Talk:Bicycle kick/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bias against Peruvian section

I keep getting told that I'm misunderstanding things and/or creating my own conclusions to certain things. As such, in order to help clarify things, here are all the evidence I have that User:English peasant is completely biased against the "Peruvian claim" and wishes to hinder that section by making it as short as possible. Moreover, he also seems to keep threatening me and keeps on with his inflamatory attacks even though User:Alexf stated that he wanted more civility in the article (to which I complied). If you wish to reply to this, please do it in the bottom of each of my statements after each claim in order to avoid breaking the order of the evidence. Also, remember that this is meant to clarify what I see and not to insult anyone.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1st Evidence. He does not understand that this is an undecided issue, therefore there is no clear "winner" on where the move was made. He also shows his wish to make the Peruvian section shorter. LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marianocecowski#origins_of_the_Bicycle_Kick. English peasant, or "EP," writes to "Mariano": "Was it invented in Peru or Chile? I think this section of the article is a little bit long and vague. Maybe you could look into this argument if you have time, I'm a bit slow at reading the Spanish sources. Kind regards, EP."

In this first statement a couple of things can be noticed. First, it shows that English peasant does not seem to understand that right now the "attribution of invention" is a contested issue. In other words, there is no 100% official statement that gives a specific claim the actual attribution of invention. Also, he begins to mention his concern for the "length" of the section, even though there should actually be no concern because Wikipedia strictly states that this is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore length is not a matter of problem.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd Evidence. He shows that he does not agree with the Peruvian claim and once again states that he wants to make the section shorter. LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MarshallN20. EP writes in the FOOTY article: "he has also hijacked Bicycle Kick adding a huge rambling section full of irrelevant and misleading sources claiming it was invented in Callao, Peru. The Peruvian claim certainly deserves a mention, but 7.5 kb is a bit much"

In this second statement he accuses me of "hijacking," or to forcibly stop and seize control of the article. He also openly claims that my sources are "irrelevant and misleading." Next, he states the "misleading sources" claim the move "was invented in Callao, Peru." In other words, he accuses the Peruvian claim as based with misleading sources. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he once again mentions his desire to truncate the Peruvian section by stating that "7.5 kb is a bit much." Yet again, he ignores that Wikipedia does not care for the length of sections just as long as they contain information relevant to the article. Not surprisingly, User:Qwghlm states that "the sources look sound but clearly state the first game of football in Peru wasn't until 1892." In other words, this user validates the sources I provided to the section. Still, the most disgusting thing from this second statement is that it gives yet a secondary vision that, as I have been stating, English peasant simply wants to shorten the Peruvian section and that he thinks (Or thought) that the section is backed by "irrelevant and misleading sources"; hence further proving his bias against the Peruvian claim.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd Evidence. Yet again mentions his desire to make the section shorter and begins to show a dislike for the mere mention of the Lima Cricket club. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_kick#Ownership. EP also writes, "There is growing consensus that the Peruvian section should be shortened so as to read more clearly and concisely and avoid making reference to institutions such as Lima Cricket and Football Club [...]"

So what exactly did English peasant do in the article? Here is one the first things he did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=240902152&oldid=240139194. Basically, his first move was to delete information that he considered was better put in other articles. Was that bad? No. Then, what exactly did he do that was wrong? Well, in his desperate attempt at taking away information from the Peruvian section, he carried away information that was actually important to the Peruvian section. I had to once again add part of this information, as you can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=243085035&oldid=240902152. So now what does he want to do? He wants to further truncate the article for no apparent reason. The article has already been made shorter, and yet he simply wants to make it even shorter than what it already is. There is no justification to his actions by this point, and yet he still tries to find every which way he can to simply destroy the Peruvian section to his liking.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

4th Evidence. He keeps threatening me with "accusing" me to the dispute resolution, and says that what I write is "in the minority." MOREOVER, he shows to have big issues with me and currently is in a state that can be called "hot head." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selecciones_de_la_Vida. EP states: "I'm on the verge of taking it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution because I'm fairly sure that he is in the minority on the editorial issues and the vast majority of personal insults, snide comments, unfounded allegations and misrepresentations are coming from his direction." He also states: "The guy is driving me up the wall, he wont address the issue I'm trying to discuss without trying to wind me up."

User:Alexf already discussed these issues with me, and I already spoke about it with him. I've also spoken to him about EP's unruly behavior and his constant attempts at bothering me. Yet, EP still keeps rambling about this same things and keeps on with his attacks against me. I ask, what is his problem? Is he not accustomed to holding a discussion in which he might lose? Does he think everybody should bow down to "respected editors" such as himself? I don't know, and I really don't care. The problem, though, is that he sees my statements as "in the minority" and therefore wishes to use that as an argument to try and bash me and my comments as much as he can. That, as far as it concerns me, is not fair at all.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

5th Evidence. His bias against the Peruvian section is completely revealed. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MarshallN20. EP writes, "Lazy journalism, some idiot journalist will come along read Marshalls POV that the bicycle Kick and even the concept of the football club were invented in Peru."

What else can I say? This is the most obvious statement that shows that English peasant seriously does not support the idea of the Peruvian claim. In other words, he is against it. He calls the idea stupid by stating "some idiot journalist" would come along and read my "POV" and believe that the bicycle kick was invented in Peru. First, it is not my POV as the Peruvian claim is highly old. Next, even if somebody came along and believe the bicycle kick was invented in Peru, then what would be so wrong about that? Isn't this Wikipedia article supposed to promote all of the ideas? And if one of the ideas is accepted by the reader as correct, then isn't that just up to the opinion of the reader? Clearly, English peasant does not understand this and obviously he disapproves of the Peruvian section.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The part of the "5th Evidence" that you ommitted ("The Peruvian claim certainly deserves a mention") in order to misrepresent my position invalidates what you are claiming. I have always maintained that the section needs improvement, not deletion. The same position as Mariano, the only information I have ever removed from the article is more like a general history of peruvian football than a discussion of the actual technique or its development The case that the section needs to be shortened is that this type of addition actually detracts from the clarity and conciseness of the Peruvian claim. No-one else has supported your re-insertion of the content and as Mariano stated above you have driven people away from contributiong to the article by reverting their edits and treating any changes to or questions of "your" content as personal attacks. I am taking the civility issue and the content issue to neutral forums for further discussion. EP 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No part was omitted that would have changed the context of your words. You are a very biased user that just wants to shorten the Peruvian section for no apparent reason. Moreover, as I proved with this, you already did shorten the Peruvian section by removing huge amounts of information. Yet, you still want to keep slashing and destroying everything you see in there for your own purposes. Also, you keep stating that because "no one else has supported" my defence of the section, then you have every right to keep slashing it. You can take this wherever you want to, but be aware that I will not just stand and let you get away with your obvious attempts at destruction.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer going to respond to your provocations and misrepresentations of my intentions. I will allow my contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of South American football (including Peru) to act as my defence. I have followed the advice of Alexf and opened discussions at WP:FOOTBALL and WP:WIKIQUETTE where I have admitted my mistakes. I hope other parties can bring themselves to do likewise. I have left messages on the talkpages of all involved editors and I am withdrawing from this discussion until reason and civility return. EP 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Like I said, go ahead and do that.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Having the section on where it was claimed to be invented longer than the rest of the article put together seems crazy, and the Peruvian section is significantly longer than all the others. The article needs some serious pruning, in my opinion. Beve (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read a Wikipedia policy in which it states that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore length in the article does not matter just as long as it contains verifiable information that pertains to the subject being discussed. For instance, in the Latin American cuisine article each section has different sizes. Yet, that does not mean that one single cuisine is being promoted as the best. Similarly, just because the Peruvian section of the article has more information into it, it does not mean that the article is trying to promote the section as the best option. Like I've been repeating throughout this discussions, instead of cutting down the Peruvian section, why can't Wikipedists focus on expanding the other sections.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would also be nice to find a neutral way to explain how the move is regarded as spectacular, and that goals scored this way garner great attention and often win "goal of the month" competitions and the like. Beve (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this would be a nice addition into the article. I made a section entitled "Famous bicycle kicks" in order to do something like that, but User: English peasant deleted that section under claims that it was biased.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Article for Peruvian Claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight

The above section brought forth an interesting idea. Since the "Peruvian claim" is an actual complex proposal, then it would do just fine with its own article that would simply dedicate itself to explaining the position of this claim more thoroughly. This would help resolve the situation here in the "Bicycle kick" article by allowing for a summary of the information to be done in the Peruvian section while a larger article more deeply covers the information for the Peruvian claim. In other words, the "Peruvian claim" section would then be available for a shortened version while the larger information is set in its own article that further explains the proposal. This would be a great solution to the problem. The main question, though, goes to how this new article should be titled. I would suggest: "Bicycle Kick (Peruvian Proposal)"--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, "Peruvian Proposal of Bicycle Kick" or "Chalaca (Bicycle Kick)." I seriously do think that this is the best way to fix things.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

La Chilena

The Peruvian claim is unsubstantiated as its merely a deliberate counter proposal to Chile's substantiated claim to the bicycle kick. This argument is driven by the two countries fierce rivalry as Peruvians find it very hard to call the bicycle kick the "la chilena" as its commonly known in Latin America (except Peru). Peru's so called "complicated" claim is laughable as the "la chilena" claim out dates the "chaca chaca peru sucks" claim which many football historians think may have been made up to avoid using the "la chilena" reference.--210.50.244.152 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Peruvian claim is referenced and has been noted to exist since the introduction of football in Peru in the late 19th century, as demonstrated by the CONMEBOL newspaper official director. It's laughable that you think that by insulting Peru your argument will somehow be correct.--17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Famous games, strikers and defenders

Without inclusion criteria the sections are POV, how do we determine whether someone is famous for the move. I would put Trevor Sinclair in, he won goal of the season in about 1997 with one, Bressan is included and I only recall the one spectacular kick. If everyone just adds in their favourite player who has made 1 or more bicycle kick the list would become huge. If people just remove the players they have never heard of this would add another layer of POV to the articles. Another problem is that as it stands these sections are incomplete lists. The questions that need to be asked

1. Do we need these sections?
2. If yes what inclusion criteria are we going to adopt?

--EP 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sections are needed. Why? Because they are related to the bicycle kick and denote important events/people related to the move. The inclusion criteria would need to be somewhat complex. Here's a list of things that should be taken into account for someone to be considered what could be called "bicycle kick famous":

• There must be at least one source validating this person as "bicycle kick famous."
• The person must have done the bicycle kick more than just a few times.
• They might probably be players that are retired, but that's up for decision.
• The players must actually be "known" for their bicycle kick(s). For instance, you have "Ramon Unzaga" who is known throughout Chile and other countries as the "inventor of the bicycle kick." Then you also have "Alejandro Villanueva" who is known throughout Peru and other countries as a person who made astounding moves; some even think or thought that he invented the bicycle kick. Moreover, both of these players were of international fame during their days: Unzaga became famous through the South American championships and Villanueva through the Alianza Lima tours in places like Chile and Central America, and the Berlin Olympics.

Concerning the "Famous games"

• The move should have been done during an important event: international or intercontinental (FIFA WCs and Qualifiers for instance).
• The move must have sparked widespread controversy or be highly noted (such being the case for Ronaldinho's goal).
• If done during an attack, it must have scored; otherwise, it is simply another wasted chance to score. However, the amount of media attention and controversy it creates can make it important enough to be mentioned in the article.
• If done during a defense, it must have been an important defensive move that is documented as having done something special. However, the amount of media attention and controversy it creates can make it important enough to be mentioned in the article.
• The move should have probably done something in special. For instance, look at this one:

"FIFA World Cup 1994 In the World Cup that was hosted by the United States, American Marcelo Balboa came within inches of scoring a bicycle kick goal late in the 2-1 win over Colombia in the second match of group A. The loss eliminated the South American country from the tournament.[72]" Did this do anything in special? No. The U.S. was already winning, the U.S. won the game without the goal, and the goal simply did not do anything in special (it did not even score!). Hence, something like this should probably not be counted.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I included that example as to indicate how POV may play a huge part on this list. It was a match in a FIFA World Cup (very important event, which is a point that is brought up) for both the hosts and the national team of Colombia. In this game a bicycle kick was performed and documented. To discuss another point, it's contradictory to include that a bicycle kick is "nearly impossible" to do during play, as to where in this scenario it was actually performed. If making an overhead kick is so complicated, it being performed by a player during a World Cup match should make it special because of the level of difficulty, especially when considering that it was made during the FIFA World Cup. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt you did that with such a particular purpose, but that's something else. I don't particularly agree with that game, but if the rest of you think it goes along fine with the purpose then you can keep it there.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of time was given for any other comment on this subject. Balboa did not score the goal, and his bicycle kick is simply one of those that will be forgotten as it did not change the result of the game at all. However, upon careful consideration of the person, he does come up as being famous for his bicycle kicks as a defender.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Players Criteria for Inclusion

As noted by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notable_players

In order to create a stable foundation for the players who perform the bicycle kick, a common ground must be set.

Notable Players The player must meet the following criteria...

• Must have done a notable bicycle kick more than once; notable bicycle kicks count as:

• Scoring a goal with a bicycle kick
• Effectively defending with the usage of a bicycle kick

• Must have done the bicycle kick while on a professional league or international event
• Must have been given an honor related to the bicycle kick, at least one of the following:

• inducted into an official hall of fame
• Have been given a civic honour for their sporting achievement
• Have ever gotten an attribution of invention of the move
• Have certified national fame for their kick (All reliable and referenced material counts), and a certain degree of international recognition

• Must, in order to prevent Wikipedia:Recentism, be no longer an active professional football player or be an active professional football player with at least 10 years in the senior career

A player may not be excluded from such a list, if they meet the criteria for inclusion that has already been applied to another player on the list.

If you do not agree with this criteria or would like to add suggestions to it, please add your comments below within this section and please sign your name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarshalN20 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 March 2009

I think that the list of 'Notable Players' should be ordered either by last name, or year of first execution of the move. I don't know any encyclopedia criteria that orders people through their first names. --3BRBS (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Last names would probably be better. Year of execution could be a tad controversial.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll order them according to that then --3BRBS (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrongly added a player that I thougt accomplished the criteria of inclusion, but checking on the players Klaas-Jan Huntelaar doesn't meet the requirment of being a senior for 10 years either, isn't this limit too long? Maybe we can reduce it to 5, what do you think? --3BRBS (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

5 years is a short football career for an active player. 10 years is good enough to have established actual credibility as a player, that is if the player is still playing. If a player plays 5 years, retires, but his bicycle kicks are still notable, then he could very well be included; but that is not very likely to happen because, as explained in the prior sentence, 5 years is a short football career (at least under a modern perspective).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

¿Who set this 10 year standard for the article? --3BRBS (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

10 years is the average career for a football player. Here is an article speaking of a "football career of 10-15 years." Good question, though.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think 10 is a good time limit, even though the information is from 1989 and not specific to this matter. I hope we can find a better source to determine a career average, but is not too relevant for now, sadly Klass-Jan Huntelaar should be removed then.--3BRBS (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Until 2012 (Just 2 more years). There is probably some football statistic out lost there for the 10 year claim. If you want, you can notify the Football Wikiproject and ask them directly for sources/opinions (They should be able to more easily find the information). While you're at it, you could even sign up and become a member. Also, since you seem to be interested in this article, feel free to edit in other new information or ideas you might have. Cheers!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this "becoming member" thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3BRBS (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Click here. Add your name to the list of participants. This will eventually add you to the "Category:WikiProject Football members" (Thus making you an official participant; it has its benefits). Then you can add this to your user page:

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Football.

. The main benefit is that you're now considered an official contributor to football articles (contrary to being a random editor doing random edits). Other members will be more willing to contact you or help you out, and other members might contact you for help.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was reading your last edits, and I think that the "more than once" criteria is too much for scorers, I think it should be "at least once" for scorers... maybe it could be a good criteria for defenders the "more than once" phrase, because scoring with the kick it's way more harder than succesfully defending with the kick.--3BRBS (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are several people who have scored one "important" bicycle kicks in their careers. That might end up creating a large problem in regards for the list no longer being "notable." For something to be notable it has, by nature, to be selective and short. Thus far, all of the players in the list which have references are famous and are still remembered in the football world (despite some of them have been dead for nearly half a century). But, like I said before, if you want a third opinion feel free to contact the Wikiproject Football directly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, there is a contradiction with the "Notable bicycle kicks: Due to the (...) in important situations" section. How can the move be described has nearly impossible, but required to be executed at least twice (for a goal), to meet the inclusion criteria? I think it doesn't make too much sense. And also I don't know how to contact the Wikiproject football for a third opinion :) --3BRBS (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing criteria

Hey folks, we can't link to the talk page from the article body in order to provide the inclusion criteria. They will need to be added to the article itself, preferably in as succinct a format as possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of what should be done? (Another article that has its criteria included).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't immediately think of any, but something simple like "The following strikers have scored from a bicycle kick in a top tier club match or competitive international match" would do. I rather think that the criteria above are excessively strict anyway (banning players who have been active in football over the last ten years is a rather silly way of preventing recentism). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the strict criteria came out of an argument between me and several other users. I argued in favor of a section with the notable strikers (since, at least from my point of view, the bicycle kick is something unique to the game and it hasn't been done much in important games because it's dangerous and unpredictable); but the majority of the rest argued against it (their main point being that the list would soon be too much). Hence, there had to be a compromise, and out of the compromise is what came out most of the rules you see there. I was the one who later added the "recentism" criteria since it seemed appropiate based on the common perspective of the "10 year career" for a football player (and despite that, the list is relatively short; 100+ years of the game taken into consideration). Essentially, my point is that a 10 year career is going to establish the person as a good and well-known football player; all of the people in the list have an average of 10 years in football (some even have 20), and that was even before the criteria for the 10 years was established. However, I'm open to other arguments. Why do you think the 10 year career is too strict?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's "too strict" as opposed to simply being a rather odd way of preventing recentism. It could be that the world's most well known proponent of the bicycle kick fails the 10-year cut-off, but omitting him from the "famous users" section would be silly. Recentism is concentrating on trivial things of the recent past; set the other criteria up well enough and there is no need for a specific age guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (not at work) has a point here or no?--3BRBS (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris, well, if you can come up with something better then go ahead and replace it. By that same matter, if any other established user (I don't trust IPs) has a bette criteria, please do go ahead and implement it; or at least suggest it. 3BRBS, I don't understand what you mean to say, could you please elaborate?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I mean, it's a very valid point to me what Chris Cunningham (not at work) has written in general (both concepts). You said that there was a prior discussion about this, and I want to read it if it's possible, so I'm not repeating things already discussed.--3BRBS (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion had way too many personal attacks. I give extreme recommendations for no one to read it. I would rather like for you to bring up your points independent from that past discussion. Perhaps if you make a list of what you think should be/should not be in the criteria?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had too much time, I'll come with a proposal soon. :)--3BRBS (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Why the first line of the article uses the word "chalaca", if it is a minoritary name, even in Peru??. "Chilena" should be there instead, as the word used by all the rest of spanish speaker countries. Also, about the neutrality, it´s highly arguable why players names on the notable strikers section has always a peruvian first, and that the picture of mister Oblitas is the one used to show the move, as it is clearly a provocation: The picture doesn´t show nor the first, nor the best, nor even the most famous goal.

I won't edit the article, as i'm not neutral enough (Im chilean), but i would like someone to pay attention to these details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.207.46 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The first line of the article includes the most common names that an English-speaking society would more-than-likely hear. This is the English encyclopedia, and you might ask why Spanish names should be there, but the simple response is that this is targeted to audiences across the English-speaking globe (which includes the United States). In the U.S., and other English-speaking countries, the terms "chalaca" and "chilena" tend to be used as, probably, "flavor" reasons or just to be more accurate (show support) for the lands in which the move was allegedly created. However, your claim is specifically against "chalaca." You state that it is a minoritary name "even in Peru," but the sources in this page contradict and therefore make your statement false: People even in the U.K. have began to list "chalaca" as a term to use for the bicycle kick.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk)

Next, you speak as if "chilena" was not in the first line when it is there. You probably want it to be before "chalaca," but this is an alphabetical problem as "cha" comes before "chi" any day of the year.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, you complain about why the notable players section has "a Peruvian first," but that is just a style issue as the people are set alphabetically depending on their first names. If they were alphabetically ordered by last names, then it would have "a Chilean first," but would you complain about that (My guess is no)? Finally, you complain about the picture of Oblitas and claim it to be "a provocation," but the picture of Oblitas is famous, is done during a relevant game (Copa America is important), and (even though it is old) it depicts a nicely done bicycle kick. In fact, for the least the picture of Oblitas has him doing a bicycle kick, but the picture of "David Arellano" in the Chile section does not even have Arellano in a visible position (Who is Arellano in the picture?) nor does it have him doing a bicycle kick.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

About Spanish-speaking sources

I have removed the source from El Mercurio to define the name of the move in English. The article talks about the discussion of the name in Spanish (between chilena and chalaca); it never mentions that the move is commonly called "scissor kick", just mention the name in different places. You can't compare, for example, the name in Estonian or Croatian with the name used in the United States. In fact, the only English-speaking countries are the US and Britain with "bicycle kick" and "overhead kick".

Secondly, El Mercurio says that chalaca and chilena are the two most common name of the move and I put tijera as an alternative version as expressed by the work of Nomdedeu. This work takes different dictionaries and proposes an unified dictionary; all of the referenced dictionaries put "chilena" and "tijera" as different moves, but the "unified" one proposes chilena as a synonym of tijera, so I put both versions. --B1mbo (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions:

1. You may not know this, but it is not recommended to delete reliable sources from Wikipedia simply because you do not agree with them.
2. You are using the sources incorrectly, please refrain from making such disruptive edits.
3. Your original research goes against WP:OR, please read up on that and stop promoting your POV.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I removed a "reliable source"? I just removed a sentence supposedly cited by El Mercurio that didn't appeared at all. Can you explain me exactly where in the article says "Most countries in the world know the name by the shape the action resembles (generally "scissors kick", followed by "bicycle kick"). You just have a sample of 22 countries of a universe of 192. They are not even including China, India and Indonesia, the three most populated countries in the world. So, who is using the sources incorrectly? --B1mbo (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have removed the source from El Mercurio to define the name of the move in English."

"En el resto de los países las descripciones son en su mayoría alusivas a la acrobacia que se ejecuta". It roughly translates to "Most countries in the world know the name by the shape the action resembles". Please consult an English-Spanish dictionary if you do not understand.

The source deals with the list, which is available through the link. Certainly, the information can be more specific in the parenthesis if that is what you seek. However, removing sourced information from Wikipedia in order to include your original research is not allowed.

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference was next to the comparison between scissor and bicycle kick and that comparison is not valid using the source. The source does say that the move is usually called by the shape it resembles, not which is the most used. "Scissor" could be used in Estonian and Croatian, but "Fallruckzieher", "Rovesciata" and "Retourné Acrobatique" are used in countries more populated than Estonia or Croatian. The name most frequently used by different languages is not always the same that the name most frequently used by people. Besides, you can't use an Spanish source to define an English, German or any word of a different language.

Also, you removed the fact that tijera is used also as a different move, which is clear in the same source you use to define "tijera". So, I also recommend you to stop removing sourced information. --B1mbo (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The list has information which is valuable to the article; and the newspaper is the only source which has made any mention whatsoever in regards to the international definitions of the move. As such, it remains important to attribute this unique idea to the newspaper El Mercurio. Next, you seem to ignore the fact that this is just a summary section and has no need for so much detail on the Spanish language term. Other languages are not given such preference, and it unfair to give more weight to a particular language. Finally, it remains your original research to state that "some dictionaries use the alternative word "tijera"". If you wish to promote your original research, Wikipedia is not the place for this material. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 | ^Talk if "it is not recommended to delete reliable sources from Wikipedia simply because you do not agree with them", then why did you deleted the reference ([1][2]) to the FIFA 2010 World Cup Logo that describes the move in Spanish? I hope that you will restore the reference removed: Thank you very much and take care. --3BRBS (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

3BRBS, your contributions to this discussion are not constructive. Your "FIFA source" has nothing to do with the information being presented, and is therefore being incorrectly use. I do heartily recommend you learn more about the usage of sources. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed again the naming of El Mercurio in the article. Why El Mercurio is so important that it has to be cited? Are they saying something controversial worthy to be cited? I don't think so; I haven't seen anyone saying that the phrase of El Mercurio is not true and we don't name the author of any of the sources that are being referenced. Anyway, I changed the redaction of the phrase, avoiding absolute phrases and using "usually" instead. I kept the comparison with "scissor" and "bicycle" of other languages, but not saying which one is more frequent because you can't say that (again, German for example is "more frequent" than Estonian).

I included the term "controversial" for the Spanish use, which is true. If you're talking about the name of the move in other languages, certainly in Spanish will be longer since it's the only language where is a controversy about it. Trying to give the same detail for Spanish, Norwegian and German it's not neutral.

I've added the sources of other Spanish dictionaries that have different definitions for chilena and tijera, so I don't know if you will keep your assertion that I'm doing OR. We have one saying they are the same, three saying they are differnts, so in this case the use of tijera is minority but we are keeping it per WP:NPOV. Also, I have added again the link to FIFA; it's a valuable source saying that the most important football organization in the world use one of the names; I don't see why is not correctly used, with the exception that is against your own bias.

And, finally, I removed the first reference to the definition of the move. You can't use a Spanish dictionary to define an English expression. So I've changed it for an English dictionary. --B1mbo (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

El Mercurio is providing information which needs to be attributed to them. No other academic source has been found that agrees with their findings, and so it cannot be simply presented as a common reliable source. I really don't care whether you "think so" or not; follow Wikipedia's rules not your own.

Your example of German and Estonian is illogical to the context of this situation. The information being presented clearly states that the frequency being presented is in regards to the list provided by El Mercurio (which they can read as long as it's not a dead link).

The "controversy" of the move exists between the "chilena v chalaca" positions. This controversy is already mentioned in both the introduction and in the section regarding the origin of the move. It is irrelevant to mention this in the naming section.

Yes, you are still providing your original research. Please read WP:OR. The tertiary sources you provide at no point claim that "Tijera" is different from "chilena" or "chalaca". Since now you know that you're doing original research, if you continue with this I shall be forced to report you to the administrators for vandalism.

It is irrelevant to provide a link to FIFA, because they have also used the name "Tijera". Hahahaha.

Conclusively, congratulations on your first relevant edit in this article (in regards to using an English source for the expression).

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 | ^Talk, my contribution to the discussion is absolutely constructive, I'm providing a valid link from a reliable source to state that the name 'chilena' is commonly used in Spanish. Why is this not relevant? Why is this using it wrongly? It's FIFA an unreliable source? It seems that you just don't like the link to be there for no valid reason. Also you have made changes to the site without discussing them, again. Please restore the article and the links that you removed unilaterally. Thank you and best regards. --3BRBS (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello 3BRBS. First, let's answer the questions your eager mind probably seeks; but let it be said I do this only because you accuse me of having "no valid reason".

1. There is no need to further cite that "chilena is commonly used in Spanish" because a couple of reliable sources already present in the article set the term as a common Spanish translation to the bicycle kick. No additional source is needed.
2. Reliable sources abound in our planet, but if you incorrectly use them then they serve no purpose at all. The FIFA source at no point claims that "chilena" is "commonly used in Spanish". You are assuming something that FIFA has never stated; and in that sense your conclusion is original research (please read WP:OR).
3. FIFA is a perfectly reliable source, but I repeat once more that using reliable sources incorrectly make them irrelevant (which is quite sad, since you're wasting both their purpose and my time).

You assume that I don't like the link, but while we're at this game of assumptions I will also assume that you are simply POV-pushing a pointless argument for no apparent reason.

Now, in regards to your "constructive" contributions, let us do a simple logical analysis:

1. A destructive edit is an edit that disrupts perfectly valid material at the expense of no improvement.
2. 3BRBS's edits are disrupting perfectly valid material at the expense of no improvement.
3. 3BRBS's edits are descructive (i.e., not constructive).

Ha! Pretty nifty logic.

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 | ^Talk, I still don't get it. FIFA it's a "perfectly reliable source", but you erase it. Then you claim that "reliable sources abound in our planet", but therefore we can't use a "perfectly reliable source" to give a proper reference. Interesting. The FIFA link has not need to claim "that "chilena" is "commonly used in Spanish", because it is USING the word. There is no reason to erase the link then; it adds information from a "perfectly reliable source", which is valid material that improves the article. Also your logical analysis is a Fallacy, because you declare mi edits "disrupts perfectly valid material at the expense of no improvement", which is simply not true, then is worthless to waste time discussing your "pretty nifty logic". Please restore the link. Best regards, my dear friend.--3BRBS (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand it, then the ball is still on my park. You could use the reference, because it is reliable, but the way you are using the citation is incorrect. What you are doing is fitting the source to fit your particular POV (which I assume is a mistake from your part); the point here is to let the source provide the information (you don't have to assume anything from it). It's not difficult to understand. Thank you for your kind friendship comments; it warms my heart.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that you keep deleting reliable sources and pushing your POV and OR and accusing of the same. I have included three reliable sources of football dictionaries acknowledging the use of "tijera" and "chilena" as different moves, but you removed them. Can you explain me where is the OR saying that "chilena" and "tijera" are used as different words if they are described by dictionaries like this:

Chilena: n.f. DEP. Jugada de fútbol que consiste en que un jugador, saltando hacia atrás hasta quedar en el aire con la espalda paralela al suelo, golpee el balón de manera que pase por encima de su cabeza.
Tijera: n.f. 2 DEP. Jugada de fútbol que consiste en chutar el balón agitando las piernas en el aire de modo que se amaga con una y se golpea con la otra. SINÓNIMO: tijereta.

— Diccionario LEMA

I've kept the usage of FIFA of the word and I have included the sentence where the President of the Peruvian Football recognizes that "chilena" is the most used word internationally. I think this is relevant when you're discussing the usage of a word.

Finally, I changed again the sentence by El Mercurio. Do you think it is not true what it says? If you think so, then explain why instead of removing everything. And finally... why you keep using an Spanish source to define an English name? --B1mbo (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Your patronizing language is totally rude and accusing Wikimedia Chile of boycotting Wikipedia for my bias is something totally unacceptable and is violating the etiquette [3].

You're breaking WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR. I have already done plenty of explanations as to why you are doing these things. The dictionaries at no point state that the moves are different. It would be like claiming that "vehicle" and "car" are different because they are different words (despite both are synonyms). Additionally, the president of the Peruvian football federation can say whatever he wants; however, including such things in the article are irrelevant and only seek to cause problems. Please stop your disruptive edits.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-Naming the Title of the Sub-Sections

Every time I look at the article there is something that doesn't quite fit in right. Along with the poor grammar of several sections, excluding the introduction and the "Peruvian Claim" section, there is just something about the wordings of the title that really do not go along well with the whole purpose of the "Attributions of Invention" section. Instead of having the names of the countries such as "Brazilian Claim," it suddenly became clear to me that it should have the names of the people to whom the move is attributed to in the first place. After all, the whole point of "Attributions of Invention" is to mention those attributed to inventing the bicycle kick, not about setting forth the "Italian Claim" or the "Peruvian Claim." Like I said before, if memory does not fail me, I believe I was the one who in the first place put the names as "blah blah Claim" and "So-and-so Claim," but back at that point my English wasn't quite good. In other words, I suggest changing things such as the "Brazilian Claim" to simply: "Leônidas da Silva" or "Leônidas da Silva of Brazil."--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The Peruvian claim section does not feature the name of the person who invented the kick while the Chilean claim section includes both information on Ramon Unzaga creating the kick and David Arellano who first exhibited the kick in Spain. The subject headings should remain the same. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In Favor The attribution of invention in Chile is directly given to Ramon Unzaga. As far as it goes for Arellano, his mention in the article is secondary to Unzaga just as Villanueva in the Peru section is secondary to the "mystery person" in Callao. Of course, that's not to say they're both unimportant to the article, but the claim of invention does not directly go to them. The only true problem to this would be the Peruvian section's lack of a person, but surely a compromise can be resolved on that matter. My proposal on such would be to, along with renaming the other sections emphasizing the person to whom the Attribution of Invention is being attributed to, rename the "Peruvian Claim" to "Chalaco Attribution" or "Chalaco Attribution of Peru."--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose if all the other section headers are renamed to remove the national identity but the Peruvian one is left as "Chalaco Attribution of Peru", this would give promenece to the claim that it was invented in the nation of Peru, adding further imbalance to the article. EP 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Seriously, I'm tired of having to repeat myself because you can't understand what I write, which is (taking information from my past two comments): "I suggest changing things such as the 'Brazilian Claim' to simply: 'Leônidas da Silva' or 'Leônidas da Silva of Brazil' [...] rename the 'Peruvian Claim' to 'Chalaco Attribution' or 'Chalaco Attribution of Peru.'"--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Claim to Proposal

From "Claim" to "Proposal" The word "proposal" should go in place of the word "claim." "Proposal" better describes the idea of attribution of invention. If you're going to say anything against this, please make a statement that actually makes sense.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While the phrase "Attribution of invention" is intelligible, its use is not very common in English. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we are talking about here is the invention of the move, and the various claims. In English the phrase "claim of invention" is much more common than "proposal of invention" hence my preference for "Italian claim" etc. (I hope this makes sense) EP 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the various proposals to how the move was invented.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to use the term proposal it has to be clear as to who is exactly proposing a claim towards the invention. For example, even though the wording is in the article is different, Teofilo Cubillas has gone on record to state that the Peruvian football federation needs to patent the kick. A patent is a proprietary claim that entails both protection and possesion. Hypothetically if a patent were ever granted it would completely signify that it is rightfully one's own. Another reason as to why the word claim is helpful when used in the article is when it carries on another meaning which is (to assert in the face of possible contradiction). This meaning fits when you have an example such as when the bicycle kick is performed by the Brazilian Leonidas da Silva or the Italian Parola in different years. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal doesn't sound right. "Claim" seams to me like the right word, but if you are looking for a different word, perhaps "version" could do it. Mariano(t/c) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as the term proposal means, it is supposed to reflect the exposure of an idea or argument that tries to set it as a correct option for the academic community (or the reader). Every single section in the "Attribution of Invention" is bringing up a proposal as to how the move was invented. You don't need to know an exact person to give root to the proposal, it just simply needs to hold sourced information that seeks to push an argument as correct. Claim is simply a statement that sets something as a fact. Here is a comparisson: "Cristopher Columbus claimed that he had found Asia." In other words, Columbus simply stated something and his opinion wanted it to be a fact. On the other hand: "Belgium proposed to rule the Congo." In this case, Belgium is using information to validate its argument in favor of them taking control of the Congo. Currently, every single "claim" of the section has a series of sourced information that makes them more of a proposal.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Video clip

I was surprised that we didn't have one already as far as I could tell. It would be very easy to create one as a good enough player can do one on the field during a practice, so you don't have to wait for one in a game situation. And it would do the job of several of those photos. And it would look cool. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll look through some videos and search for copyright information on them. I like the idea; thank you for sharing it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Names

Great job on promoting. We always called it "a Pele" when I was a kid. I wonder if that's just local or actually a name used elsewhere? You should probably also mention Cristiano Ronaldo, there's even a compilation of his bicycle kicks on youtube!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone can reach out to him and have him do some at practice for our cameras, per my suggestion above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pele's bicycle kick(s) is (are) arguably the most famous, so it makes sense that it would be known as doing "a Pele". I will search for more information on it. There's a very famous picture of it, which I would have loved to add as the lead image (but it is copyrighted). Pele also has a notable bicycle kick clip from the movie "Glory", but that is copyrighted as well. I'm sure Wikipedians of the future will be able to add them into the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Great job on the article anyway guys, have a good Christmas both of you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Same to you!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 09:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks again for the suggestion! The Pele information was very useful in improving the narrative structure of the last subsection in the history.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FAC2

I noticed FAC1 was unsuccessful. The article has improved significantly and my concerns about the description of the action have been addressed. I do think however the structure of the article is not sound. You shouldn't have to explain why what information is where, at least not in an FA. I think claims about invention should be grouped together in the invention section.

Remaining comments:

• The lead still has a footnote and a reference that should not be there in my interpretation of the MoS for the Lead
• I'm fairly sure many readers landing on this page come to find out where the kick was invented. I think the lead should answer that more precisely. Saying South America, then a few lines down "multinational" and at the very end mention Brazil, Chile, Peru, does not answer that question well. The body states that various researchers conclude that the bicycle kick was invented in Peru, so the lead should too. It should also right after that state something about Chile. From the article I infer that no researcher concludes it was invented in Brazil, so Brazil should not be in the lead.
• Now that the Execution section is better, I see that it may be better to have it come first and precede the Name section. There are a few things in the first paragraph of the Name section that refer to the execution and are better understood once described in detail in the Execution section.
• In the Execution section I'd swap the the 2nd and 3rd paragraph. And I'd swap the photo's. It currently takes too long to get to the point.
• The invention section still confuses me: I think it should first mention the late 1800s reports and only then talk about the first known person. Then we go through events chronologically, as one would expect in a paragraph about invention.

With these changes another attempt at FAC will be successful. Imagine this article being a TFA during the Euros this summer... Edwininlondon (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edwin! Thank you for the recommendations. I think the main confusion here is with the invention of the kick. The claims do not have equal WP:WEIGHT to group them together on the invention section. Researchers in the literature agree that the kick was invented in South America; the only significant debate on the kick's origin is with regards to whether or not it was first performed by Ramon Unzaga in Chile or by Afro-Peruvians in Peru.

In this article, I've attempted to achieve a compromise between both points by clarifying that Unzaga is the first-known person to perform the kick, but also pointing out that there is a record of Afro-Peruvians also performing the maneuver.

The remaining attributions of invention (in subsequent sections) are just there to show how people reacted to seeing the move. If this is what is too confusing, then I could certainly remove those mentions.

With regards to mentioning Brazil in the lead, this is done because there is a strong wave of popular opinion in Brazil that claims the invention of the kick (even if researchers do not agree). The last paragraph of the lead is about the popular culture, so it is important to indicate the Brazilian perspective.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. In the meantime, I will apply most of your suggestions in the article.

Thanks again! I'm looking forward for a second attempt at FAC.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The WP:LEADCITE guideline indicates that having necessary citations in the lead for controversial material is acceptable.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong about the Spanish names

The article is wrong about the names in Spanish. Peruvians claim to have invented the move, providing evidence, and they call it chalaca; add to this the fierce rivalry between Perú and Chile (unfortunately, not only in sports). For the rest of Spanish speakers it's simply a chilena (Chilean), and please note: without any political or nationalistic tendentious connotation. Tijera and tijereta are scarcely used, with the meaning of a sort of "incomplete" or leaning to a side bicycle kick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradebo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to place matters into a dichotomy, but it does not reflect the information from the sources. The term chalaca is and has been used outside of Peru (according to the sources), even by Chilean newspapers from the early 1900s.

The sources used in the article specialize in football terminology, not personal opinion.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Still wrong. The name section is currently misleading about the Spanish name, remember: chilena, almost universal, not tendentious; chalaca, in some places; tijera almost unknown. The Spanish article, es:Chilena (fútbol), has been thoroughly discussed and is full or references. --Gradebo (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "universal". The claims you are making are not justified in any study. Personal opinion is not a valid source. The Spanish article is, frankly my dear, a disaster. As Wikipedia is not a forum, please move on as this discussion is now done. Have a great rest of the week.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)