Talk:1996 UEFA Champions League final

Fair use rationale for Image:Ecf1996.jpg

Image:Ecf1996.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Doping use

For the discussion on the use of doping, please go to the talk page of Juventus: [1]. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost five years latter...

This edit by User:Dwanyewest and, mainly, that following made by this IP are exactly the same of a that made four years ago by (banned) User:Wim Kostrowicki, and maybe both users are actually the same, but an administrator can checking it. Firstly, that section is based on four articles from the same newspaper that are notoriously biased with that plot since the title and one "unpublished" article from the previous version of the incriminated section even more biased tha ii the others written by an anonymous user from a website that favours the so-called "citizen journalism", a practice often criticised for its lack of professionalism (in fact, as Wikipedia, any registered user can write an article and publish it in the website), poor quality of content and prevalent lack of objectivity; so all these can not be used as a reference in an encyclopedic project like this according WP:RS. Secondly, the Wikipedia neutrality principle says that such cases should be treated equidistantly from the language used, publishing both conflicting versions of the incriminated case, but this does not exist in such a section because it is exclusively focused in favour the prosecution side; all this (including publication of documents and the sentences) was discussed four years ago here and in here and it was concluded that it was unbalanced in favour of the prosecution and written in a biased and label way, and it must be deleted from the article by WP:BRD. Thirdly, the entire statement of a hematologist (who denounced doping by then non-Juventus players like Dimas, Montero and Birindelli, despite the first two were signed in 1996-97 season and the later, in 1997-98 season and one who hasn't played in the 1996 CL final neither in the shoot-out as Tacchinardi) who was actually a witness of the accusatory part was noted at trial, including the "practically certain" and "very probable" claims, and was explicitly dismissed by the verdict in the third and final degree (pp. 40-42), uphelding the previous verdict in 2005. The "sources" and the user who uses it for edit this article also don't know also that not emerged any positivity in the anti-doping controls carried out by UEFA and that exists additionally a TAS verdict related with this case (p. 27 and see also this).

Finally, if anyone thinks a section in that state is "acceptable" and/or "accurate", the same could be done, among others, with the 1972-73 CL final, considering that Johnny Rep admitted to using performance-enhancing substances during his Ajax career, as well as Barry Hulshoff (source: Jonathan Wilson (2013). Inverting The Pyramid: The History of Soccer Tactics. Hachette UK. ISBN 1-56858-963-8.; and this is not the only that report that).

I ping @Vaselineeeeeeee, Anna Frodesiak, Messirulez, Damotclese, Pippo skaio, and CityOfSilver:, having all them leaved comments about this in the previously discussions, both linked here.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The content may need rewriting a little bit, but from my point of view, it seems pretty neutral. The content presented in the article accurately reflects the sources provided. If further sources refute the claims presented, then add those to the article, don't just delete the content. – PeeJay 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Pretty neutral"? Ignore the verdicts of Italian justice and the 2005 TAS about this (and the latter was decisive for the sporting trial's verdict) and I linked the sources here and in the 2017 discussions; that claims for "doping" in this match for players that not take part in it as Tacchinardi (what moron would "dope" any player and after not using?), and for footballers that joined Juventus in the following seasons as Montero in 1996-97 and others in 1997-98; regards Ajax "feelled cheated" but after this Davids and van der Sar joined Juventus, and after Grygera and De Ligt as well as the young player loaned from Juventus to Ajax, I mean why the relations between both clubs have not changed if Ajax "feelled cheated"? Because all these are biased articles as I explained lines above. There are better sources than these but presapocchismo is a problem in the football articles published in this website...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't just add the contradictory information to the article instead of deleting sourced content. We should be telling the full story, not telling less of it. – PeeJay 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You can't "tell the whole story" with sources, as those added in the article, that seem to be drawn from a fan club or a radical fan group and are obviously biased towards one side, believe it or not. Also, seems that this article is patrolled by a solely user. Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I know English isn't your first language, but surely that can't be the reason you're having so much trouble understanding me. I am saying you need to add more information to the article using the sources you have provided. If you delete the current content again, I will consider that to be a non-constructive act and I will consider reporting you to the admins. Thanks. – PeeJay 14:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, how the fuck can The Independent and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation be considered "radical fan groups"? Sounds like you're the one with the bias. – PeeJay 15:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Often proven negative things about people and companies get removed on wiki. And yes he seems biased as he made in May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Postmodern_architecture_in_Italy and the only entery is "Juventus Stadium". 2001:1C03:4918:A100:7C67:A57F:FB02:5A7B (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)