Talk:Juventus FC/Archive 3

Doping case
Can the doping case concerning the Champions League of 1996 be mentioned on the Juventus page? Please visit the talk page. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to notice that nothing had been written about the doping case concerning the Champions League of 1996 (and 1997 for that matter as well). I therefore added this section: "'Although Juventus won the final, the victory remains controversial because of accusations of doping use. The Juventus team has been accused of using EPO and the matter went to trial in Turin in 2004. Club doctor Riccardo Agricola was given a suspended prison sentence for providing performance enhancing drugs, specifically EPO, to the players, but he was acquitted on appeal the following year. Leading hematologist Giuseppe d'Onofrio said that it was 'practically certain' that midfielders Antonio Conte and Alessio Tacchinardi had taken EPO to overcome brief bouts of anaemia, and that it was 'very probable' that seven other players - Alessandro Birindelli, Alessandro Del Piero, Didier Deschamps, Manuel Dimas, Paolo Montero, Gianluca Pessotto and Moreno Torricelli - had taken EPO in small doses. '"

I would be lying if I said that I was surprised to see this section deleted, since it's becoming a bit of a commonplace to note that fans are maintaining these kind of articles. However, the case has sparked a lot of controversy (up until this day) and since the people uttering the accusations are reliable - we're talking about a thorough investigation done by a hematologist and an expert on doping - methinks this matter ought to be mentioned. So please stop giving me non-sense like: 'Hipotethical [sic] epo use and doping charges rejected by Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione in the 2007 last verdict' (dixit user Dantetheperuvian). The fact that the Italian Supreme Court overruled the case was a judicial matter, it takes nothing away from the scientific findings. And apart from that, it sparked so much controversy already that there's no reason to omit this from the article anyway. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your two "references" are wrong: Juventus F.C. S.p.A., as a legal entity, was never directly charged "by doping". In fact, the first anti-doping law in Italy was introduced on 14 December 2000 and not applicable in this case for being promulgated two years after this case started as stated in pp. 18-19 of this document and in p. 152 of the verdict in second degree, so this was not a "doping case", but a "supplying pharmaceutical drugs including epo" case. I remind you that "doping" and "supplying [pharmaceutical] drugs" are not synonymous by Court of Arbitration for Sport (cf. p. 27 of its verdict), but very different accusations between both). In that case, only two people were indicted: its then head doctor and its CEO, not the club. Not even a single footballer was accused of it being all of them without any positivity in more than 480 national and international anti-doping controls (cf. p. 40 of this document and in pp. 200-201 of the verdict in second degree). Now, if you are so interested in that information (evidently corrected with better sources suitable for an encyclopedia than single journalistic articles), for that there are its biographical articles, this article is focuses in the club as legal entity and it has nothing to do with this according to the national sporting and ordinary justice, for that was not legally charged. That said, none of your sources is relevant and neutral: this is anachronistic being written in December 1st, 2004 after the ordinary justice's verdict in the first degree (I mention you that in Italy any case is declared "closed" after the Italian Corte di Cassazione and in this case was stated in 2007). This is worse: in addition to being notoriously biased it is based on statements by dr. D'Onofrio about epo/doping/drugs use et similia were widely dismissed by Italian Appellate court in 2005 (cf. pp. 212-234 and 243 of the verdict in second degree) and, lastly, by by Italian Cassazione (pp. 40-42 and 48).


 * To finish, about my claim "hypothetical": I do not say it, was dr. Donofrio in court under oath: he said explicitly " suspected (no certain) of using erythropoietin" as written in p. 234 of the verdict in second degree alleging that the epo then was "undetectable" in mid 1990s. Furthermore, that claims are not supported in the entire jugdement by any tangible proof according this (p. 15), as written in pp. 41 of the final verdict. Claim something without any tangible and concrete evidence, sir, is called "hypothesis" in any language of this planet. In conclusion: this case did not bring any consequences in sporting and/or economic terms (being not charged) and less to any of its employees (charged or not) to insist that include it in Wikipedia when it not even in Britannica. This wants to be an encyclopedia not a legal gazette.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're doing falls under WP:OR and is not allowed. The fact that the controversy is there is exactly what it is: a fact. Whether it's true or not is not the issue here. Compare it to the accusations of sexual harassment lately: Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby are not convicted (yet), still the controversy is poignant enough to include it on Wikipedia. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A trial's verdict is a fact and a source with encyclopedic value, a claim dismissed in court, not. Also is a fact the Johnny Rep's claims about the drugs that used during his Ajax career during 1970s including 1973 European Cup. Add this too.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, consensus needs to be established if this is to be included, as this is the new piece of information that is proposed to being added. To me, the claim of doping should not be supported by a biased source, and even if it is included, it should be countered by these dismissals. At this point it is probably just trivial info that never resulted in anything. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the Juventus players used doping as a fact. What instead is being said is that there are accusations. And the fact that there are accusations is simply supported by reliable newspapers, a court case and experts giving their opinions. Whatever the outcome of e.g. the court case was is irrelevant, the fact that there was a court case is exactly what it is: a fact. And therefore it deserves to be mentioned. What's so difficult to understand about this? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Vaseline: You cannot be taken serious! A biased source? What is biased about the Independent? And since when is doping use in one of the world's biggest sports events 'a trivial matter'? I can't believe what I'm reading. I'm getting so sick of these POV figures like you (btw, talking about being biased!). In any case, I'm getting to tired for this nonsense, and this is what I wrote at the WikiProject:
 * A 'somewhat biased source'? What the hell are you talking about Vaseline? The Independent is a serious newspaper and there are many other reliable sources saying similar things. Also, the words 'practically certain' are not used by me, but is a quote from the hematologist who testified in the court case. Read more carefully before you make comments about this. This kind of POV, especially from Dantetheperuvian, is simply unacceptable and is making Wikipedia worse every day. The entire section of my addition consist of quotes and factual descriptions of what happened. Read it for yourself: "Although Juventus won the final, the victory remains controversial because of accusations of doping use.[47] The Juventus team has been accused of using EPO and the matter went to trial in Turin in 2004. Club doctor Riccardo Agricola was given a suspended prison sentence for providing performance enhancing drugs, specifically EPO, to the players, but he was acquitted on appeal the following year. Leading hematologist Giuseppe d'Onofrio said that it was 'practically certain' that midfielders Antonio Conte and Alessio Tacchinardi had taken EPO to overcome brief bouts of anaemia, and that it was 'very probable' that seven other players - Alessandro Birindelli, Alessandro Del Piero, Didier Deschamps, Manuel Dimas, Paolo Montero, Gianluca Pessotto and Moreno Torricelli - had taken EPO in small doses.[48]"
 * The entire content is descriptive: '...because of accusations', '...has been accused of', '...the matter went to trial', '...said' etc. Disagreeing with a factual description, now THAT'S unencyclopedic! Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No source is more reliable than a sentence because it constitutes the legal truth and the final ones on this say the opposite. I'm sorry for you.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you intellectually incapable of understanding this? The fact that there was a court case (and therefore a controversy) is reason enough to mention this, no matter what the verdict was. And by the way, the verdict is clearly mentioned in the text: '...but he was acquitted on appeal the following year'. Turn your brain on please. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Restore it -- The newly-added section needs to be restored, the information is accurate but is also informative, there is no good reason why it should have been removed. Also the RFC was not worded very well, typically you would ask a question, in this case specifically polling editors to see whether the section should be restored or not. Damotclese (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire text is obviously disproportionate to the accusation and based on biased articles (and that newspaper is not the bible). The guidelines of this website say that both parties to the conflict are treated in the same proportion and the wording of the text remains equidistant. That does not happen here.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you writing this in your Juventus-pyjamas? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the section violates WP:UNDUE: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (in this case Doping in association football → Italy) --Pippo skaio (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2017‎
 * This was never officially a "doping" case, but a off-label use case according with the trials and for Court of Arbitration for Sport, the last instance of the worldwide sports justice, both are trully differents (cf. p. 27 of its verdict in 2005). Doping in Italy was introduced in the Italian judicial system in 2000 and the trials started in 1998 with the research phase (in all the sources that I have put in this thread that is indicated).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Although similar accusations have been made against several other teams and players without substantial proof, in thise case I personally don't think that there is actually a problem with adding the information to either the Juventus or History of Juventus articles, as the matter actually went to trial, and as there was initially some controversy in the news and media over the club's victories during that period, until Agricola and the club's staff and players were later acquitted. I'm not certain how relevant it is to the Champions League finals articles of that period, or whether it's worth mentioning at all in the articles of certain Juventus players of the time, as no players were actually charged, and Agricola and the club were later acquitted of all charges and no move was ever made to revoke those titles; I had actually already mentioned this briefly in Del Piero's article, but only because he was one of the players who was particularly singled out because of his dramatic weight gain during that period, when he really put on significant muscle mass, so I don't think anything else needs to be mentioned there. If this information is added to the article, however, it is pivotal that it should be done in a neutral manner, with accurate and reliable sources, no biased language (the initial proposed additions were not impartial; furthermore, they were not entirely accurate either, as they mentioned that the 1996 Champions League victory was controversial because of the doping allegations, when some of the players who were accused of being given banned substances – namely Montero, Dimas, and Birindelli – were not actually squad members until later), and mentioning all the facts surrounding the case, such as the accusations that were first made, the initial conviction, and the later acquittal. There are some inconsistencies with those sources listed from the Independent however, although I'm sure there are certainly better sources floating around, especially in Italian. I know some people feel very strongly regarding this matter, so I would like to have everyone's opinion on this. I hope this is of some help. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Either pare down or remove. One issue with comparing this to Cosby and Weinstein is that we don't know the long-term fallout from those controversies but we do know it in this case: there wasn't much of one. The trial and verdicts definitively found no wrongdoing.
 * For what it's worth, you might want to think about whether or not you're effectively convincing skeptics or swaying consensus. Your approach, including assuming that the scandal has been left out because "fans are maintaining these kind of articles" and responding to editors with crap like "Are you writing this in your Juventus-pyjamas", is doing almost the exact opposite of what you're intending. I came here knowing so little about this subject that I wasn't sure if "Juventus" is pronounced with a "J" or an "H." I read the thread and concluded that one side wanted to discuss the matter at hand while the biggest contributor to the other side wanted to attack and insult anyone who disagreed with them. That automatically had me assuming you were probably wrong, and that wouldn't have happened if you'd chosen to act like an adult here.  City  O f  Silver  17:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wim Kostrowicki has been indef blocked due to abusing multiple accounts. This “RfC” has been quiet since without his disruption; you can go ahead and close as it should be time. By the way, the J is silent and said with a YU like “you”, at least in English and Italian. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed how old this was; not sure why the bot asked me to come here weeks after the fact.  City O f  Silver  18:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Only club ever to win everything?
I believe that is a very disputable statement, they may be the first but they certainly aren't the only one. Edits made on this article and on timeline of association football conflict, this one saying the feat was achieved in 1999, that one in 1985; whichever you go by, the statement that they are the only club to win everything is wrong.

If we're going by 1985, the year of the Intercontinental Cup win, Manchester United and Bayern Munich have since won all equivalent honours. If 1999, the Intertoto Cup win, the statement is dishonest as that was the first season of the FIFA Club World Cup, which Juventus have never competed in. So which year are we going by?

I've also removed the italicised 2004–05 and 2005–06 title wins with the footnote from the honours section, they do not count.  VEO one five 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the 1st FIFA Club World Cup was held in January 2000, not in August 1999. Secondly, read what is written: the paragraph refers to confederation club competitions: UEFA is a confederation ("a group of associations recognised by FIFA that belong to the same continent (or assimilable geographic region)" according Definitions, in 2016 FIFA Statutes, p.4), FIFA is not ., it is a federation and much less FIFA Club world Cup is a UEFA competition. UEFA not includes FIFA Club World Cup results in its own records, so, your claims are not relevant for the message of the sentence published in the article. The record was established in 1985 when the confederal tournaments were 5, since 1995 there are 6 with the creation of the UEFA Intertoto Cup, so it is noted that such a record was revalidated once Juventus won it. The only controversy regarding this record is that the mass media almost never refer to the tournaments as "confederal" or "FIFA" however legally they are, but as "continental" and "worldwide" and even then the substance does not change: the Intertoto Cup was official since its inception, disputed at continental level, UEFA includes it in the clubs' official records and FIFA (which can not do anything for reasons of jurisdiction) only takes note about that and since October 2017 FIFA officially recognizes the Cup Intercontinental (which won Juventus) as "world title".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * January 2000 falls under the same season as August 1999. When you click on the link piped by 'confederation competitions', ie. category:International club association football competitions by confederation, one of the subcategories is category:FIFA club competitions. Even if FIFA is not a confederation per se, it does trump all six regional bodies and to dismiss their world title is laughable, imagine if Italy had to remove three stars off their shirt so only Euro '68 was represented. The Intercontinental Cup may retroactively be recognised as a world title it has never been a FIFA title, it was only contested by two confederations.
 * Which way do you want it; Juventus won everything in 1985, which no one is disputing but they aren't the only club to do so anymore — or Juventus won everything in 1999, when they won a minor competition many of Europe's elite have been too good to qualify for during its entire existence as a UEFA competition, which coincided with the creation of a FIFA tournament they've not been good enough to enter? Pick one.   VEO one five 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Season? For UEFA just 3 competition are seasonal: Champions League, Cup Winners Cup and Europa League. FIFA Club World Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup (like the supercups) are annual, not seasonal. Also that "minor" claims violates WP:PEACOCK and represent only your own single POV (your claim against UIC is also used by most Europe fans and mass media for describes FCWC). For the governing body of European football UIC is part of its official records, FCWC is not being organised by FIFA. If Intercontinental Cup was a world title or a Mickey Mouse cup is your problem, not mine. Legally (and this counts for any presunt neutral encyclopedia) was an UEFA competition being organised by UEFA, so take part of confederation club record. Laughable is that exist an UEFA.com source that claims clearly that Juventus is the only one to have won all six confederation competition and one user denied this citing a cup NOT related with UEFA or European football organised by a trully different organisation.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you all please not keep reverting each other. Please discuss things here and get consensus. If you absolutely cannot agree or compromise, then there is a dispute resolution noticeboard. Please do not edit war, all of you. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk)


 * Dantetheperuvian logic makes the most sense here. VEO15, per WP:BOLD, your edits have been challenged, and you discuss here first, not the other way around. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all football competitions are seasonal. Just because some are too short to not span into the following calendar year, it doesn't mean it's not seasonal — if something takes place every season, it is seasonal.  The 1999 Intertoto Cup was part of the 1999—2000 season for Juventus and you both know that.
 * As frivolous the Intertoto Cup is/was (glorified UEFA Cup qualifiers), I am not denying that Juventus have won every competition organised by UEFA, which is what it reads. Auckland City FC have won every available OFC honour so to say Juve are the only club to win all confederation titles is a lie.  In 1985, the Intercontinental Cup was not a world title so that statement on the history of association football article is also a lie, FIFA may have retroactively recognised it last year as a world title so it did not apply at the time. They still have the honour awarded by the world's governing body of the sport missing from their trophy cabinet, no matter how much you want to dismiss its existence.
 * Of course Vaselineeeeeeee would agree with Dante, you're both are on the same side of the fence and don't want Juve to look slightly inferior. Violation of WP:NPOV, made obvious that you both want to include the Serie A titles stripped by the FIGC as part of the club's records.  VEO one five 18:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What about Oceania Cup Winners' Cup, organised by Oceania Football Confederation the same year of the 1st edition of Champions Cup (1987)? Auckland City has not won it. Finally, OFC continental competitions in history were 3 and Auckland City has won 2 of them.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is uncertainty over the confederational validity of the 1987 competitions. At the time, the OFC had five members so a tournament just involving two of them does not seem official.  Even that year's Champions' Cup was actually a one-off Australia v New Zealand match as well, the RSSSF have amended their database and stated a qualifying tournament didn't exist.   VEO one five 02:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 1987 Oceania Club Championship is fully official. How only one can be regarded official if both were organised by the same confederation in the same historic period?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ronaldo's speculated move to Italian club, Juventus F.C.
This discussion might be of interest to editors of this article and those associated with this article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote
I trimmed down the hatnote, which should not be a list of every football club called Juventus. Juventus (disambiguation) exists for that reason. None of these other Juventus come close to the notability of the main one, this is not like a Queen's Park-Queens Park Rangers situation where there could be a reasonable confusion in an average person. Harambe Walks (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
Remove "A national record of" before "UEFA CUPS" in the introduction. FC Internazionale also won 3 UEFA cups. Other option: change "A national record of" into "A national record (shared with FC Internazionale) of" 184.186.22.144 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Joint national record. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Genoa vs Juventus
Genoa CFC bought Renzo de Vecchi before WW1. It was the first professional event in the Italian football. Agnelli joined Juventus ten years later.--ItaFootWiki (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As an athletics club, yes Geona is first, however, as a professional sporting club, Juve was first. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 20:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Inviting User:Dantetheperuvian to comment. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Genoa were, and are, a cricket and football club. --ItaFootWiki (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about the accuracy of the content of the source. It is true that Juventus, with Edoardo Agnelli as president, played a very important role in the official establishment of professional football in Italy during the 1920s (see Caso Rosetta), but the first instances of "ante-litteram" professionalism in Italian football are the De Vecchi, Sardi and Santamaria transfers to Genoa in the 1910s (FIGC threatens the club to be permanently expelled due to these violations). -- L'Eremita  (Il Romitorio)  10:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to check the sourcing currently on the page, and it isn't great, but I would invite you to alter the text if you have better sources, as well as Professionalism in association football. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 15:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For now, I've made a correction on Professionalism in association football, adding a 1930 FIGC publication as a reference. -- L'Eremita  (Il Romitorio)  17:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Other sources about Genoa's shamateurism: 1, the Harold Swift's scandal in 1911 (Torino was involved, too); 2 & 3, the Grant, Walsingham, Smith and Mitchell's suspicious transfers in 1912 & the Attilio Fresia's scandal in 1913. Moreover, William Garbutt was the first professional coach hired by an Italian club. -- L'Eremita  (Il Romitorio)  12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Change sentence to "one of the first clubs" due professionalism in Italy was between 1926-1929 (Juve reach that status in 1923).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

FA nom?
I am wandering about nominating this for FA. Anyone else want give their thoughts on it? REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 12:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to go through a peer review before attempting an FAC. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 13:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 13:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The lede is too long
In my opinion, the lede should be shortened. Five long paragraphs are way too many; taking Manchester United F.C. as an example, four concise paragraphs are more than enough. What do you guys think? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 11:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Standard introduction
 * 2) Trophies + achievements
 * 3) General "trivia" (such as anticampanilismo, youth sector, Giovanni Trapattoni)
 * 4) Financial + ownership info
 * Sure, if you can whittle it down, maybe in your sandbox, we can take a look? Or was this just a general statement? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 14:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was more of a "survey / question". If it's ok with everyone basically. Sure, I can try to come up with a shortened version in my sandbox these days. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 16:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

European rivalries
Are there any other European rivalries of Juventus against other teams (except Real Madrid)? Dr Salvus (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually there are not major European rivalries for Juventus and another Italian teams due to campanilismo in the country and the number of matches between them in contrast with the matches against non-Italian sides. IMHO, Juventus-Real Madrid chapter, like Barcelona-Milan, are based in Real Madrid-Bayern rivalry's chapter, but that is an anomaly based in the weakness of Bayern's opposite forces in Bundesliga, similar to the status quo in Spain since 1960s to 1990s.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Champion proclamation
New italian champion is NOT official. "Lega serie A" is representive of Serie A clubs only and has NO authority on giving titles to club, that is on FIGC. So, revert your revertion, thanks.--Tre di tre (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How long do you want to prolong the hurt? It's over. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 17:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a pit and doesn't register hurts & feelings. There is no official proclamation. Is this really an argument? It's over????? Please get serious at least you about it.--Tre di tre (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't answer, Vaselineeeeeeee did. Anyway, I'm not saying we should put Inter as champions in the Serie A infobox, since we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that it is correct to say that on 2 May Inter mathematically became champions and ended Juventus' streak of 9 consecutive titles. Just looking "locally" at Juventus' article, the current sentence is correct. What is not correct is "On 2 May 2021, Juventus' run of nine consecutive titles was mathematically ended by Internazionale", without adding "who were confirmed as champions". This is very ambiguous, is it may also mean that Juventus lost against Inter on 2 May, and were mathematically out of the title race (which was won by someone else). <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, I pinged you because I don't speak with socalled "fans". What you quoted, I didn't erase. I canceled the part where is written "confirmed" at May 2nd, because it's not. Moreover, Juventus was mathematically out of the struggle a week earlier, then if you mean that Juventus lose the title, again, was not on may 2nd! So, please, revert or cancel the date: reformulate the sentences speaking of seasons instead of days. there's no need of a "deadline".--Tre di tre (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A good compromise would be to keep it like this until the season is over, when I would write something like "Juventus finished the 2020-21 season in 4th(?) place, with champions Inter ending Juventus' run of nine consecutive league titles". <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree: even if temporary, news must be truly and precise. If there's not a reliable form, there's even no hurry to publish the information.--Tre di tre (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the information is correct. Juventus' run of 9 consecutive league titles is interrupted, by Inter who on 2 May mathematically won the league. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "who were confirmed as champions" this is incorrect and this is what I canceled, not what you quoted, that I kept safe--Tre di tre (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nehme - the wording will be changed when the season is over to reflect Juve's position. Tre, Juventus may have mathematically out of the race last week, but the winner whether it was Atalanta or Inter was unknown, and it is notable that the champions that overtook Juve after nine years is definitively Inter. FWIW (at the Serie A page) I don't see any problem with putting Inter in the infobox either - if we can write that they won the league in the prose, we can also write it in the infobox - the fact that they won 2020-21 will not change <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tre di tre, I said . The incorrect part is the absence of the sentence you removed, for the reasons I explained above. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And I said that the sentence is false, because on may 2nd doesn't happened anything of what is written there. That make the whole sentence incorrect and then, to be cancelled.--Tre di tre (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those sentence should not have a fixed date. Just "the 2020-21 the season ended..." -08:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth are we trying to summarise a current event like this? Just wait a week. This is an encyclopedia, adding live commentary is pointless if you are admitting that within a week you will need to change it anyway. This is bad editing all around. Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The event did not change. The fact that Inter won the league on 2 May do dethrone Juventus after nine years will not change. That is necessary info. What will be added is Juventus' final position. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We're literally talking about writing about a thing in what I can only describe as running commentary. An encyclopedia is not meant to be running commentary on a season, or what other teams have done or not done. We're talking about when Juventus "mathematically" lost... writing that way is journalistic not encyclopedic. Why would the date they mathematically lost be relevant? Why would we be writing about the outcome of the season before the season outcome? The fixation with live commentary is seriously unnecessary. Koncorde (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree that this is running commentary. This would not be DUE at all if it hadn't been the end of a nine-year winning streak. But since it is, I don't see how the date on which another team won the title 10 years since Juventus would not be notable. That is one fact full stop as it relates to the ending of Juventus' reign. A second fact about Juventus' final finish will be added later. There is nothing wrong with that. The date is also relevant because it is the date on which the title was definitively won by one team, and Inter, a bitter notable rival no less. Similarly, it is not running commentary to write that a criminal was tried on X date with sentencing to be decided on X date, then when the sentence is decided months later, it is then updated. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the wording tweaked by User:Koppapa. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 03:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Juventus' history's paragraph
The prose part of the Juventus' history's paragraph is too long. I propose to summarize the history of Juventus in this article and write the history of Juventus in more detail in the appropriate article. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to do so. You can write a proposed shortened version in your sandbox, and show us when you are done. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ User:Dr Salvus/sandbox/Juventus' history's paragraphs <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 20:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between your sandbox and the current history section? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 20:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , currently there are not differences, but when I'll can, I'll remove useless parts. Please, patrol this page. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've summarized this sandbox. I removed non-essential sentences, but we can put them in the appropriate article. Since I'm a native speaker of Italian language, I can also translate from corresponding article in Italian. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Is this sandobx summarized well? <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 19:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The history section has some wrong info (I corrected three in the first chapters). IMHO, all this article must be rewritten according the info in it.wiki (FA level).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2022
- ! Rank !! Team !! Points Filippo London (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Why the name Juventus?
I didn't spot in the article why the name Juventus was chosen. Do others know its etymology (with reliable source)? Trafford09 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Trafford09, Juventus means youth in Latin. [1] <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 12:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah - that's a perfect link. Thanks. I do wish clubs had future-proof names - related to locality or company, say. But enough POV from me! Trafford09 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)