''. Dante4786 (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look! Did a football club called Steaua București take part in domestic and European competitions between 1998 and 2003? Yes. Was it the same players and staff, on the same ground as before 1998? Yes. Did the army or CSA Steaua București exercise or claim responsibility over the club in those years? No. These are facts, not allegations. Can you please suggest a concise wording to express these three simple facts? Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be put back to the agreed version prior to Dante's recent edits. The Romanian courts do not constitute a reliable source for the history of the club, and reliable sources list FCSB as the successor to the old Steaua Bucuresti.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru We didn't achieve a consensus. The discussion was on the first days of January, between just a handful of users. One of which is currently banned. "The Romanian courts do not constitute a reliable source for the history of the club" No, but what about the other sources? Scolaire's own source contradicts the current edit. And that wasn't a link from the Romanian court. Neither is this: https://www-prosport-ro.translate.goog/fotbal-intern/actele-lui-becali-protocolul-invocat-acum-de-patronul-fcsb-a-fost-semnat-in-1999-intre-armata-si-afc-steaua-si-anulat-de-cabinetul-adrian-nastase-prin-hg-128-2003-prosport-l-a-publicat-in-urma-cu-doua-16088348?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp or this: https://orangesport-ro.translate.goog/cand-a-fost-infiintata-fcsb-mts-raspuns-oficial-document-ce-scrie-in-raspunsul-semnat-de-eduard-novak-20991117?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp or this https://www-prosport-ro.translate.goog/sport-life/special/acte-raportul-interzis-tradatorii-din-armata-romana-comandantul-csa-anunta-sefii-mapn-in-2001-ca-afaceristi-politicieni-si-ofiteri-comploteaza-sa-fure-echipa-de-fotbal-generalul-rosu-spune-ca-s-a-urma-15992381?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dante4786, we did achieve a consensus between the participating editors. That you were not part of that discussion does not make that consensus suddenly null and void. You do not have a veto. The Banner talk 11:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the first days of the year, when most people are on vacantion. With a editor who is now banned. And another who may be suspected of Single-purpose accounts. And with you, who obviously developed a dislike for me and the subject involved. No, that isn't a fair consensus. Expecting to check Wikipedia every 10 minutes is ridiculous. Dante4786 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I like how you point out the so called consensus and ignore everyhing else I said to Amakuru. Dante4786 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scolaire: I'm not going to lie, I am very disappointed with you now. You put your edits back in, without there being a consensus. We talked for nothing. You asked me for something very specific ("Is there a reliable source that states that the ownership was not transferred to an organisation outside the military?"), I gave you that, you backpedalled, made another request, I answered again and it still wasn't enough. You keep moving the goalpost. I will not play this game anymore, you keep ignoring my answers. I will have to make new edits (tomorrow or on the weekend) and somehow choose a new wording. But I will definately not use the statement about the so-called "separation" as it is now. Your own source contradicts what you wrote. The agreement wasn't valid, wasn't about a separation (or a definitive sale) and wasn't permanent. Anyway you look at it, that wasn't a separation. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dante4786: No need to be disappointed in me. I didn't put my edits back in, CoffeeCrumbs did, based on the discussion at ANI. I have followed Bold, revert, discuss to the letter. Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not backpedalling, moving the goalposts or playing games; I am taking what you say on board and trying to move the discussion forward. I am not insisting on the word "separated" and I never said we should use the word "ownership". I am glad to see you intend to choose a new wording, but please post it here and try and get consensus for it before editing the article. You could start by answering my last post, which you don't seem to have seen.

Did a football club called Steaua București take part in domestic and European competitions between 1998 and 2003? Yes. Was it the same players and staff, on the same ground as before 1998? Yes. Did the army or CSA Steaua București exercise or claim responsibility over the club in those years? No. These are facts, not allegations. Can you please suggest a concise wording to express these three simple facts?

If you can do that, we might reach a resolution very quickly. Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steaua_București_football_records_dispute&oldid=1230982272"