Talk:Sporting CP

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

Rivalary[edit]

It seems to me that a user is constantly updating this area to something that has no interest to the section, like about a episode about a banner, if we are going to write about every single time a football clube put a banner we gonna need the whole internet, so i dont see the interest of this particular episode. I do agree thoug that the 1996 final of portuguese cup was a key moment in the rivalary between sporting and benfica, since was the first time and only time a fan died consequence of the rivalary, being quoted as the darkest day of portuguese football. The other episodes seem to me a way of enabling the latter episode and justify it even thoug it happended 20 years after and which the severity of it is banal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctopusFactCheck (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me a bit here, I read through the rivalry section and don't really see much wrong other than some poorly written English. Porto vs Sporting rivalry could certainly do with being expanded upon. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry section between Sporting and Porto is not elaborated on but it is also wrong. There is no alliance between Sporting and Porto. The sources provided to support this are from tabloid newspapers. Both clubs are supporting the judicial processes against Benfica since both might benefit from it but that does not make an alliance... The clubs even had the official ties cut until recently...--JRosa (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a forum, and definetely not Reddit. Secondly, both Porto and Sporting are involved in judicial processes for corruption, especially the latter – Cashball. Lastly, just stop creating new accounts. SLBedit (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Also Sporting CP has a new president since 9th September 2019, following the dismissal of the previous president by the club’s “sócios”. Regards. Pddalmeida (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I revised the text regarding the number of members ("sócios") of the club and created a more recent and accurate citation in that regard. I also revised the text regarding the incidents that took place in the Lisbon Derbies of futsal and football, that happened respectively on the 7th and 8th February 2015, as it's described in the citations about this issue. I also changed the text regarding the rivalry between Sporting and Porto, since the alleged alliance between the two clubs against Benfica, doesn't exist anymore, given the fact that Sporting has a new President since the 9th September 2018. Best regards.Pddalmeida (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of registered supporters discussion[edit]

Would it be possible to edit the page with this more up to date information regarding the current number of registered supporters: https://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi/emitentes/docs/fsd596518.pdf This PDF is a prospectus, with detailed club information to the Portuguese Security Markets Commission, prior to the launch of new debt. As you can see o page 17, there is specific info re number of registered supporters. The document, to an official governmental body, reports that Sporting Clube de Portugal, as of 30 September 2018, had 172.756 registered Supporters distributed in several categories.

I am not an experienced user of Wikipedia, may I please put it out to who ever reads this talk, to give me a hand editing that paragraph

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I read how to propose an edit to a protected page, and made a request, as per below. I think it can be better worded, but the most important action would be to correct this information

The current information, by the way, was published in a Portuguese tabloid, by a compulsive biased reporter, that has published several biased articles.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 2018-12-18T15:13:37 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018[edit]

Please change "As of August 2018, Sporting has 90,000 members, with around 50,000 being eligible to vote in the club's elections.[1]"

To

"As of September 2018, Sporting Clube de Portugal has 172756 registered members, in several categories" as per official clube information to the Portuguese Securities Market Commission here: https://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi/emitentes/docs/fsd596518.pdf, page 17. Cisito (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source. SLBedit (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the CMVM? A governmental agency? Does this mean Wikipedia does not use governmental sources as references in its articles? Because the document is published by the CMVM, not Sporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Wikipedia puts it: "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. "

My edit fits the description above, like a glove. Instead of trying to oppose it by default, you could take a few moments to read the definition.

Also, this corrects a biased article that should never have been used. There are numerous articles about the progress of Sporting's number of registered supporters, over the last 5 years. And you go and use one from a known biased journalist.

It feels like you have an agenda, but I don't want to jump to that conclusion straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you are the same person who tried to censor information on this article. SLBedit (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable honours[edit]

Greenheart69 (talk · contribs) has been adding non-notable honours such as the Small World Cup and the Iberian Cup, calling them European competitions and without adding sources. The UEFA Intertoto Cup might be considered a notable honour, but it's unsourced; even its article doesn't say Sporting won it. SLBedit (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Lisbon[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Entirely unproductive discussion. Continue in the new section below, focusing on the content, not the motivations of others. Local Variable (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royk14, Struway2, and Oshwah: Even Sporting CP website states that the club is known as Sporting Lisbon outside Portugal:

"Various loose affiliations and denominations, in the form of the different names used to define the Club outside of Portugal (with the Club largely being known a "Sporting Lisbon" abroad), worked to create a little anarchy and diversity in the shaping of the new identity of the Club that has always aimed to be a leader of the national panoramic and to be of international reputation."

Previous discussions:

Talk:Sporting CP/Archive 1#referred to incorrectly..

Talk:Sporting CP/Archive 1#Use of Sporting Clube de Portugal / Sporting Lisbon.

Talk:Sporting CP/Archive 1#Requested move 6 August 2018 SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared about being honest, you would have pasted the entire quote. That sentence is taken from a paragraph explaining that the new badge includes the words "Sporting" and "Portugal" PRECISELY to emphasize the correct name of the club.


"The words "Sporting" and "Portugal", now written as complete words and no longer as abbreviations or initials, where introduced to emphasis the national dimension of the Club and to present the official name of the Club on the international level; " Royk14 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my language, but this is a subject that I feel it shouldn't even be under discussion. Royk14 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you cared about being honest", you wouldn't divert the discussion to the club's emblem. We are discussing the fact that Sporting is known as Sporting Lisbon outside of Portugal, according to international media and the club itself. I get it that the club is trying to be known as "Sporting Portugal" abroad, but that doesn't make "Sporting Lisbon" erroneous.
Apology accepted, but almost everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion. If you are not prepared to discuss, you shouldn't be editing. SLBedit (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another attempt of WP:ADVOCACY. SLBedit (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @In0202: stop edit warring. There is no consensus to remove "Sporting Lisbon". SLBedit (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwiqdoh: Stop. SLBedit (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck do you mean "Stop"? Leave me alone and don't @ me again. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remain civil. SLBedit (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrunoLxxx: Why should we? SLBedit (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the club nor its fans like that denomination. It seems disrespectful to any institution to be called a name that they are not. I'd consider distasteful if internationally our rivals would be called FC Oporto or Benfica Lisbon, for instance. BrunoLxxx (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You and the club may consider it disrespectful, but this is the English Wikipedia, and in English countries people do say and write "Sporting Lisbon" (even Cristiano Ronaldo said it that way). In Spain, it's common for them to say/write "Oporto". In Germany, "Benfica Lissabon" is common. It has nothing to do with being disrespectful; it's a cultural thing. SLBedit (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sport Lisboa e Benfica has the word "Lisbon" on it. Futebol Clube do Porto has the word "Oporto/Porto" on it. Sporting Clube de Portugal doesn't have a city name on it but the name of a country (since 1906). That makes all the difference. The way foreigners unfamiliar with the club name and history distort the name of the club is a gross inaccuracy and that should be stated in the lead as it was stated before and promptly reverted by you, a SL Benfica supporter, over and over again. A. Landmesser (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SCP is known as Sporting Lisbon outside Portugal. Your opinion doesn't matter. Stop removing sources and adding POV. SLBedit (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator intervertion will be required if you keep disrupting. SLBedit (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting Lisbon remains at the lead. The inaccuracy must be explained according to consensus. We already know your opinions, SLBedit. They aren't vinculative. This is the most balanced and equitable way to solve the issue. A. Landmesser (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that after another revert. Stop reverting. Don't add "innacurately" to the lead; it isn't neutral. SLBedit (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one with conflict of interest because you are a Sporting Lisbon fan. SLBedit (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that the fans find it disrespectful? Govvy (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section offers plenty of valuable information about the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_CP#Names . A. Landmesser (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason to censor it from the lead. SLBedit (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Lisbon fans still continue to remove "Sporting Lisbon", ignoring reliable sources. A. Landmesser continues not to reinstate that information because they have conflict of interest. SLBedit (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Conflict of interest (COI) editing: even the source SLBedit insists to add is about a degrading episode in the history of Sporting CP. Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like him. The most balanced and equitable way to solve the issue is to properly explain the issues with the use of "Sporting Lisbon" without erasing it from the lead. A. Landmesser (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced content reverted[edit]

This short explanation was reverted without a valid reason by a SL Benfica advocate. I would ask the administrators to pay attention to the multiple abuses by this user, who has absurd prejudices towards Portuguese football and is against anything that is not in the interests of his SL Benfica. [1] A. Landmesser (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have added off-topic advocacy to the Crest and shirt section. SLBedit (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war started by User:A. Landmesser[edit]

"The innacuracy must be explained according to consensus". There never was consensus about that. SLBedit (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make the consensus alone. Many users have said it to you. Your actions are a Blatant Conflict of interest (COI) editing: even the source you insist to add is about a degrading episode in the history of Sporting CP. Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice but nobody cares. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like you. The most balanced and equitable way to solve the issue is to properly explain the issues with the use of "Sporting Lisbon" without erasing it from the lead. A. Landmesser (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you stop harrassing me and stop copy-pasting the same aspersions? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I've better things to this week at Estádio de Alvalade. Have a nice day. A. Landmesser (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that you work for Sporting Lisbon? I do not care about your personal life, but if you are a paid editor, you must tell Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure SLBedit (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sporting Lisbon[edit]

You need a new section to discuss this to start afresh. Don't turn it into personal attacks or refer to each other's motives. There are currently cited references to support both points of view.

What's wrong with this compromise: and occasionally as Sporting Lisbon outside other countries? I don't buy the offensiveness argument, that's unsourced and WP:NOTCENSORED. Local Variable (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't buy the offensiveness argument, that's unsourced and WP:NOTCENSORED" That's the whole point. It's only "offensive" to some Sporting Lisbon fans. SLBedit (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't object to the compromise? @A. Landmesser, what's wrong with the above suggestion? I agree there's controversy around the name, but the way you expressed it looked like the article was opinionated rather than objective. Wikipedia does not take opinions on these issues, it summarises what is in reliable sources. So what exactly is wrong with the above suggestion, which reflects that the name is still used (Google "Sporting Lisbon" and look at the news articles), even if it's not ubiquitous. Local Variable (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Local Variable: and occasionally as Sporting Lisbon outside other countries is fine. However, that won't please users/IP addresses that have been trying to remove "Sporting Lisbon" for years. SLBedit (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll wait and see what they say about it, rather than presume their opinion on the topic. None of the above discussion has been at all productive with no attempt to compromise. Local Variable (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've only presumed because I know who/what I'm dealing with. It's just sad that they don't accept that there are people in the world that say "Sporting Lisbon". This whole edit warring could be avoided if they hadn't a limited view of their own club. This reminds of the "Inter Milan" story on Wikipedia, where Inter Milan fans tried to change it, without success, to "Internazionale". SLBedit (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from https://www.sporting.pt/en/club/history/the-badge "Various loose affiliations and denominations, in the form of the different names used to define the Club outside of Portugal (with the Club largely being known a "Sporting Lisbon" abroad)". Even the official website acknowledges "Sporting Lisbon". What happens if A. Landmesser ignores this discussion while other users/IPs try to remove "Sporting Lisbon" from the lead? What happens if consensus is reached: will the "restore-reverts" still count as edit warring? Could someone add a note in the lead saying "do not remove "Sporting Lisbon" without reaching consensus first"? SLBedit (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That will likely go in, but cool your jets: fanboys and people with axes to grind do similar edits, all over Wikipedia, thousands a day. There is no practical way for the words "Sporting Lisbon" to be engraved in granite in this article, untouchable for all time to come. If vandalism happens, it will be reverted. It just doesn't have to be the case that you, personally, need to be the sole guardian of the lead's purity. Ravenswing 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sporting_CP&oldid=1221585749"