Talk:FC Porto

Porto History!

There is no evidences that the club started in 1893. A former president and founder of the club wrote a text in 1926 that a group left "Grupo do Destino" in 1906 to start Foot-ball Club do Porto with no references to any connections to António Nicolau de Almeida, the man said to be the founder of the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.159.28 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 October 2007

If you can read portuguese, read this. If you can't, the very first sentence translates as follows: "There is not a shadow of a doubt: Foot Ball Club do Porto was founded on 28 September 1893." Also, check the club's website or the "Dragão Ano 111" books, the official history of FC Porto. It has been established as a fact that the FC Porto founded in 1893 is the one that was reactivated in 1906 and the one we know today. Lampadinha 23:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you are saying, and that is the only thing that was proven till today, is that there was a club with the same name in Oporto between 1983 and 1984.

The founders of the actual F C Porto had nothing to do with that and knew nothing about it, so they did not reactivate the club. This "reactivation" was conceived many years after when someone read old news papers and found that Nicolau de Almeida existed. A nice story was created but no facts have ever shown that Nicolau de Almeida ever met the ones who left "Grupo do Destino" to found FCPorto.

This decision was taken during the PINTO da COSTA presidency... till then the foundation of Porto was 2nd of August 1906.

All the "official" things you show were made in the last years... during the same presidency and the value of it is 0. History should not be changed!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.159.28 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the decision to change the club's birth date was made during Pinto da Costa's presidency, because documents were found proving that the club was the same one. Or at least that's what it says in ALL sources, because I've obviously not seen the documents myself. If you've been checking the facts/documents/archives yourself and think all sources are wrong and the FC Porto founded in 1906 has nothing to do with the FC Porto founded in 1893, write a book about it and then you can include that information as an alternative version. Until then, we'll just have to let the article as it is, even if you are 100% sure of the opposite, because as we all know Wikipedia has a no original research policy. Lampadinha 07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.record.pt/noticia.asp?id=806506&idCanal=3437 - do you need more proof that FCPorto was founded in 1906?213.22.249.5 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Dct9kZrQc -> check it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.96.45 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FC Porto was founded on 2 August 1906 by José Monteiro da Costa, the club's first president. SLBedit (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) But it's considered original research. SLBedit (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Error

How can FC Porto have 27 championship titles instead of 26 if it won 1 experimental edition (in the 1934-35 season)? The experimental editions shouldn't count! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.84.149 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the first four editions of the Primeira Liga (1934–35, 1935–36, 1936–37, 1937–38) were experimental; only in 1938–39 it became the official national championship (replacing the Campeonato de Portugal). Those editions were not counted as official titles until somewhere in the late 90s/early 00s, when either the national federation or the league (don't know for sure nor do I have reliable sources) decided to consider them official. If you go to the Primeira Liga website, you'll see Porto with 27 titles, including the 1934–35. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The Primeira Liga was introduced on a probationary basis. Since no parallel competition existed at the time to provide national honours continuity, the national footballing authorities in the late nineties, early two thousands, agreed and rightly so in my humble opinion, to give credit to the results of the four years in question. CharlieCares (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2015

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: moved. @SLBedit: I will move this article and related articles, but you will need to request the categories be moved at WP:CfD - they should be nominated for speedy moving. Number 57 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

F.C. Porto → FC Porto – The club (even in the crest) is always refered to as FC Porto not F.C. Porto. The club itself, Portuguese media, UEFA, FIFA, sports websites, etc, all write "FC Porto". This is similar to FC Barcelona, FC Bayern Munich, etc. SLBedit (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom Red Slash 02:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest - that an RFC would be more WP:CONSISTENT, see Category:Football clubs in Portugal. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I've never seen it written with '.' and also matches sources and naming conventions for this club. GiantSnowman 08:44, 24 January 2015 (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.

Mention of Apito Dourado in the lead

I think Apito Dourado should be mentioned in the lead of the article because this corruption scandal forever tarnished FCP's image, so it is relevant indeed. In the 90s people already talked about corruption by Pinto da Costa's FC Porto, and in the 2000s, that corruption was proven. To mention honours won during Apito Dourado while not mentioning the corruption case is bias. SLBedit (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, the case is mentioned in the history section and was never removed. The fact that you want to place it in the lead... that's a lot, but a lot of individual bias. Especially given the examples I gave you for comparison: Marseille, Juventus, Genoa, Olympiakos, etc. Please, go to the lead of their articles and do the exact same thing.

The trial started, kept going and... Porto kept winning during those years (factual bias), so honestly I don't see the correlation you are trying to impose with the club's honours. But just for clarification, is it bias to mention in the lead of Benfica's article (as long as it is properly sourced): Vale Azevedo, Luís Filipe Vieira, Paulo Gonçalves and like you know, many other distinct personalities? I just want to know if we can open precedents based on people's behavior when they hold positions of power within clubs. Obviously on the basis of "relevant content to the lead, as omissions lead to bias." Blahhh23 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not a good excuse to remove Apito Dourado from the lead. It's factual that currently there is an Apito Dourado 2.0 ("factual bias"). It's factual that none of the people you mentioned are suspected of bribing/buying referees. It's also factual that Pinto da Costa and Porto were condemned in court for active corruption. Even Porto admitted it in a statement. It was proven that Porto and other minor clubs were responsible for match fixing in the early 2000s. So, at the end of the day, I can only conclude that you live in denial, and that you are doing WP:ADVOCACY. SLBedit (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. Let's analyze your edit proposal. You wrote in the article's lead: "In 2008, Porto was condemned of active corruption following Apito Dourado." This is false, because the Portuguese criminal court system did not convict neither the institution nor the alleged perpetrator. Regarding the Portuguese League, the disciplinary committee punished Porto with a six-point deduction in the 2007–08 season and then retracted the punishment in 2017. 1. This part is missing from the Apito Dourado article. You should add it.

You also wrote: "To mention honours won during Apito Dourado while not mentioning the corruption case is bias". It is mentioned in Porto's history section. Regarding the case, no correlation was established between it and the honours won in those years by the club (final verdict). For the bias argument, I must insist. On other club's article leads (for which I offer examples) you find no mention of the cases (proven and unproven) by people that are or were connected to those institutions. That is my primary point. The leads on football club articles mention: club names, who are the supporters, stadiums, records, uefa rankings... You already know, you are an experienced editor.

Are we going to open a precedent on club articles (and yes, biased) to include people's names mentioned in football corruption cases (again, proven and unproven) in the lead? As of the time of this discussion, the club you support is directly or indirectly involved in the following: E-toupeira, Mala Ciao, Vouchers, E-mails, Operação Lex, Saco Azul and Jogos Viciados (some of these cases actually refer to "bribing/buying referees" among a lot of other things). 2 3 Also, do you think that these cases will "forever tarnish Benfica's image"? 4 5

I also do not agree with the denial accusation because I never removed the sentence regarding the case from the Porto's history section. Never. All I did here, was read the Wikipedia article regarding the case and presented what is written. However, this sentence in WP:ADVOCACY is very straight to the point: "Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic, term or viewpoint, leading to disproportionate coverage, false balance and reference spamming".

Taking the sentence into consideration, I can also (apparently) conclude that this type of behavior refers to you. If there is still no consensus, please, feel free to counter. I will try to respond as soon as I can. Blahhh23 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"FC Porto have been deducted six points for the alleged bribery of referees during the 2003/04 season while Boavista FC have been relegated for similar offences." "O FC Porto não vai recorrer da pena de perda de seis pontos que lhe foi hoje imposta pela Comissão Disciplinar da Liga, no âmbito do processo "Apito Final", anuncia o líder dos "dragões" em conferência de imprensa" Porto wasn't "absolved" many years later (not a coincidence) because they were innocent, but due to (il)legal procedures, e.g. Porto supporters in positions of power, a few examples: Fernando Gomes, who was caught arranging prostitutes for referees, Tiago Craveiro, and Pedro Proença, also caught in the wiretaps. Porto did buy / bribe referees. Referee Jacinto Paixão confirmed that Porto bribed him with prostitutes. Porto and its president Pinto da costa were caught match fixing, offering prostitutes to referees, telling Pedro Proença what to do, a person known for helping Porto while a referee, and who now helps Porto as president of Liga Portugal. Porto's titles are linked to corruption and many other scandals. This is undeniable.

You are trying to steer the conversation about Porto's corruption with sensationalism. Porto hired "hacker" Rui Pinto to steal emails from Benfica; Porto was then condemned for manipulating those emails. With thousands of stolen emails, Porto and Sporting, who made an alliance against Benfica in 2017 because of that, couldn't find any sports corruption. [1] Facts: Porto has been condemned for stealing emails and bribing referees. Conclusion, Porto is a corrupt club and you're trying to hide that fact from the article because you are a Porto fan.

Porto loves to brag about titles while hiding the ugly truth about them: they only won mostly due to corruption in sports and politics, attacks on referees, journalists, football fans, other clubs... I could be here all day listing what Porto has done over the past 40 years. So, yes, I still think Apito Dourado should be mentioned in the lead, as Porto's titles are linked to proven corruption, which is pretty clear that is still ongoing. (Hello, VAR?)

Santiago Segurola: "It is terrible what is happening to football (...) In the last few years proven corruption cases have emerged from Italy and Portugal (...) There are people who want to win so much that they are willing to break the rules in the most obscene ways. One of the things that surprises the most is that they (the teams involved) are always the same: Juventus, Porto..."

Even Alex Ferguson stated that Porto buys league titles. Apito Dourado is a stain in Porto's history, a club that could not dominate Portuguese football and win without corruption by Pinto da Costa, "a thug" (thank you, Frederico Varandas, for speaking for the Portuguese). SLBedit (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about the aftermath of the case. That is not is sensationalism. Those are the facts that are documented on the case's article and various sources. In this discussion, all I've read (written by you) were personal accusations and attacks. Words like "brag", "ugly", "terrible", "stain", "undeniable", "thug" are what? Sensationalism, I would say.

The articles I sent you about the club you support, say a lot but prove nothing because (until this day) there is no final verdict. In the case of Porto there was, and it's final. So this sentence: "In 2008, Porto was condemned of active corruption following Apito Dourado" is factually incorrect. So, I will ask again, do you want to open precedents in article leads? Which, and repeating myself, does not occur in the examples I recommended you to check. Blahhh23 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You try and try to steer the discussion but with no avail, and your victimization attempt is pathetic. Why should I care about Juventus article or others? We are discussing this one. Porto was indeed condemned for active AND passive corruption in Apito Final, in 2008. Instead of removing/censoring Porto's notable conviction from the lead, it could be rephrased: "Porto was sentenced for match-fixing in 2008 but this decision was overruled in 2017." This is most neutral way of putting it because it doesn't say Porto is guilty or innocent, nor does it correlate Porto's titles with corruption, so the reader can make his/her own judgement. SLBedit (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I used your own words, no victimization is necessary. Especially regarding you, my friend. Returning to the point in question, in article leads of any other club there is nothing on corruption cases, those who have it are in the history sections. However, with tremendous bias and factual despite for the club, you insist on making this one "different".

But let's do this. I oppose any edition you make in the lead regarding this subject. But I won't remove the edition you eventually choose to write. Have fun. Blahhh23 (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added a neutral sentence. By the way, congratulations for the murder of a Porto supporter by Porto supporters during Porto celebrations! At least this time it wasn't a "suicide" at Estadio do Dragao with the gun disappearing on its own. SLBedit (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Very sad news indeed. Still, I feel like you need a hug. If I meet you personally, that's what I would do. Just a good hug and a smile. After that, maybe (just maybe) you would realize that there is more to life than fanaticism and the time you dispense to it.

Exposing your club's corruption isn't fanaticism, it's a civic duty. I don't hug supporters of a criminal organization, but it's a good feeling to assault them. SLBedit (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I was away for a while, and then I came back and read your last sentence. I've changed my stance on trying a resolution with you and removed your edition. If you don't agree, check with an administrator. I maintain my previous point on club article leads. Blahhh23 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Did your superiors tell you to remove it because of Varandas' speech? Laughable. SLBedit (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to help me with something, by the way? If you can, go to "Segunda Liga" talk page and join the discussion. Share your opinion (positive or negative) on the possibility of changing the article's name. Blahhh23 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

References