Talk:FCSB/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

older entries

Did someone, like, delete the whole page? Why? And will someone bring it back? Rayasmith 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)rayasmith

It wouldn't be a bad idea if people that start editing this page would take more care of the way they use the English language. It's pretty annoying to read a page when it's full of grammar or spelling errors, especially when you're a fan of the team. Also whenever you create a link, make sure it is a valid link. It's really annoying to see the page full of red links or links that instead of sending you to the page of a football team they send you to the page of the city or of the quarter where that team plays. I've tried to edit as many mistakes as I could find. Giuseppe86 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing - a little bit of modesty never hurt anybody.Giuseppe86 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited some more club links and I think all of them work. Also I think it makes sense to use the old name (like Croatia Zagreb, instead of Dinamo Zagreb; the same applies to Casino Salzburg and Red Bull Salzburg), since that was the name the club used when it played Steaua. A question though - isn't it a bit confusing to sepparate a season between two years (like the 2004/2005 season sepparated between 2004 and 2005)? I mean in football the division used is the 'season' and that in most cases doesn't match with a year. I hope to get some thoughts instead of people that come around without announcing what they want to do with the page Giuseppe86 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You can say either that you 'win on penalties' or 'win after the penalty shootout'. The form 'penalties shootout' is wrong (a simple check on the internet is enough to prove it). Giuseppe86 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed a line where it said 'the frantic Steaua's fans' with 'the frantic Steaua fans'; 'Steaua's frantic fans' is also an option Giuseppe86 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts about the statement that Steaua's 104 matches without defeat is a world record. RSSSF, one of the best sites in the world when it comes to football statistics, shows under Miscellaneous - Unbeatability records that ASEC Abidjan is the holder of the world record with 108 matches. If it is true then Steaua's record of 104 matches is only a European record. Giuseppe86 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. This has now been changed.--Oliviu 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Steaua fan I have to say I don't feel represented by an Ultras group; why should they be mentioned above any other fans? they cause more problems than they do good... Giuseppe86 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article has too much information written in which Steaua's performances are being overly exaggerated. For example, I just deleted part of the Famous Players section. That section has a lot of inaccurate information, such as the part where it said that Adrian Neaga and Mirel Rădoi are known worldwide. Not that many people know about them you know. Another example would be in the beggining where it says that Steaua has no real rivals in Romania. That is not true, they have many rivals, such as: Dinamo Bucureşti, Rapid Bucureşti, or Universitatea Craiova. To a lesser extent, even teams such as UT Arad and Politehnica Timişoara can be sometimes considered as rivals simply because of the fact that their fans have an "Anti-Bucharest" attitude, thus creating rivalries between their teams and the important Bucharest teams, like Steaua, Dinamo Bucureşti, or Rapid Bucureşti(although the Politehnica fans share a friendship with the Rapid fans). In the future, please try to be a little more modest about the clubs's achievements. --- Anti-Phag

• I agree that Dinamo, Rapid and, to a much lesser extent, Universitatea Craiova are rivals of Steaua, but I find the statement that UTA and especially Poli Timisoara are rivals of Steaua laughable. How can two club that have achieved so little in recent years be rivals of Steaua? Giuseppe86 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Another thing - the section about famous players is a highly subjective topic. A non-Steaua fan may have a different opinion, but most (if not all) of the players listed there are very important figures in the history of Steaua. Maybe a change of name would be good - from Famous players to important players or something like that. Giuseppe86 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've a few changes so there won't be any reasons (I think) to contest the neutrality of the article. Giuseppe86 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • When you talk about a rivalry between two clubs you refer to something that is true for both clubs (for example Steaua considers Dinamo a rival and Dinamo considers Steaua a rival). Just because the fans of a certain club have something against Steaua doesn't mean that Steaua and its fans will automatically consider them as rivals. The fans of Poli and UTA have the right to hate Steaua, but that doesn't mean those two clubs are Steaua's rivals. If that were true than we could apply the same theory to the fans of lets say CFR Cluj - their fans hate Steaua so CFR Cluj should be condidered rivals. I think this whole way of thinking is bogus. I'm a Steaua fan and I can say I really feel nothing against Poli or UTA, but I do feel the rivalry between Steaua and Dinamo, Rapid or Universitatea Craiova. Giuseppe86 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Two different pages...

This page (Steaua Bucureşti) has become too large and therefore needs to be split. This makes sense as long as Steaua Bucureşti is a sports club with quite a number of departments and not only a football team, which is actually FC Steaua Bucureşti.

I suggest to make a brand new page named FC Steaua Bucureşti (at the moment it redirect to Steaua Bucureşti) for the football team and leave Steaua Bucureşti for the sports club. However, I don’t have the right knowledge to do it myself and I require some help.

Also if someone changes please note that there are many pages which link the page Steaua Bucureşti at the moment. They all should be changed (maybe using a robot?) to link to FC Steaua Bucureşti.

Message for SupervladiTM

I understand that you are a big Steaua fan and considering the amount and the relevance of the information you added on the page you probably work for Steaua in some position, however you must always obey a Wikipedia rule: You must always be neutral. Thanks for understanding. --Oliviu 10:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue of racism involving Steaua

Several times in the last six months, I've edited this page to include information that I think is important: the fact that Steaua Bucuresti's fans have been involved in some notorious incidents of racism in recent years. See, for example: http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/UCL/news/Kind=1/newsId=327828.html

http://www.farenet.org/news_article.asp?intNewsID=663

This does not make Steaua unique, unfortunately; Lazio-Rome, St. Germain-Paris, one of the Belgrade teams, and numerous other European clubs are plagued by racism. But the fact that Steaua has been sanctioned by UEFA in the last two years should be known, and is relevant to the recent history of the club. Yet the Steaua fans who dominate this page has always removed any references to the history of racism (both anti-black and anti-gypsy). The removal of this information violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.

Season Transfers should be removed from the main article

The current season transfers section should be removed from the main article because is not relevant. The main article deals with general info about the club and its history. That kind of information about the transfers is not that acurately and it changes rapidly. THIS IS NOT WIKINEWS! A page with that info about the transfers, current squad, even matchdays was created and covers very acurately what happens to the club in the current season. This article is a former Featured Article Candidate and it failed to earn its star mainly because of these issues. So, this article will be again a candidate for Featured Articles and will probably not meet the Wikipedia's criteria if this info about transfers remains on the main page. Let us make this article a better one and let us all learn about Wikipedia's rules. Thank you. (Gabinho^Palavras 08:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

GAC October

I have failed this article.
Prose

• Many language issues throughout the text. Incorrect grammar, incorrect usage of English terminology is prevalent throughout the article. Asking for a copyedit from WP:FOOTBALL is probably recommended. I don’t think listing every example here is going to be helpful.
  • Could you please point out some?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• One-two line paragraphs need to be merged into one another.
  • Sounds decent enough. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• ”National Team of Romania” – only Romania should be caps
  • Yes, good point. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Becali wikilinked over and over
  • But in different sections... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

• In almost every section, the army roots of the club is stated in the first sentence. This seems excessive: either it assumes the reader is forgetful, or is hammering on about something
  • That may be. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Controversies section is POV. Unfortunately I cannot read Romanian, but this section is not presented in a non judgmental way. Especially te Ceaucescu thing. It si sourced to Ceaucescu.org ?!?!?!
  • Lots of FAC's are referenced in other languages than English. Ceausescu.org is in no way a biased website. The same (I guess) for the other references in the section. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Becali section does not seem NPOV at all, and seems to focus ofn his idiosyncracies in a negative way. Esp “the facts that the current shareholders, that include several nephews of his, are people loyal to him and that he is still in charge of Steaua are obvious”
  • An older peer review suggested I should focus on his idiosyncracies... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Pop culture is undue weight. Most of the pop culture is about modern things, and there is more on the pop culture than the modern history.
  • Doesn't popular culture actually mean pop-culture?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OR

• Author makes the assumption that the success is the cause of the popularity – how do we know this? Ferrari has always been the most popular even when it was hopeless
  • I was pondering myself about that aspect actually... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• ”a record unlikely to be broken in the nearby future, as none of the current players have entered the top 10 so far” OR – source is raw stats
  • They're not raw... They're the official rankings for most appearances and goals scored. An almost identical sentence appears in FAC Chelsea_F.C.#Records.

REFERENCES

• A very large part of the references comes from the website of the club, and cannot be considered to be WP:RS, since the source is not independent. Some parts are not referenced.
  • References linked to the official website refer to pure facts, present on other sources as well. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Uniform sections are poorly sourced
  • For instance?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• One of the mini-pars about racism is unsourced – red light for libel etc.
  • Right, I think I saw it. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move. Because WP:NC#Sports teams was boldly added by one user four months ago with no edit summary or discussion, and there seems to be a dispute about whether this section is descriptive of our current practice and community consensus, it is not really a great argument. This naming debate should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Prolog 17:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---

FC Steaua Bucureşti → FC Steaua Bucharest — The result in Dynamo Kiev is clear, but someone still using consensus as their criteria. So I have to make the discussion. I don't prefer to do this, but I still have to copy the naming convention there.

Sports teams This is the English language Wikipedia so generally the regular English name should be used. For example, use Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München, Red Star Belgrade rather than Crvena Zvezda and so on. Note the English name is not always the 'authentic' name used on the club crest and so on. For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world.

—Raymond Giggs 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, first of all it's the more commonly used name and secondly there's a clear rule on wikipedia. BanRay 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ENGLISH. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, official names should be used, conventions should be changed. - MTC 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You know, I'm starting to get a feeling that the only reason people oppose such moves is as in some kind of protest against the rules of wikipedia. Ignore the rules, just have some common sense. With this kind of logic we shouldn't transliterate cyrillic and greek names either. BanRay 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel Sporting Lisbon, Bayern Munich or Steaua Bucharest are rather popular names inside the Enlish-speaking world and they should not be mistaken for the official names. A different name, be it even in popular English, MAY be mistaken for something else. This is not the case of FC Steaua Bucureşti, but in case of an already existing entity called Steaua Bucharest, a major confusion would be created. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to redirect the English names to the already existing ones, which has already been made in most cases. Examples that sustain my theory (in my opinion) are names written in special characters althroughout Wikipedia or, for instance, Palais du Louvre. Vladi 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and popular names should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't understand your reasoning Steaua Bucharest exists only as a redirect to FC Steaua Bucureşti - what confusion are you talking about? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - in general if we are given the option between two reasonable choices, we should use the UEFA official name if it is already the status quo (I am not arguing that we should *move* PFC CSKA Moscow to PFC CSKA Moskva - but if it were already there, then I would argue to keep it there). I see that "Steaua Bucharest" has 166 Google hits while "Steaua Bucuresti" (with or without the accent) has 6,300 Google hits. It seems to me also that this is a very minor issue to argue over - I seem to recall one or two debates like this before, which led nowhere... ugen64 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The club's official name is FC Steaua Bucureşti. UEFA uses FC Steaua Bucureşti. Some English speaking media use Steaua Bucureşti. Examples = (1) (2) (3) I agree that the naming conventions should be changed as I'm in favor of keeping Crvena Zvezda, Dynamo Kyiv, Slavia Praha, etc. The naming convention has an factually incorrect statement in it anyway, Sporting CP are not "always called Sporting Lisbon in the English speaking world." In the Sporting - Manchester United Champions League match the ESPN announcers said that the term Sporting Lisbon is out of date and the club prefers Sporting Clube or Sporting Clube de Portugal or Sporting CP for short. --Tocino 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be kindly refer to the words of the move result in FC Dynamo Kiev.

The result of the proposal was — surprise — move. We have fairly clear policies and guidelines, WP:NC#Sports teams which is based on WP:COMMONNAME, and they are clear in this case. I am aware that the votecount below is in vicinity of 10:1, but we don't do votecount, sorry — most of the keeping arguments are along the lines of WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:PERABOVE, and "we should use official names" — however, we don't. See DeLarge's post below for thorough arguments. Duja► 10:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not the condition to decide the article should be move or not. If you want to complaint, please suggest a convention change. Raymond Giggs 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - UEFA uses the official name for all european clubs and as long as wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its articles do have translations, i think keeping the official name is the right thing to do. The moving will also make no sense because Steaua is not an English word and will be necessary a translation as well for it....and the result will be something like this: FC STAR BUCHAREST. That in my opinion is far from the common name of the club: FC Steaua Bucureşti...and again, this naming is used by UEFA for all its competitions. (Gabinho^Palavras 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose - The club refers to itself as "FC Steaua Bucuresti" on its official English website ([1]). - PeeJay 09:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose no arguments have been brought up to justify the move, on the contrary, the current name is proper (UEFA, official page). feydey 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'd like to see more discussion on why FC Steaua Bucharest would be considered of being "the regular English name", as pointed above - UEFA is using the current name etc. A quick check placed for example the common "Inter Milan" club name to F.C. Internazionale Milano. I'd like some views/investigation on this before deciding. feydey 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused about Inter Milan. But I think we should do something which is easy. For Steaua, it is not a English name and it should be "Star" in English, but we could not call the club as "Star Bucharest". It doesn't make sense. However, Wikipedia still have too much double standard. Raymond Giggs 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article was moved from FC Steaua Bucureşti to FC Steaua Bucharest yesterday. I have reverted this move, pending the outcome of the above discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that if the consensus of the survey would be to move this article to FC Steaua Bucharest, this should probably also apply to other football clubs from Bucharest, such as FC Dinamo Bucureşti, FC Rapid Bucureşti, Maccabi Bucureşti, FC Progresul Bucureşti, FC Unirea Tricolor Bucureşti, Venus Bucureşti and Victoria Bucureşti. I will post a message on the talk pages of these articles, pointing them to this discussion, and I will notify the WikiProject Romania. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Great, more nationalism. I suggest you notify Wikiproject Football, to avoid any inference of canvassing. Aecis, WP:NC#Sports teams is very straightforward and easy to understand, and discussion on one talk page does not override consensus. You should really know this. Neil ☎ 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Neil, WP:NC#Sports teams explicitly states that generally the English name of a club should be used. That allows for exceptions. And that is what this survey is for, to assess whether this is one such exception. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  So will you reopen the discussion again when the next administrator trying to clear the WP:RM backlog closes it in a manner you don't agree with, too? The discussion had happened, was overdue for closure, and I closed it, inline with policy and precedent. Neil ☎ 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  That's bullshit. Don't try to drag my opinion into this. It has nothing to do with it, if just for the simple fact that I don't have an opinion on the title of the article. If you disagree with me, fine, but this is just ridiculous. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no point to change it, you better use the time developing the article, and other articles about Romanian Football ! THANKS--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal dissapointment

This article will never be a FA nor a good article. It also had been the victim of some wikipedia rules that don't apply to other articles on this encyclopedia. When I first started to edit on wiki I was quite enthusiastic but later this feeling faded. For example the artcle had been moved to a name that is not used in the world of football. Steaua had always been known for its official name: FC Steaua Bucureşti. This name is used worldwide to refer to Steaua. I personally found this situation annoying and I suggest that a move should take place. I mean, the other Romanian football clubs with Bucureşti in their naming were not moved and those awkward wikipedia rules applied only to this article.

Here are some examples about football clubs that have articles based on their official club names:

• Sporting Clube de Portugal
• Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.
• F.C. Internazionale Milano
• Olympique Lyonnais
• Deportivo de La Coruña
• Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata,

and the list can go on.

If there is a rule on this issue let this rule be applied to all articles. If not, this article should be moved to its rightfull name. With great dissapointment, Gabinho^Palavras 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why other article could not be moved, is because of there is no any cite about their English name. However, "Steaua Bucharest" is shown in the English version of the official website. I thought I could move Internazionale to Inter Milan, but the club name is too widely for move, so I gave it up. Raymond Giggs 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

banele lasate de fotbal si dute in gara la cersit+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.54.144 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:FC Steaua Bucureşti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have looked over the article for its GA review. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is 3 or 4 full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
• Please see MOS:BOLD for when it is appropriate to use bolding in an article.
• Please replace as many dead links as possible. Try using archive.org for the archived versions of the websites used.
• It needs to be made clearer where the info for the all time stats are coming from.
• Like references need to be combined in the reference section.
• Per WP:EL, no fansites in the external links.
• The article is in dire need of a copyedit.

There is just too much work left to be done, so I am failing the article for now. Address these concerns and feel free to renominate. Nikki311 19:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The series of articles on Steaua published by Evenimentul Zilei

• Ceauşescu, primul blatist al ţării
• Securitatea i-a ameninţat că le arestează părinţii
• Le cerea steliştilor să nu vină la naţională
• Ceauşescu: „E adevărat că am făcut o prostie când am distrus Flacăra Ploieşti“
• CORNELIU MĂNESCU: „CCA nu se bucură de simpatie“
• ADI DOBRE: Nimic nou pe frontul de Est
• Ceauşescu, deranjat de criticile din ziare
• „Educarea politică a jucătorilor va face şi educarea publicului“
• „Comunismul e un vis! Nimeni n-a ajuns la el!“
• „Valentin Ceauşescu mi-a cerut să fug din România!“

bogdan (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ştefan Iovan

After Cosmin Olăroiu resigned in 2002, Ştefan Iovan was appointed as interim manager for a single match, against FC Argeş. After this match, Piţurcă became manager of the team for the last time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unuon (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

What the hell are statistics, honours etc doing in the infobox section ? The infobox should follow a pre-established template and I haven't seen other football team which follows this example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X3nnon (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding External Link to Liga1 Homepage

Remove links to made for adsense sites, and old blogs which are returning 404. Add link to point to the impartial, factual portal for liga 1 at liga1.gamebookers.com - link should point to club page for relevancy. adrian recordings (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

De-orphaning the Bolborea Dumitru page

There is a wikipedia page for Bolborea Dumitru, but currently very few articles link across to it. Since he appears to be considered noteworthy enough to have his own wikipedia page, maybe this page could be modified to link to his page? I'm afraid I must leave it to another editor, more skilled than I, to look into this, though. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Steaua in Europe" section

Could someone explain to me why such a section on Steaua's Wikipedia page doesn't exist? There are a lot of other clubs' articles that have such a section, why can't we do the same thing? It's a lot easier for all of those who enter on this article to simply go to "Steaua in Europe" if they want to get some info on the team, than having to read the whole "History" section.

Sorry if I did something wrong in posting this message, it's the first time I do this.188.26.154.39 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Luke

Update needed

I see two important updates that need to be done on the FC Steaua București main article.

[[2]]

[[3]]

The "UEFA Club Rankings" section was last updated on 12 May 2010. The "European Record" section in the main FC Steaua București article has not been updated for the last four matches.--188.26.156.98 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Lucas

Protected

Why is this article no longer protected ? A lot of damage has been done to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.85.119 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Steaua si Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Steaua si Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Steaua is the only team from Eastern Europe to achieve such performances."

Apart from Red Star Belgrade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.181.146 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

^Except Red Star were only in one final and won it after Steaua... Steaua were the first Eastern European club to win the UCL, and also FC Universitatea Craiova (another Romanian club) were the first in Eastern Europe to make the semi-finals of a major European competition (UEFA Cup), losing to Benfica on away goals, and the first to beat an English club (4-0 vs. Leeds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.106.19 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Steaua's early years - let's keep fanaticism out of wikipedia

I made an edit about the early years of Steaua, correcting an obvious attempt to re-write history. The previous version stated that 
"On 7 June 1947, at the initiative of several officers of the Romanian Royal House, the first Romanian sports club of the Army was born 
through a decree signed by General Mihail Lascăr, High Commander of the Romanian Royal Army."
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with Romanian history knows perfectly well that the creation of the Army and Police sport clubs in 1947 
was a communist initiative. The idea was to bring to the soviet-occupied countries the same model that existed in the Soviet Union, 
and this happened in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on.
 To say that the initiative came from  "several officers of the Romanian Royal House" is a gross attempt at disinformation, considering the fact 
that the "father" of Steaua is the well known soviet-agent Emil Bodnaras, the same man who used his gun to force the relegation of Bucharest club 
Carmen so Steaua can start of it's first season in the first League.
 A few days after I made my edit it was reverted by user Narcis90, someone who, judging by his other edits (shirt sponsors and manufacturers 
a.s.o.), has some affiliation with the club. He did the same on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti 
I'm hoping that from now on we can discuss the subject here rather then getting into edit-warring.  This is well-known history and 
disinformation attempts should be kept out of wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimvs (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuses of the Ceaușescu regime in Steaua's favor

This is an invitation at constructive dialogue to all those involved in the edit war about this subject.
There are 5 solid references to prove that, during the 1988 final of Romania's Cup  Valentin Ceausescu ordered Steaua to quit the pitch after their late goal 
was disallowed for offside and that, the next day, the Ceausescu regime decided that Steaua will be awarded the trophy:

1. 'Awfully Tough to Beat a Ceausescu Team' Published by Associated Press and printed by The Los Angeles Times in 1990 http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-01/sports/sp-883_1_ceausescu-team
I quote: "Steaua and Dinamo met in the final of the Romanian Cup in June 1988, with the game tied 1-1 in the final minutes. Steaua scored a goal that was nullified 
by an offsides call, so regulation time ended with a draw.
 Valentin Ceausescu refused to allow Steaua to return for overtime and the game was forfeited to Dinamo. But the Ceausescu family quickly convened a meeting of 
the  Romanian Communist Party's Central Committee, which awarded the cup to Steaua.
A few weeks ago, Steaua president Cristian Gatu returned the cup trophy to the Romanian Soccer Federation."

2. 'WORLD CUP '94; Romania's Other Revolution' Published by The new York Times in may 1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/08/sports/world-cup-94-romania-s-other-revolution.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm
I quote: "The second story involves a 1988 match between Steaua Bucharest, the army team controlled by Ceausescu's son Valentin and Dynamo, the team sponsored 
by the Securitate, Ceausescu's secret police. Late in the match, with the score tied at 1-1, Steaua scored, but the goal was disallowed because of a violation of 
the offsides rule. When the referee would not relent, Valentin Ceausescu pulled his Steaua team off the field. Thinking they had won by forfeit, the Dynamo 
players picked up the cup trophy and went home. The next day, though, Steaua was mysteriously -- or not so mysteriously -- awarded the disputed goal and declared 
a 2-1 winner."

3. 'Valentin Ceaucescu: "¡Que se metan la Copa por el...!" ' published by Marca in 2012 http://www.marca.com/reportajes/2011/12/el_poder_del_balon/2012/12/13/seccion_01/1355357367.html
I quote (use google translate if you cannot read Spanish) : "De lo que pasó a partir de entonces apenas hay imágenes. El responsable de la trasmisión, 
George Militaru, recibió la orden inmediata de censurar la bronca que había sobre el césped, con los jugadores del Steaua desatados y acorralando 
al equipo arbitral. Planos generales de la grada y repeticiones de los dos primeros goles es todo lo que hay registrado de esos momentos.
Desde el palco, Valentin Ceaucescu hizo un gesto a su hombre de confianza, Tice Danilescu. La orden era que se retiraran a la caseta. Los jugadores del 
Dinamo se quedaron en el campo. Los directivos de la Federación bajaron al vestuario para que el Steaua regresara al césped, pero también lo hizo Valentin. 
Y sus palabras dejaron pocas dudas: “Nadie vuelve al campo. Si alguno quiera hacerlo se las verá con la Securitate (policía secreta). ¡Que se queden con la 
Copa y se la metan por el culo!”. “Era una injustica y los jugadores no merecían ese trato. No podía permitirlo y no me arrepiento de lo que hice”, 
aseguró en una entrevista a Stelisti.mysport.ro el hijo del que fuera dictador de Rumanía.
Al ver que su rival no volvía, los jugadores del Dinamo cogieron la Copa y celebraron el título sobre el terreno de juego. Lucescu siempre ha mantenido 
que desde la Federación se les dijo que el trofeo era suyo porque el Steaua se había retirado. Pero la noche iba a ser muy larga en Bucarest.
Valentin Ceaucescu sigue asegurando hoy que jamás hizo presión alguna para que su equipo ganara partidos, algo que nadie cree en su país. Aquella noche, 
sin embargo, fue el propio Nicoale Ceaucescu el que tomó cartas en el asunto. No era fácil, porque el Dinamo, el equipo de la policía secreta, 
tenía sus hombres fuertes dentro del gobierno. De hecho, hoy se sigue asegurando que el gol fue anulado porque el trío arbitral estaba presionado por 
la Securitate. Pero para Ceaucescu padre aquello fue una cuestión de honor casi personal y por encima de un hijo por el que no sentía un especial aprecio.
Dos días más tarde, la Federación rumana hizo público que el gol era válido y que la Copa de 1988 pasaba a formar parte del palmarés del Steaua. “Es una
 mancha en la historia del fútbol rumano. Como las de italiano en la época de Mussolini”, mantiene desde entonces Mircea Lucescu.

4. The page of refferee Radu L. Petrescu on the worldreferee.com site http://worldreferee.com/site/copy.php?contextType=bio&linkType=referee&linkID=3539
I quote: "Radu L. Petrescu is known because of the incident that happened in the 1988 Romanian Cup Final, Steaua - Dinamo, when he disallowed a goal scored 
by Steaua in the last minute and Valentin Ceausescu (the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's son), who was a Steaua fan, asked the team to leave the field 
and further demanded that the referee be punished by the Romanian Communist Party. Currently, he is an assessor for the first two divisions."

5. 'Cupa României din 1988 oprită din cauza unui imens scandal!' published by Gazeta Sporturilor in 2008 http://www.gsp.ro/gsp-special/ideile-gazetei/cupa-romaniei-din-1988-oprita-din-cauza-unui-imens-scandal-86009.html
I quote (Romanian language, use google translate): "Faza care avea să marcheze meciul şi competiţia a venit în minutul 90. Hagi a centrat în diagonală, 
Moraru a respins defectuos, iar Balint, pe fază, a împins mingea în poartă. Golul a fost anulat pe motiv de ofsaid, iar jucătorii Stelei au părăsit terenul 
în semn de protest. Trofeul i-a fost atribuit lui Dinamo, dar mai tîrziu FRF a adjudecat meciul 2-1 pentru Steaua. După Revoluţia din '89, Steaua i-a returnat 
trofeul lui Dinamo, care a refuzat să îl mai primească."

Given these references I believe that no one can deny the follwing facts:
A. Steaua quit the pitch at Valentin's orders and Dinamo was awarded the trophy
B. The next day the Ceausescu regime decided that Steaua should receive the trophy, without paying any attention to the rules of the competition.
C. The referee who disallowed Steaua's late goal was beaten by Steaua's players and was subsequently sanctioned by the regime.
D. Steaua attempted to return the trophy after the Romania Revolution of 1989, therefore admiting the abuse done by Ceausescu in it's favor.

Optimvs (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please use proper standard talk page formatting and indenting. Leading space formatting is useless on narrow displays. Thanks.

Phrases like these in your edit do not belong in an encyclopedia:

... are clearly contradicted by one of the most bizzare episodes ... clan simply decided ... Of course, after the fall ... therefore admitting the abuse ... is so weird that it still makes headlines in the international media ... the prestigious Spanish journal ... ample material ... that make the whole incident even more embarrassing ... the leading Spanish sport newspaper ...

Likewise the conclusion in your above point D, "... therefore admiting the abuse done by Ceausescu in it's favor..." is probably not appropriate.

I don't think there would be a significant problem if the following text is added — provided the references are properly provided:

Steaua quit the pitch at Valentin's orders and Dinamo was awarded the trophy. The next day the Ceausescu regime decided that Steaua should receive the trophy, without paying any attention to the rules of the competition. The referee who disallowed Steaua's late goal was beaten by Steaua's players and was subsequently sanctioned by the regime. Steaua attempted to return the trophy after the Romania Revolution of 1989.

As far as I can see, these are verifiable facts, and that's what we are supposed to report. Anything beyond that would be wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. - DVdm (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's take them one at the time, shall we? I'm quoting from the wikipedia page of the Marca newspaper: "MARCA is a Spanish national daily sports newspaper owned by Unidad Editorial. The newspaper focuses primarily on football, in particular the day-to-day activities of Real Madrid. It has a daily readership of over 3,000,000, the highest in Spain for a daily newspaper, and more than half of sports readership." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marca_(newspaper)

How exactly is it wp:OR (or wp:SYNTH) to call this newspaper "leading"? Looking forward to hear your explanation, maybe I'm missing something.Optimvs (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please use proper standard talk page formatting and indenting. Thx.

Mentioning that the paper is leading, reads like an attempt to add importance to the facts. See wp:PEACOCK. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a wp:reliable source, see wp:CIRCULAR - DVdm (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's rewind a bit, because obviously we started on the wrong foot here. The "reference" that existed in the original version is an interview with the dictator's son (Valentin) published by a Steaua fan site (stelisti.ro). This is by no means a reliable reference, since the interview was taken by a Steaua fan and posted on a fan site. Basically they would have published anything that looked good for their club. However, if those affirmations are to be kept in the material posted on the site (as I did) it seems only natural to allow the reader to compare the credibility of the references. And of course, I gave the link to wikipedia as a quick ref for the purpose of this discussion, but if we are to count the straws right now here goes: http://www.unidadeditorial.com/publicidad/MediaBook/sumario%202013%20en.pdf (see pages 3 and 6)

Now, the most relevant aspect of this Marca article is the fact that the leading sports nespaper in Spain (and probably top 3 in Europe) published such a long piece on these events some 24 years after they happened. This is exactly due to the "wow factor" they still have and will always have. I'm not sure how familiar are you with the world of football/soccer, but something like this never happened after WWII. In fact, even during WWII such thing never happened, as the German army accepted the defeat of it's team in front of an Ucrainian team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Match#Disclosing_the_myth (look at the countless references before putting up the wp:CIRCULAR argument again please)

This aspect needs to be part of the article, otherwise the reader who is unfamiliar with the world of football/soccer may believe that such events are somehow expected to happen every now and then.Optimvs (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the world of football/soccer. I am trying to help you understand some of the core polices of Wikipedia, in this case wp:NOR and wp:NPOV. Now, I have proposed above to add a little paragraph that, as far as I see, could perhaps be fitted somewhere in the article, provided the ellipsed references are filled in, and of course provided it would not put wp:UNDUE weight on the incident. Let's see what other contributors think about that. So perhaps it would be a good idea that you sit back and wait, and let wp:CONSENSUS, our most important policy, do its work.

So, what do others think? - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, which is pretty straightforward. I also understand that you're not interested in the world of soccer and want just to help. However if you want to help with this topic you also need to read carefully the curent form of the article and understand that this club's peak performances (by far) were achieved during the period we're talking about(when the dictator's son runned the club). So really this isn't an incident that would get undue weight if discussed in detail.

However, I have no problem waiting for other opinions, as I now understand better how the wikipedia internal wheels work. The fact that none of the Steaua fans who did countelss reverts on my contribution will be willing to discuss this subject is going to give me better arguments in debates with editors who know well the mechanism of wikipedia but have little to no knowledge or interest about this particular subject. Let's wait. Optimvs (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So, almost a month later, none of those who were reverting my edits displayed any interest in discussing the matter, bringing arguments to the table and trying to reach consensus. If no one else has anything to add, I am going to wait another 3 days and then re-instate my contribution. Then we can work it out from there.Optimvs (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

References

List of goalscorers

A couple of days ago I removed a list of every single player who'd scored for Steaua in the league. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS to me, but an IP editor keeps readding it. So, I figured it'd be a good idea to try and kick off a discussion about it before the 3 revert rule gets broken again. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Clear WP:NOTSTATS on this article - though a full list of all players is suitable at List of FC Steaua București players. GiantSnowman 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC) GiantSnowman 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025165044/http://www.cs.kent.edu/~amarcus/Mihai/romanian/diverse/mirceaionitiu.html to http://www.cs.kent.edu/~amarcus/Mihai/romanian/diverse/mirceaionitiu.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prosport.ro/index.php?section=articole&screen=index&id=59098
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prosport.ro/index.php?section=articole&screen=index&id=24914&pagina=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fanatik.ro/liga_i_sectiune_2/articol_24640/lista_completa_cu_derby-urile_campionatului.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013170612/http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=268867 to http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=268867

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FC Steaua București title page

I request to a wikipedia admin to change the page title FC Steaua București to FC FCSB due to FRF Excecutive Committee ( http://www.frf.ro/comunicate/comunicate-frf/deciziile-comitetului-executiv-din-30-martie-2017-id21749.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobontsa (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The team FC Steaua București was forced to change it's name to FCSB. Please check these sources:

• http://frfotbal.ro/echipa.php?id=1285
• https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCSB
• http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Steaua+isi+schimba+denumirea+incepand+de+maine+Fotbal+Club+FCSB+
• http://www.prosport.ro/video/fotbal-intern/liga-1/breaking-news-acum-e-oficial-steaua-lui-becali-a-devenit-fcsb-anuntul-facut-de-burleanu-si-care-e-situatia-coeficietului-uefa-folosim-noul-nume-incepand-de-acum-video-16214245 LaUr3nTiU (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This was posted on my talk page, but I can't read Romanian. What do everyone else thinks. El_C 22:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link in English from SBS Australia Salavat (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Executive Committee of the Romanian Football Federation approved an application to modify the name of the club from "SC Fotbal Club Steaua București SA" to "SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA" on 30 March 2017 (links: The Executive Committee's decisions on March 30, 2017 Becali unveiled the reason why his team will change its name tomorrow Steaua Bucharest change name to FC FCSB) I didn't think the move was necessary until now, as the club it's still called by the majority of its fans and club officials by the name of Steaua. However, as I read media everyday, the former name Steaua has become less and less frequent (Benzar is Dinamo's fan in the derby against FCSB) The name Steaua is now used more coloquially. FCSB's owner has stated that he hopes to recover the name in the near future (it was lost because of a trademark dispute with the Romanian Army), but that doesn't mean the club should be called Steaua anymore on Wikipedia. Some other pages, templates and categories shold be renamed too if the move is accepted.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

FC Steaua București → FCSB – Move request on behalf of @8Dodo8: who asked for assistance at my talk page. They will be able to provide reason why and evidence to support the proposal. GiantSnowman 09:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Executive Committee of the Romanian Football Federation approved an application to modify the name of the club from "SC Fotbal Club Steaua București SA" to "SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA" on 30 March 2017 (links: The Executive Committee's decisions on March 30, 2017 Becali unveiled the reason why his team will change its name tomorrow Steaua Bucharest change name to FC FCSB) I didn't think the move was necessary until now, as the club it's still called by the majority of its fans and club officials by the name of Steaua. However, as I read media everyday, the former name Steaua has become less and less frequent (Benzar is Dinamo's fan in the derby against FCSB) The name Steaua is now used more coloquially. FCSB's owner has stated that he hopes to recover the name in the near future (it was lost because of a trademark dispute with the Romanian Army), but that doesn't mean the club should be called Steaua anymore on Wikipedia. Some other pages, templates and categories shold be renamed too if the move is accepted. The Romanian Wikipedia already uses the name FCSB.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I did open a discussion about a possible move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 108#Steaua name change, but there was a lack of interest for a move then. Often we look at WP:COMMONNAME, so What do people call the team? I would say people still call them "Steaua". If anything it would be FC FCSB and not only FCSB. Qed237 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Steaua has now become a nickname. Nobody in the Romanian press refers to the club as Steaua anymore, only supporters. I don't think that's enough to keep it FC Steaua Bucuresti, as we don't call FC Barcelona by the name of Barca on the Wikipedia. Translated link to the Executive Commitee of the Romanian Football Federation 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That may be the case in the Romanian media, but what do English-language sources call the club? A quick search on Google News appears to show that the Anglophone press reported on the name change at the time but then proceeded to ignore it in later articles and use the old name. Almost all news articles using the new name are in Romanian. I'd argue that for now the WP:COMMONNAME in English is still the old name. I'd wait and see until next year's Champions League/Europa League to see if the Anglophone press change what they call the club.86.130.177.16 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You are correct with that, the English sources still call it Steaua Bucharest. I don't know, for some reason it is weird to see FCSB at the start of the article despite the page title being Steaua.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)\

• Oppose, as it should instead be moved to FC Steaua Bucharest. That is the common name in English language sources. Those sources will not use this ludicrous acronym, even if it is now the official name. This is a more extreme example of Inter Milan, where the common English language name supersedes the official name. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That means FC Dinamo București and FC Rapid București should be changed too?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - for now. Could see this becoming the common name in time, but it isn't in English language media at the moment. Additionally, because it is simply a four letter abbreviation, it would have to be a really common name in English language sources for us to move it to that title. Have no problem with the lead mentioning its official new name and when describing matters relating to after the name change, using FCSB in the article. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, we shouldn't move a page to the abbreviation, maybe on the Romanian Wikipedia maybe but for now on English Wikipedia no. By this logic we should move Manchester United F.C. to Man Utd. or Man U. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 15 July 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. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

---

FC Steaua București → FCSB – Request made by 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) at my talk page:

"Hey! Can we request to change the name of FC Steaua București again? At the UEFA Champions League draw the club was referred to as FCSB.
Third qualifying round draw (matches 25 & 26 July/1 & 2 August)
League route
FCSB (ROU) v Viktoria Plzeň (CZE)" GiantSnowman 07:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 07:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The club still largely refers to itself as FC Steaua Bucuresti on its own website. – PeeJay 07:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my reasoning above. "FCSB" is not the commmon name in English. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - of the two, FC Steaua București seems to be the more commonly used name of the two. UEFA occasionally abbreviates teams names in its advertisement and website. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Agree – Romanian Wikipedia moved the article about club to FCSB and the club has officially changed the name to such. The change was made because the club doesn't have rights to the name and without changing they wouldn't have got the league and European competitions licenses. Żyrafał (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  The ro.wp move was done because the Romanian language sports press (mainly http://gsp.ro and http://prosport.ro) has immediately adopted this name. This doesn't seem to be the case with secondary sources in English. - Andrei (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

- According to Court of Appeal's decision ( http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Becali+a+pierdut+dreptul+de+a+mai+folosi+numele+Steaua+Decizia+C ) George Becali's club can't use the name "Steaua". The decision is final. Also, the Court decided that Fotbal Club FCSB used illegally the name "Steaua" since the club's changing from association to commercial company ( http://sptfm.ro/2017/06/01/fcsb-forever-judecatorii-au-decis-ca-becali-folosit-istoria-si-culorile-stelei-desi-nu-avea-dreptul-motivarea-curtii-de-apel/ ). User:lobontsa (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - It shouldn't be moved yet, there still is a trial on going. Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal still lists it as the same club that won all the championships. So the club still has the record and identifies with Steaua. Professionally would be to wait the final outcome of the justice. Bancuri cu olteni poetici (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Bancuri cu Olteni the justice can't take away the club's honours. It's still the club founded 70 years ago. However, it has a different name, that's what we discuss here.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  The record is a different issue. It was not within the scope of the court case and it's completely irrelevant to the name of the club. A club can have multiple names throughout its history. This isn't the first name change of this club, either. Only the name used by English-language sources should be evaluated here.- Andrei (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - not seeing any evidence FCSB is now the common name in English language sources. I think I would need to see overwhelming evidence that it was to support a move to a title, that, to the uninitiated, seems remarkably generic. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 29 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: a procedural close with no action as a further move discussion is taking place below. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

---

FC Steaua București → FCSB – The Executive Committee of the Romanian Football Federation approved an application to modify the name of the club from "Fotbal Club Steaua București" to "Fotbal Club FCSB" on 30 March 2017. (link: The Executive Committee's decisions on March 30, 2017). The former requests to change the name of the article failed, but now the English media also refers tot the club as FCSB (Goal The Guardian (see Group G)). Also, the Romanian Army refounded their football section, so there is a CSA Steaua Bucuresti club in the fourth league now. I believe the article name should be changed to avoid confusion and because the FCSB acronym is now accepted in English media. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Army's club is named CSA Steaua (link: Liga 4, 2017-2018 edition) and in the media is referred the same, or Steaua Armatei.– Narcis90 talk 11:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

There are a series of inaccuracies in the opening paragraph. It says the club was "founded in 2003" although "it previously belonged to the Romanian Army". FC Steaua was founded in 1947 as part of the larger Romanian Army club of the time. There is no reason to state that the club was founded in 2003. The honours of the club are misrepresented, only the period after 2003 being taken into account, although there is no reason to disconsider performances before 2003.

The year 2003 seems arbitrarly chosen, by all means. If one would consider that a new team / club was formed after the separation from the Army's Club, the founding year would be 1998, the year the football team separated, and not 2003. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - FC Fcsb has nothing to do with Steaua Bucharest. Becali himself admitted this, saying that he made no deal with the Steaua sports club, but instead only dealt with the non-profit that acted as administrator for the club's football team. That non-profit was called AFC Steaua Bucharest, but the name doesn't really matter here. It was a non-profit, not a club or a team. What Becali did was to use the non-profit to create a new company, called SC Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti SA. He then registered his company in the first Romanian division, taking Steaua's place illeagally. Proof here: http://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/liga-1/exclusiv-prosport-intrat-posesia-tranzactiei-extrajudiciare-gigi-becali-infiintat-fc-steaua-creanta-stins-acesta-prelua-51-actiuni-fotbalisti-cedat-gratuit-noii-societati-13944711 - TPTB (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017 (3)

Ssw07 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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) 15:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017 (2)

In support of the previous edit request:

Please replace "Founded in 2003, it has spent its entire history in the Liga I, the top tier of the Romanian football league system." with "Founded in 1947, ...'

Please replace "Domestically, Roș-albaștrii have won Liga I 5 times, Cupa României 2 times, Cupa Ligii 2 times and Supercupa României 2 times . Internationally, they played in the semi-finals of the UEFA Cup." with "Domestically, Roș-albaștrii have won Liga I a record 26 times, Cupa României a record 22 times, Cupa Ligii a record 2 times and Supercupa României a record 6 times. Internationally, the club won the 1986 European Champions' Cup, reached the Final of the 1989 European Champions Cup and played in the semi-finals of the 2006 UEFA Cup." Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

To administrators: NO CONSENSUS can be reached since there are two subjective views on the matter. The last editor provided references that are misleading, to say the least, using a propaganda website as its source (www.steaualibera.com). This article should have its text rolled back 1 month, it should be RESTRICTED and any changes should be made by a third party, in good will.

Propaganda website? Really? That's a supporters' website that hosts the pictures that prove FC Fcsb is not Steaua. They didn't make the pictures, they didn't photoshop them. All they do is host them. Those are the real deal. And they show that the club, according to it's birth certificate, was founded in 2003. And in case you're not satisfied, here's a picture of the FC Fcsb owner/loan shark holding the exact same certificate, which clearly shows 2003 as the year FC Fcsb was created. http://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_924_x_600/2016/09/24/762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg - TPTB (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The club's birthcertificate clearly shows it was established in 2003, on February 21. Link here: http://www.steaualibera.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/4.jpg - TPTB (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@TPTB: supporters' website(s) are not realiable source(s) for Wikipedia. See WP:RS. XXN, 16:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: What I'm trying to say is that the website doesn't matter here, it's the picture that counts. They are just hosting the picture. It's just that, nothing more. You can find the same picture here http://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_924_x_600/2016/09/24/762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg It is the same picture. It shows the FC Fcsb owner holding an official document which shows in turn that FC Fcsb was founded in 2003, on February 21. - TPTB (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE roll back the changes to the state of the article in the month of August 2017, before the vandalism attack by TPTB and others!

<< What is going on here? Who is allowing all these changes to happen? I asked before, please roll back all the changes to how they were 1 month ago. This wikipedia article is clearly a target of vandalism! There are so much misinformation disseminated by the latest editors! As I requested before, please roll back the changes, impose restricted editing and only allow editing from editors that come in good will. The amount of ridiculous statements and misrepresented information brought by TPTB is absolutely staggering! Whta is going one here?! >>

If roll back is not desired (why not?!) the necessary changes are as follows. First paragraph / Introduction: - "Founded : 21 February 1947" should be replaced with "Founded: June 7 1947" - "Founded in 2003[7], it has spent its entire history in the Liga I, the top tier of the Romanian football league system." should be replaced with "Founded in 1947, it has spent its entire history in the Liga I, the top tier of the Romanian football league system." - "Domestically, Roș-albaștrii have won Liga I 5 times, Cupa României 2 times, Cupa Ligii 2 times and Supercupa României 2 times[10]. Internationally, they reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Cup." should be replaced with "Domestically, Roș-albaștrii have won Liga I 26 times, Cupa României 22 times, Cupa Ligii 2 times and Supercupa României 6 times[10]. Internationally, the team won the 1986 European Champions' Cup, reached the 1989 European Champions' Cup Final and played in the the semi-finals of the 2005/2006 UEFA Cup."

I notice that a few of the previous paragraphs introduced this week by TPTB were removed. I reckon in an attempt to hide the authors' not so good intentions, since the information represented there was at least blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - These changes are happening because this is the truth. And they're going to happen, no matter how many topics you keep opening or how many times you keep vandalising other pages. - TPTB (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Oppose -The records above are not official records. FC Fcsb has refused to ask for and show any official records to prove that it holds Steaua's honours. TPTB (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

Ssw07 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not done: Take it to ANI. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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

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 >>

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

References

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

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

Delete the page or update it with the correct information

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183349/http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=8354&data=1998-05-29 to http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=8354&data=1998-05-29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183349/http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=8354&data=1998-05-29 to http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=8354&data=1998-05-29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927181243/http://www.cancan.ro/2007-04-30/Cine-mai-conduce-Steaua.html to http://www.cancan.ro/2007-04-30/Cine-mai-conduce-Steaua.html

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

Y 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

History section blanking

What's going on?

First SupervladiTM reverts to a version [4] 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) [5] 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 [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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

• Agree - According to Court of Appeal's decision ( http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Becali+a+pierdut+dreptul+de+a+mai+folosi+numele+Steaua+Decizia+C ) George Becali's club can't use the name "Steaua". The decision is final. Also, the Court decided that Fotbal Club FCSB used illegally the name "Steaua" since the club's changing from association to commercial company ( http://sptfm.ro/2017/06/01/fcsb-forever-judecatorii-au-decis-ca-becali-folosit-istoria-si-culorile-stelei-desi-nu-avea-dreptul-motivarea-curtii-de-apel/ ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobontsa (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per reasoning above8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Fotbal Club FCSB is the name of the club, according to records in Romania and UEFA records as well (https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html). Additionally, the name FCSB is in fact not an abbreviation, but a real name. It does not mean Football Club Steaua Bucharest, as it would be stupid for a team to be named Football Club Football Club Something. Official documents(The judge's decision - http://www.steaualibera.com/2017/06/07/exclusivitatea-motivarea-deciziei-din-dosarul-numele-steaua/) show that the team cannot use the names Steaua, Steaua Bucharest or anything else that would let anyone believe that the team is Steaua Bucharest. According to the same documents, Fotbal Club FCSB does not have the same history as Steaua Bucharest, and the same club records, as it is a whole different team. Saying that it is Steaua Bucharest would go against Romanian Law. TPTB (talk · contribs) 00:33, 01 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - "FCSB" is not the commmon name in English. And i think this moving request is not worth taking seriously because TPTB has a history in vandalizing the page and also Lobontsa did it recently. Also this is the fourth moving request in the recent past. Narcis90 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: "FCSB" has become the common name in English. Take this Guardian article for example: Romania: FCSB owner Gigi Becali: upset after being banned for six months for remarks including July’s pledge to “never sign blacks from Africa because they’re uncivilised”.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "FCSB" is not the common name in English. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support: per UEFA: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html Linhart (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Comment: UEFA get their information from FRF. And the court decision (if you read it) already said FC FCSB was pretending all this time to be Steaua Bucharest where in fact, was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.172.242 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, you're looking at websites. And that doesn't matter one bit. If UEFA stops payment to its servers and sells its domain, that website is dead and gone and the information on it is worth 0. So, next time you want to talk to me about anything, get me something that sticks, like the ruling of a judicial court. Romanian judges said that FC Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. This is the only thing that matters. I really don't care what a website says. - TPTB (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: There's really no point to debating this anymore. The club's name is Fotbal Club Fcsb SA. It was changed this spring. Here's the official approval from the Romanian Football Federation: http://www.frf.ro/comunicate/comunicate-frf/deciziile-comitetului-executiv-din-30-martie-2017-id21749.html And regarding the club honours, the Romanian Football Federation President, Razvan Burleanu, said that the federation does not have the necessary competence to decide which club has the honours, dodging other questions and managing to ignore the fact that a judge had already ruled that FC Fcsb used Steaua's honours illegally. https://www.agerpres.ro/sport/2017/03/30/alerta-fc-steaua-si-a-schimbat-numele-in-fotbal-club-fcsb-sa-14-19-52 - TPTB (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

---

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.