Talk:Luis Suárez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vandalism?

The article states that he signed with Melbourne, but the reference is in no way related to this 'news'. Either this is a very late April fools joke, or someone's deliberately damaging the article. D(r)ead End (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Weighted More"

"His 35 league goals was actually the most in any European league, but Lionel Messi with 34 goals won the 2009–10 European Golden Shoe award instead since the Spanish league is stronger than the Dutch league and has its goals WEIGHTED MORE."

Can we have a reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.253.123 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jiopah, 2 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Jiopah (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Luis Suarez did not cheat. He used the rules to his advantage, got lucky and then got even luckier. It's football's fault there isn't such a thing as a penalty try, not Luis Suarez's. Chingster (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On this page it states that he plays as a striker. Could we change that to goalkeeper please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.30.32 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Suarez IS a goalkeeper when his team practices (I am not even joking on this). It is not unusual for players from other positions to be used for a different role when it comes to team practices. Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hand of God

I propose the following adition to this page

His role in the 2010 Soccer World Cup will long be remembered in that by cheating he was instrumental in his teams 4-2 defeat of Ghana. Had he not committed the handball offence his team would have been knocked out of the World Cup. Instead because of his illegal defence of the goal Uruguay managed to win on penalties and thus proceed to the Semi final match against The Netherlands. He himself called himself the "new Hand of God" a reference to the 1986 incident where Diego Maradona scored a goal against England with his hand and it was credited as the "Hand of God"[1] CRDMorley (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very WP:POV. The following parts cannot make it to the article, I suppose: "... will long be remembered ...", "... by cheating ...". Otherwise, the story is already told in the lead section, in a neutral way. What do you really miss there? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree the handball was aimed at changing the course of the match! He cheated and then started to use euphemisms for his cheat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRDMorley (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC) SPELLING MISTAKE IN FIRST PARA Losing as opposed to LOOSING CRDMorley (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In the main article it says that he "saved his team". This is in my view a FAR too positive description of what he did. This was plain cheating, and this should be said in the article. It is unbearable that Suarez even seems to be proud of what he has done. He should be ashamed of himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.71.244 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is "in your view". Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. In essence what he did was prevent a goal that may otherwise have been scored. Ghana's failure to convert the penalty led to the shootout, which Uruguay then won. If we wanted to get clever, we could point out how ironic this is all is. Ie. Ghana getting a penalty against Serbia(which they score to win), Ghana getting a penalty against Australia(which they score to draw), and Serbia NOT getting a penalty against Australia(which causes Serbia to lose) were all very controversial decisions that saw Ghana go through at the expense of Serbia. If any of those three decisions had gone the other way, Ghana would have been eliminated. Then when Ghana get a penalty that they DO deserve, they miss it, which sends the game to a penalty shootout which they lose. I would like to add that, but can not as, while true, it is still seen as WP:OR. Meanwhile your suggestions are very clearly WP:POV. 41.132.229.210 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure that you are aware of WP:NPOV. No matter how blatant and obvious the injustice appears to you, you must not express you opinions on Wikipedia, but state the facts. That he save his team from losing is a fact, I guess. That he is a cheater is an opinion. I personally share this opinion, but it is not a fact and currently being discussed by people all over the world in various forums. However, Wikipedia is NOT a forum. Better try to find a source for the claim that it was intentional. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA considered his actions to be against the fair play rules, and could therefore be considered cheating. FIFA is considering expanding his game penalty for the rest of the tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.110.145 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Suarez did not cheat. He used his hand illegally, got punished by receiving a red card and Ghana were awarded a penalty kick. All in the rulebook. Now, that the Ghanan player went and missed the penalty kick, well...that's his fault. Suarez had nothing to do with that. Ghana blew it, quite and simple. Suarez saved his team, plain and simple. That is not POV; it is the last minute of the match on extra time, your teammates are tired, there is a whole continent against you and you are playing, effectively, as the visiting team. He did what he had to do to give his team a very small chance to fight (and it proved to be correct).

A semifinal slot of the World Cup, the most prestigious tournament in the world in which it is played once every four years, was at stake. The last thing anyone would think, if they see a ball going into their net, is what some resented people will think it is morally right. That is simply being a hypocrite because anyone would have done the same thing (and it has been done). The problem is that many American "fans" don't really express their own opinions...they just repeat what Euromedia says, specifically the English.

Second, it is not the hand of god. It was simply a handball. A "hand of god" is the illegal usage of the hand WITHOUT getting caught. That is the very essence of the term "hand of god": everyone didn't see it but god. Not trying to insult anyone...I am hispanic by origin so I don't expect Americans to know much about the subject. Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"First of all, Suarez did not cheat. He used his hand illegally" What exactly do you think the definition of cheating is in a sport?

That he got caught doesn't expunge the fact that he cheated. The use of that word is appropriate in this scenario. LePhil (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What we must do is try to find a wording that is supported by our sources. Since a large proportion of commentators find that there is an ethical issue involved, such an issue cannot be ignored. This cannot be waved away by stating that there was an element of individual self-sacrifice involved, or by hypothesising that everybody else would have acted in the same way.

The underlying point is that seeing (foul play) vs. (sanctions in the books) as some sort of neutral, amoral exchange is seen as contrary to the spirit of the game, and, yes, as cheating; this is the reason why Suarez is now under investigation by FIFA. The latter fact is exactly that, a fact. As for "hand of God" - this is a term used by Suarez himself. See [[2]]. Feketekave (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Suarez did cheat. However, if you want to say "intentional handball," that is just as good, because the two are equivalent. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with saying that using the word cheat is a mere POV - THE FACT THAT FIFA ARE WANTING TO EXPAND THE BAN SAYS TO ME THAT THE WORLD BODY ARE SEEING IT AS MORE THAT "INTENTIONAL HANDLIN" No matter what euphemism you use he cheated. He is a proffessional who committed a proffesional foul! Unfortunatly soccer does not have a penalty try rule where the ref can award the try in that kind of circumstance!

If you look at the news articles that I quoted above he was proud of his action and describes it as a clear intended move - therefor he is a cheat!20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRDMorley (talk • contribs)

CRDMorley seems to have passionate feelings about this. Nothing wrong with that, but unfortunately they seem to dim the perspective a bit. Every player who causes a freekick has cheated, every player who dives has cheated, every player who plays time has cheated, every player who kicks away the ball after the whistle has cheated and every player who touches the ball with the hand has cheated. By the logic (or rather the lack of logic) by some users here, every football player in the world is a cheat. That is perhaps the case, but then it isn't notable. So in either case, it doesn't belong here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeppiz I think that you actually miss the point and your argument lacks basis in fact! - Maybe read the following article for a different perspective! There is a big difference between a cynical handball that he intentionally carried out and a guy going for the ball missing and hitting his opponents legs! His action was cynical - it was intentional and therefor is cheating! I do have to concede that the technical committee has taken the easy way out and not extended his ban and therefor previous arguments become moot! The unfortunate thing is that this kind of behaviour will overshadow what has been an interesting world cup! I wish the players would actually play the game and stop appealing to the ref every 5 second for a penalty - they have become worse than a bunch of schoolboys playing at school! I think this has been bought about by inconsistant refs! Personally I believe soccer is losing out because of this kind of behaviour! CRDMorley (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

mention the hand of god, please. it clearly indicates what he thinks.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.149.110.85 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

please mention it. he says it was gods hand, so he doese think he is somehow close to god, or even god. mention it. mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.49 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can add this "During the post match interview Saurez self proclaimed him as a 'new Hand of God'[3] which evoked memories of the Maradona's infamous goal against the England in 1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-finals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam4u01 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheat or not cheat

I moved the following most recent comment from the middle of the talk page section, where it was place, here to the bottom, in an attempt to better structure the flow of this conversation. I hope no offense is taken by that. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That the word "cheat" has negative connotations does not immediately make it a point of view. If one does something that goes against the rules of the game in order to win, one has cheated. That he got caught does not expunge that fact. LePhil (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I hold against that it is POV. The arguments for or against Suarez' action are separated by exactly these two points of view, i.e., it was cheating or it wasn't.

Everybody agrees that it is not allowed to use the hand, and that such action results in a free kick (here even a penalty and a red card). I think that everybody also agrees to these sanctions. The POVs divert exactly at the point where one side says that playing a handball and being sanctioned, together, is according to the rules of the game, while the other side says that any intentional noncompliance with the rules is cheating, especially when the player is set out to be sanctioned.

Personally, I hold the opinion that Suarez cheated (as any player does who intentionally commits a foul, dives, or only lifts the hand to indicate incorrectly that he should get the ball for throw in while knowing better). This is not the way I had chosen to play on an amateur level, and I find it a big shame to the caste of professional football players that these habits are absolutely common and accepted.

Nevertheless, all this is just my POV and I do not want to see it in the article. People who say that all this is covered by the book of rules with appropriate sanctions have a different POV, which we do not have to share, but we have to acknowledge that it is reasonable, too. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Handball in the lead

Different authors have deleted the mentioning of Suarez' handling in the lead. I oppose this deletion, as this story is with no doubt among the most relevant to tell about this player - today and in ten years when he will have retired.

Please join this thread if you have something to contribute, but abstain from ungrounded reverting. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those who reverted you, and I repeat what I wrote in my edit summary: read up on WP:UNDUE. Having around a third of the introduction on a very famous player focusing on a single game is to give it a hugely undue weight. Given that the game took place less than 24 hours ago, I might also remind you of WP:NOTNEWS. There are hardly any players for whom we focus on what they did in a given match in the introduction, the introduction is focuses on their careers not on particular games. I welcome further opinions on the subject.Jeppiz (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it might be long compared with the remainder of the lead. If you want to shorten it, I would be with you. However, it is certainly lead content as it is elaborated broadly in the corresponding section. Honestly, do you think this story will not stick with him for the rest of his career and beyond? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE; the intro to any (bio) article should focus on the subject's entire life accomplishments. i.e., the intro to the Zidane article has no mention of his headbutt incident.... --Madchester (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Madchester, the intro should not focus on a single game. Madchester mentione Zidane, we could also mention Thierry Henry, also involved in a much more notable incident. This incident simply doesn't belong in the introduction. Wikipedia is not a news agency or sports journal.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Using the word cheat correctly identifies his actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.172.225 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See the intro to Ramon Quiroga, which mentions a lesser offense simply because of its notability. Feketekave (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking or are you serious? It's not in the introduction, it's in the text in the article. There is no introduction at all, as it's little more than a stub. See Zinedine Zidane or Thierry Henry, neither mentions game incidents they've been involved in despite much more widely published incidents.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, if the headbutt is not mentioned in the lead of Zidane's article ... Well, that's perhaps not a great argument as I do think that the headbutt should certainly be mentioned there. However, I guess it is not worth for me fighting this through here, if at Zidane's page, where presumable a lot of discussion took place, the result was to exclude the headbutt from the lede section. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The headbutt is only mentioned in the body of the Zidane article. Likewise, Henry's hand ball is mentioned in the body, not the lede of that article. More recent examples like Robert Green or Jorge Larrionda also mention their recent 2010 WC exploits in the body of the article - not the lead paragraph. --Madchester (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How about the Ghana player diving to win the free kick that led to the incident in the first place (cheating) or the cast iron penalty that Uruguay should have had in extra time? Should be mentioned in Suarez's defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.77.97 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term Go Ahead Goal

This is not a term in football and must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.77.97 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Although it might sound "POV", I think it is entirely accurate, objective, and unbiased to say that Suarez illegally saved a goal that would "most certainly"(?) have been the winning goal for Ghana (there are countless online references that could be cited to suggest this). Maybe the term "professional foul" could also be used here. Also, this will arguably go down as one of the most memorable incidents in World Cup history, and I do think it should be expanded a bit more in this article - maybe have a "2010 World Cup" subsection? Azzurro2882 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - the term 'Go Ahead Goal' sound strange --Boy.pockets (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

International reaction to hand ball

I would be interested to see a section describing the international media's reaction to the hand ball event (Ghana V Uruguay). I hear that his efforts were revered by the Uruguay media (sacrificing himself for the team). I imagine the media in Africa would be the opposite. I would also like to hear the reaction from countries where football is not the major sport - where I imagine this sort of play would be taken as an example of the games downside. --Boy.pockets (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard very little in the U.S. referring to this in a negative manner. It is widely considered to be a smart play when you weigh the costs and benefits, so you may not find much negative referring to this as part of the downside. Blown calls by referees are considered as such, but this was a correct call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.73.226 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am interested in - media coverage from other countries. It would be nice to know how the media percieve this action. Is he a hero or a villan? Is it a "professional foul" or is it cheapting? I am not saying we should decide - But I do want to know what the media has reported. The Gamesmanship section of the List of WC controversies is what I am talking about (sorry for not being clear) --Boy.pockets (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we think of the propriety of what Suarez did, we cannot remove the section discussing the incident. This may be obvious, but the section was recently removed by another editor - I have just had to revert that. We are talking about an incident that is arguably central to this player's notability. (See this talk page!). Feketekave (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I have just seen another user (unregistered) remove a large section with no comments. Admittedly, looking over the section, it was not very tidy... and some of it is repeated here. --Boy.pockets (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Succeeding the departed Thomas Vermaelen???

This should be reworded. It sounds like Thomas Vermaelen died... 173.168.177.217 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree--Boy.pockets (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Easily  Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Better quality Image

Poor Quality (IMO)

Better quality, if not funny looking

The first image seems to be poor quiality (very grainy). The file I am referring to (see right) recently replaced an image with a red background, which although it looked a little odd, was a better quality. Can we change it back or change it to another photo of better quality? - --Boy.pockets (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree. A better quality picture is needed. --MrEskola (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Okadam100, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The information under 'Early career' is obviously rubbish and equates to vandalism of the article: In england, Suárez played for liverpool fc During his time with the english club under the management of juande ramos, he won the national ear eating championship, with his mum in 2006, eating 12 ears in 29 seconds, beating Mr Yahya Rahim into a clos second

Okadam100 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.112.139.90, 18 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} He is getting ready to join Liverpool and just want to add that liverpool are persuing him.

82.112.139.90 (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Even if you get a reliable source, it probably shouldn't be in the article, because it's strictly speculative until an actual deal is signed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from VMercurialx, 19 January 2011

{{Edit semi-protected}} It states that Luis Suarez is playing for Liverpool when he is playing for Ajax. Please change his current club to Ajax. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Ajax#Players_and_managers

VMercurialx (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done The Ajax page is not a reliable source, but we must wait until the rumours are confirmed by a reliable source. Thanks.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

fee accepted by Ajax. Now subect to medical and personal terms. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/reds-agree-suarez-deal 90.195.108.18 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jonnywoodey, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

ff

Jonnywoodey (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.72.34.181, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The value of this players transfer from Ajax to Liverpool should read "a fee of up to 26.5million Euros" as stated on the clubs (Liverpool) official website. Source: http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/ Anyway, the transfer is still up to a medical AND the player agreeing terms with Liverpool. He's not a Liverpool player yet.

88.72.34.181 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I've changed the club back to Ajax, as you are correct that the deal is not complete. I'm not changing the dollar amount, as the amount listed matches what's in the BBC report, which is (and should remain) our reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove Liverpool

The deal has been completed. Suarez now plays for Liverpool FC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.211.174 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC) luis suarez signed for liverpool for a fee around about 22.8m and told everyone what a beautiful club it is to come and step up your career. he passed his medical and earns £85,ooo-£90,000 a week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.184.32 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.7.179.167, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

94.7.179.167 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to actually state what specific thing you want to change, not copy the entire article, as we can't look through to find the one change. Please make a new request and list just the change you want.

Edit request from Skaufel, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Luis Suarez is now a Liverpool player, confirmed by Liverpool FC. I want to edit in this Skaufel (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan Majerle is a big fan, even though he wanted hotspur to get him....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.114.129 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.8.221.227, 29 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} luis suarez has had his medical and is has been passed and now is a liverpool player luis suarez will be wearing the number 7 or number 11 shirt but with fernando torres leaving he might get the number 9 shirt luis suarez has not got a partner to play with at liverpool as fernando torres is leaving but liverpool have been linked with a move to world class player sergio aguero AND that would be a good partneship. 86.8.221.227 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As always, we need a reliable source to include changes of this type. And your last sentence is just your own personal speculation and POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jordywright09, 30 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Jordywright09 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to actually state who change you would like made. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

luis suarez as passed his medical yesterday and hiis confimation has been delayed by the signing of another player and the exit of fernando torres.

Luis Suarez has passed his medical

i want you to write in the liverpool bit that luis suarez has passed his medical and is on a 5 and a half year deal the thing that is holding the confirmation up is a signing of new player as liverpool want to confirm it together. another reason is fernando torres imminent exit. this reason because liverpool fc want to see what happens with the deal after that they will confirm that suarez is a liverpool and will be wearing the number 7,9 or 11 thanks naeem lfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naeem lfc (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.8.221.227, 30 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Luis Suarez Has passed hi medical and there is a bit of paper work to be done and the deal should be concluded on monday 31st january 2011 this is from a spokeperson on the Liverpool FC website

86.8.221.227 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: And once the paperwork is complete, then we'll update the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't and shouldn't provide minute by minute updates of tiny changes. Once his status is fully changed, then the article should change. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.240.156.26, 4 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Suarez just has a habit for cheating and the sooner everyone realises that, the better the game will come without the player who can only result to cheating tactics. 89.240.156.26 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You don't have any sources and it sounds like you are attacking him. Baseball Watcher 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edict Semi-Protected

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please Semi-Protect this Page it has been Vandalized a lot of times (See History of Article) Do Think About this a lot of Ramdom IP's are vandalizing this page. And Also it is not the first time that someone request to put this as a Page Semi-Protected. --Oesp 1506 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the template you used above is for use when an article is already semi-protected, and a new/IP user wants to edit it. To request page protection, you need to add a new request at the Request for Page Protection board. I do see a fair amount of regular vandalism here, so I'll go ahead and make the request now; it will probably be semi-protected only temporarily. I'll put the page on my watchlist, too, and monitor it during/after the protection (assuming protection is granted). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you're help Best Regards. ;) --Oesp 1506 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

it says the spanish pronounciation is lwiz swares. that's not true. in spanish it would be lwis swareθ. request edit to change "spanish" to "uruguayan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.68.224 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Uruguayan isn't a language. And the pronunciation given is correct in the Spanish native to his country. if any amendment were to be made it should be "South American Spanish" but it's fine as it is.AlasdairShaw (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Adding an Assist statistic to Career Statistics section

As title says, It would give a better indication as to Suarez' performances over seasons, better to get it started now than later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.30.192 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This would require a change to the overall template, we can't do it for just one article. There's a case to be made for changing it perhaps (though quite what gets defined as an assist may vary from league to league), but that needs to be made at WP:FOOTY, as it would affect every footballer's article. GedUK  12:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Remove Eredivisie 2010-11 from his honours

As the title says, I would like to suggest that the Eredivisie 2010-11 title is removed from his honours. He was transferred from Ajax to Liverpool in January, so he was not a member of the squad when the title was won in May. Actually, I've already performed the removal, but then user Jacoplane, restored it with the argument that he was given a league winners medal from Ajax. I disagree that the politeness of Ajax is a valid reason to give him the title in his honours. I don't know any other examples where a player is given the honour after he left (but I do know lots of examples where it did not happen). To conclude: the league title should be removed from his honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JG3stars (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely a player who plays for a side at any point in a successful season is part of the winning side? If he hadn't played in the first half of the season, games may have had a different result and so might the season? Are there Ajax players who came in in January who won the award that season, even though they were only there for the second half? GedUK  12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

He played 13 league games, under English Prem rules, ten appearances qualifies you receive a medal. If the eridivisie have similar rules then he's won the league. (He earnt it more than Michael Owen did at Man Utd, but he got a medal). On the official LFC WWW, Suarez says he hasn't won the league. But that came across as him feeling just not feeling part of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SG73 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

According to personal e-mail contact with the KNVB (Dutch Football Association), it remains unclear whether he should have the title. They made it clear that there is no regulation for this issue and that it is purely a gesture of Ajax to give him the medal. In my opinion this last remark of them, tells us that it is not normal policy to give players the award when they already left. JG3stars (talk 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, that says he should keep it. If the league have no policy (and a personal email isn't verifiable and therefore citable), then it's up to the club. If they gave hima medal, then the honour should stay. GedUK  12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page needs to be archived. I will set up a bot request for Miszabot to archive any conversation over 60 days old, unless anybody objects in the next 7 days. GedUK  12:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now set this up. GedUK  12:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool career

more info about his liverpool career i.e. he also scored goals in the 5-2 win over fulham and the 2-0 win over Sunderland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeyredmo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

the statistics of National and FC Groningen are counting the total. should count only the national championship! 189.115.147.140 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Page name

Well, we had a page move, and then a revert. Personally, I think the current name of Luis Alberto Suárez doesn't really meet WP:Common, and I support the page move to Luis Suarez (Uruguayan footballer). GedUK  21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As an English-speaker I was at first confused by the "Alberto" so I support Luis Suarez (Uruguayan footballer) too. Maybe the Alberto and Diaz are more relevant to the Spanish-speaking wikipedia, but I am not aware he's known by this name in English. For example, his personal website name is luissuarez [4].

I also think that when searching wikipedia for Luis Suarez, it should automatically direct to this page instead of the disambiguation page. When I search google for "luis suarez %pws=0" (where the %pws=0 eliminates my personal search bias), the first 17 or so are for this soccer player. Also, the page view statistics are something like Luis Suárez Fernández – 20 page views per day, Luis Suárez Miramontes – 230ish per day, Luis Fernando Suárez – 20ish per day, and Luis Alberto Suárez – 2500ish per day, with peaks up to 10k and 17k for days around recent Premier League games and presumably Copa games in July. It seems like most people are interested in this Luis Suarez, but I admit this talk page might not be the place to discuss that. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bdenty, 25 August 2011

their was a game yesterday in whitch luis suarez scored in so i want to update it to apps. 16, goals 7. Bdenty (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The info box under the picture is for league games only. Last night's game was in teh league cup. That's already been added to the total statistics table at the bottom of the article. GedUK  12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New name move to Luis Dangda Suárez

Luis Alberto Suárez is more accurate than Luis Suárez (footballer). ${\mathfrak {E}}{\mathfrak {B}}{\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {y}}$ ^(Talk) 07:47 AM GMT+2, 1 October 2009.

This unarchived section seems very old now that the page name was changed from Luis Alberto Suarez. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Luis Alberto Suárez → Luis Suárez (Uruguayan footballer) – Luis Suárez is how he is commonly known, at least in English. This is also how his name is listed on his English personal webpage [5]. Ged UK agrees as he discussed here on the talk page. I think Unreal7 does too based on the move last week. Anybody disagree Strafpeloton2 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support As discussed above. Part of the problem with the current name is that it uses his middle name, not the two-part surname. Don't know why it was ever suggested really. GedUK  11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Common name is "Luis Suárez" so common disambiguation practice is to use parentheses rather than a little-known middle name. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Question, what are you propsing to move it to? Support Luis Suarez (Uruguayan footballer), oppose Luis Suarez or Luis Suarez (footballer) because of ambiguity with the 1960s Spanish footballer of repute. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed move is to Luis Suárez (Uruguayan footballer). I haven't proposed a move before and don't see any of my explanation text on the move page, nor as you noticed, the new name on this page. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV/Peacock language

I see that User:Strafpeloton2 undid my edits in the playing style section, and I totally get the objections. But peacock words with sourcing are still peacock words. The problem is, sourced or not, qualifiers like "deadly" and "powerful" and "excellent" are unhelpful to the reader and these should be described with facts and stats. An exception would be the Kenny Dalglish quote at the end, and that's because it's actually attributed to an expert. The ones used at the top of the article are unattributed to any pundit or former player or manager, and shouldn't be treated as fact. --Mosmof (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made my edit - I tried to avoid unattributed flowery language and stacking cites (there's no need to use multiple cites if you have one good source). --Mosmof (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that the "unattributed flowery language" removed was "deadly striker" (in quotation marks with a reference immediately following) and "excellent goal scorer" (no quotation marks with three references immediately following). Then the stacked refs were removed because only one good source is needed. To me, there are inconsistencies there. I agree there is probably a better phrase than "deadly striker" but it was a direct and attributed quote. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The template is for a "claim that is not sourced" and says "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." At the end of the sentence with the "by whom" template there are two inline citations. It is my understanding of NPOV that we are looking for an even representation of what people say about the subject. All these representations need to be verifiable and not necessarily from experts (although that helps and, I agree, should be stated explicitly if so). But I think what people say can be generalized too, as was done in this sentence. For example, in this edit Mario Vargas Llosa was promoted to a featured article. In multiple cases, including the third sentence, "critics" are generalized. In this case the identity of the critics is irrelevant, only that they are criticizing (with reliable sources), and that was alright for the Featured Article reviewers. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that opinions (even flowery language or peacock words) should be included if they can be reliably cited. The NPOV page says, "Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." Of course opinions need to be reliable sources, not by iloveluissuarez.someblog.com; I would say FIFA, Soccernet, and an interview of Kenny Dalglish by the Liverpool official website would qualify as reliable. And WP:Peacock refers to specifically to unattributed puffery: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." If there are reliable sources that are opinions, then it seems to me they should be included and attributed, as long as the text is balanced and representative. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The playing style section is easily the most subjective of a player's bio. There is already an objective list of stats that are separate from style. If there is a reference that describes his powerful shot, that helps the reader understand more about the player. There is likely nothing that says he shoots at a speed of xx kph. If some describe him as an excellent striker, then that helps the reader somewhat; it is a subjective section, so these opinions are what we have to deal with. (Fortunately, we also have the stats section to supplement.) Do you have a better example of what facts can be included to better help the reader understand 'he shoot ball hard'? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your points are perfectly fair. I had a couple of issues:

1. While the flowery language was cited and verifiable, some of it, like "deadly striker", wasn't attributed to anyone because they came from profiles without bylines. Even if they do come from reliable sources, I'd like to see strong language like that at least be from people with known expertise in the game. Without a name to attach the quotes to, I'd say that the puffery is unattributed.
2. Part of my issue with "deadly striker" and the like was the absence of context. Obviously, the "deadly" is not meant to be literal. So what does it mean? It's an unhelpful descriptor on its own and if it's couched in actual facts or expert opinion, then why not just stick to facts and expert opinion? --Mosmof (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about the unattributable source, but on the other hand I assume that some editor with soccer knowledge had to approve whatever is written in the player bios from a soccer-based source. I'm not going to push that one because I agree that there is a lack of meaning for "deadly striker" and it needs something better at some point. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

I would like an line in the Wikipedia page about Luis Suarez to not be edited, so much as have more information added on. the following line is this On 20 December, the FA concluded a seven-day hearing and gave Suárez a £40,000 fine and banned for 8 matches for racially abusing Evra in the 15 October match against Manchester United. I do not think this line shows Luis Suarez to be the man he is. There was very little evidence about the allegation of racism from Suarez Towards Manchester United player, Patrice Evra. I would like the Liverpool Football Club Statement about the Verdict to be posted after the line I showed above. I will give the link to the statement and the statement itself. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/liverpool-fc-statement-20-12-11 Liverpool Football Club is very surprised and disappointed with the decision of the Football Association Commission to find Luis Suarez guilty of the charges against him.

We look forward to the publication of the Commission's Judgment. We will study the detailed reasons of the Commission once they become available, but reserve our right to appeal or take any other course of action we feel appropriate with regards to this situation.

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

The Club takes extremely seriously the fight against all forms of discrimination and has a long and successful track record in work relating to anti-racist activity and social inclusion. We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person's background.

LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable - without compromise. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.

It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person's skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.

He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends.

It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented. We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suarez has been characterised.

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.

Author: Liverpool FC

I would appreciate any editing of the page which would give a more truefull view of Luis Suarez.

94.168.42.165 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What change are you requesting?--John (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the LFC statement in response, but didn't get into detail about the club's argument, since that wasn't reported widely. That should be enough for now? --Mosmof (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Would the Suarez-Evra Racism row benefit from being split of into another article or is there too much speculation and not enough facts around it? 194.176.105.141 (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it, since we only have a paragraph or two of information. We had the incident, and now the hearing. There's not much else to this story. --Mosmof (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the recent additions to that section I find it worth suggesting the creation of a separate article with more in-depth information on the incident while keeping the paragraph regarding it here significantly shorter than it currently is with a reference to the page dedicated to the incident.Neberu (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• - note - as this appears partly resolved and under discussion I have actioned the edit request template as actioned to remove it from the to do list. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Suárez ignored Evra and continued down the line causing Evra to throw his arms up in protest and Rio Ferdinand, whose brother Anton was the victim of a separate racial abuse incident with Chelsea captain John Terry, to avoid shaking Suárez's hand.

Could the one who wrote this edit the second part of the sentence? It makes no sense. What did Rio Ferdinand do to avoid shaking hands?31.164.92.157 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

2011 racial abuse incident Section is to long

Although this incident is what has been dominating the media the last month or so, it still does not justify almost having as much written about it here as for instance the description of his days at Ajax. The incident is certainly worth mentioning, but it needs to be at least halved in length to give a more reasonable balance with the amount that has been written of other more significant aspects of him.

If someone find it important to make such a complete story about that incident, I would suggest making a separate page for that incident with the whole story which this page can link to while keeping it much shorter on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neberu (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is certainly too long, but it's also very poor, with CPOV issues, as you'd expect of such a contentious issue relating to football (football articles can generally be quite poor). For example, saying that Alex Ferguson and black former footballers were pleased with the judgement seems to imply a bit of a conspiracy, or that the case existed due to those parties. When a decision is reached on something, it's not usual to go through everybody associated with one side and say they were pleased, and then listing the other side and saying they weren't. Any thoughts on that folks - is there consensus on removing it? Similarly, the next paragraph has several irrelevances - it's written in a way which seems to support the club's statement, rather than reporting it according to Wiki rules - for example it could say that the club supported the player, citing his charity work, his own mixed-race background, and confirming that he wasn't being accused of being racist. Currently it implies that the charge was of being racist, rather than of racist abuse. On to the sentence about John Barnes' comments - they've not hit the radar in terms of public awareness - could it say that as well as criticism, some ex-players expressed their support? The last couple of paragraphs aren't as flawed as the rest - perhaps people may want to make a couple of tweaks to phrasing to make it more neutral. Feedback and consensus will certainly be needed on this one - it's certainly contentious, so let me know any thoughts. Marty jar (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As above, some of the changes listed have been made. This is just a first sweep - there's a great deal more to be done to improve this section, to make it more concise, neutral, and more readable. Any feedback much appreciated, and hopefully over the next couple of weeks it will reach a more focused endpoint.Marty jar (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Renowned flopper

The article needs to make mentioned of his diving. They are well referenced all over the net and its lopsided to include the Fulham chants and not include the reason for them.82.141.196.178 (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Provide some of these sources then, and not from fan forums. GedUK  15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Why the fans were calling him cheat at the Fulham game http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16043901 2. Suggested by Alex Ferguson http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15308775 3. Described by Phil Mc Nulty as "an expert at winning and drawing fouls". http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2011/10/man_utd_mistakes_go_unpunished.html 4. Match report says Rodwell was sent off for a "legitimate challenge" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15045708 5. A full report from former 'Pool player Mark Lawrenson http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/mark-lawrenson/Mark-Lawrenson -column-Luis-Suarez-s-diving-is-wrecking-his-Liverpool-reputation-article817509 .html

And these are only from two websites! I'm sure that there is plenty more out there. Nowadays everyone is diving but Suarez has been particularly bad since moving to Liverpool.82.141.196.178 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a single scrape of evidence in any of them, move along now little man. You've had your fun. Hilarious to use the drunken scot's opinion to try and proof anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.153.4 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember quoting Daglish, or is it anoher drunken scot your talking about? So do you want evidence or references? You'll find the former on youtube, the latter above. 82.141.196.178 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger is after adding his 2 cents about Suarez http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/11/arsene-wenger-arsenal-luis-suarez%20?newsfeed=true 82.141.196.178 (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in general, opposing managers are far from impartial judges of what happens on the pitch. So to respond to your points one by one,

1. Opposing fans say a lot of things. Chants are not meant to be impartial analysis, nor are their claims always verified.
2. See above point about opposing managers.
3. You seem to be misinterpreting McNulty's comment about "expert at winning and drawing fouls" - he's commenting on Ferguson's claim of diving without necessarily agreeing with it; dribbling into the opposing area and drawing contact isn't one and the same as diving.
4. An opposing player getting called for a "legitimate challenge" =/= diving. Refereeing errors happen.
5. Okay, so here's an "expert" actually discussing the subject at hand without the possibility of playing mid games or politics with referees. So that's not a bad source.

Though overall, by collecting accounts of disparate events and drawing a conclusion, you seem to be WP:SYNTHing. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Luis suarez is no diver hes a honest player and the only people saying this are man utd fan trolls who know about diving because there own player does it all the time ashley young woody ty.