Talk:Luka Modrić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tottenham transfer

Attention all budding scoop journalists! Modric may have agreed terms and signed a conditional contract with spurs, but he is still contracted to Dinamo Zagreb until the official end of the season and therefore his current club is Dinamo Zagreb. Please do not change this until it actually becomes reality. Wikipedia is about presenting encyclopaedic facts.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted an edit relating to transfer / squad number which may be immanent but as far as I can see from both DZ and TH clubs is yet to have been confirmed as completed as per comments above. Of course happy to yield if someone can produce a reliable source citing this rather than heresay!Tmol42 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true he posed with a Spurs shirt, and it was #14, but whether that becomes his allocated number has not been officially released yet.

I recall reading - but don't recall where, so don't take this as gospel - that the transfer was to take effect after a further medical to be completed after Euro2008, and the date of transfer was to be 03 July 2008, which seems an odd date because it is a Thursday, nearly a week after the Euro final.--ClubOranje^Talk 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen him in a Spurs shirt. Normally deals go ahead before a big tournament as prices often sky-rocket. See the Tottenham page for official verification would seem to be the best way to go, else phone the media office, at your own cost obviously. Alexsanderson83 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He already agreed on terms, went through a medical check and everything. Modric definately played his last game for Dinamo so lets not be so stuck up and formal. As for his number he indeed took a photo for an internet portal posing with the Tottenham shirt in his hand having his name and number 14 on it but wheter this will be his number is unknown so let's just put TBD (to be decided).--Footbalista (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So his work permit has been approved has it? I have not seen this reported / confirmed on the THFC website as per Wikipedia:Verifiability guidance however anticipated the change should only be made once verifiedTmol42 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He played nearly all (if not all) of the games for the Croatian national team in the last year and more, of courese he got the work permit.--Footbalista (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you think you know your employment law better than the THFC management see here. As Croatia is not in the EU or EEA he does needs a work permit before he can come and play football in the UK. Tmol42 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know very well what is the law in England, it depends on how many games the player has played for his national team in the last year. A player needs to play in 75% games of his national team (youth or major). There is also special case when the player is an "extraordiary talent". Modric satisfies all these conditions. Btw check these links too [1], [2], [3]. So again let's not be so stuck up about these trivial formalities, he is Tottenham player, it's clear as day. --Footbalista (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the British Home Office is still processing these 'trivial' formalities and even if he tried a shirt on the other day and had the photo shoot these have been kept under raps pro tem so we are yet to see the usual article plus photos on the THFC site announcing his induction into the club / squad number etc. Meanwhile DZ still have him as a player here. WP likes things cut and dried and cited but if you think that point has arrived make the edits you feel appropriate Tmol42 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again if his work permit is still processing it is obviously just a formality, Tottenham have announced him as their player and he signed a contract with them, it's a done deal. Now wheter he will wear the shirt with number 14 or 99 it is irrelevant since he will certainly play for Tottenham. As for Dinamo's website it means nothing, check 99% club websites (Tottenham's website included) and you will find out their team profile is the same, that is because they will be updated prior to the start of the new season. --Footbalista (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It may very well be a formality - the chances of Modrić being denied a work permit are nil - but this is an encyclopedia and formalities therefore matter. His registration won't be transferred to Spurs until the work permit is granted. From past experience, the Spurs website is updated very quickly when a new player arrives. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the 'it's a formality' argument is a bad one in general. We all know that George Bush will no longer be president of the US come next year - it's a formality, right? So why don't we change the George Bush article to say he's no longer the president? That's what your logic would imply, Footbalista. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is completely flawed comparison. As I said Modric already signed the deal and the club announced him as a new player, the only thing left is his work permit which he will get 100% meaning it's a done deal. --Footbalista (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of BLPs where this same argument happens, and while most complete, some do not. A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Unless there is a defined place to draw it, arguments will go on ad infinitum until we reach the point where the line would have been drawn anyway - or fail to reach it!. When the forms are signed, medical passed, work permit granted, paperwork related to transfer submitted, then it is final and complete and may be reported as such, because then it happened and is a permanently recordable fact.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The club announced him as a new player pending a medical and work permit. Unless you can provide evidence that the work permit has been granted or that his registration has been transferred to Spurs, he is therefore not a Spurs player yet. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the comparison, you say it's flawed but don't give a reason why. Bush is 100 per cent guaranteed to no longer be president next year - he's reached the maximum of two terms so he has to go. But we don't say he's no longer president because for the time being he still holds the office. Similarly with Modrić - the transfer may well be guaranteed to go ahead but it hasn't been completed yet so he's still technically a Dinamo player. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just like to point out, his contract and medical was all cleared. Before it was all about the work permit. But as far as I know, that issue has now passed and he is cleared to play. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good news....pretty fed up will all this reverting! Is that a confirmation as per your source from your previous progress report at Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and do we expect an immanent message from THFC then? Tmol42 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be some news in about a fortnight after Modric has his holiday. Govvy (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Location

Recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography concensus was reached that what a place was when a pearson was born is what should be shown as place of birth, but if that place had subsequently changed, it could be covered by adding a now known as wherever after the listed place. As Zadar was in SFR Yugoslavia in 1985, this applies here.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

but Zadar is now in Croatia and the republic is called Croatia. So many people not know what is Jugoslavia, this was past we are now living in present. And the Zadar was always in Croatia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.249.23 (talk)

The consensus was NOT reached. Mv240 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You must change birth location. Its not SFR Yugoslavia. Drmagma (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Country of birth was Socialist Republic of Croatia, which was part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was made of several socialist republics. If you take a look at USA biographies, many famous people have city and state of birth, but USA not mentioned. And why is it different with Yugoslavia? If you take a look at people born in Yugoslavia, you can find that Yugoslavia is mentioned, and republic is not. Yugoslavia is equivalent of USA, and Socialist Republic of Croatia is equivalent of any US state. It should be applied here as well. It is not neccesary to write Yugoslavia, but it is neccesary to write Socialist Republic of Croatia. Now, to avoid fighting with all fans and lovers of failed ex communist experiment Yugoslavia, I left Yugoslavia as it is, but also added Socialist Republic of Croatia, as it should be. Although I would suggest removing Yugoslavia, it doesn't hurt anyone to have precise information - hence SR Croatia and SFR Yugoslavia. Zekoslavac (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a state and a country! Govvy (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be much easier for me if I could write explanations in my own language, but here it has to be in english. I have visited Wikipedia pages about State, Country, and Sovereign state. In English I often use those words as synonyms. And it seems to me that it is not so wrong in this case. It doesn't change anything in this case. Feel free to read about Socialist Republic of Croatia or 1974 Yugoslav Constitution if you think what I did was wrong. I will obey whatever rules about this may be, but like I said, seeing biographies of US citizens, or people from England, Scottland and so on, some of them have very precise birth locations: city (or village), county, state, but I haven't seen USA, or GB, or UK... So why would someone insist on Yugoslavia, without mentioning SR Croatia? Besides, it makes everyone happy, like a consensus achieved without discussion :) Zekoslavac (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The first error you did was linking to the state and country in the infobox, you shouldn't be doing that on the field. The problem you're running is a BLP geo-polical one, Yugoslavia is a very unique case but what you're failing to take into account is that the country he could only play for at the time of his birth and that would of been Yugoslavia (1945 - 90) and you should only be pointing to his birth location in the format of the era he was born in. Govvy (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A few minor errors

Good to see that the page is looking very good now, much more presentable and what not with new informational facts. Well done to all. To point out a few things, there is a small flag of Croatia picture missing next to 'Croatia' on the right side box menu. Someone should fix that up. Also, it would be excellent if we found an image to present on here. I will do some searching myself for a free image, it would be great if anyone who can help out the tiniest bit does so.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.84.249 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Regarding flags, I think you will find that the Manual of Style for football Bios has no consensus for inclusion of flags against clubs in infoboxes. I have therefore removed them, sorry.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once more, someone has just messed up the page! The clubs stats are mixed up, out of order! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.84.249 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

oops, sorry. Too much of a hurry. Should be good now. --ClubOranje^Talk 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a picture, I think you will find a free public one on most of the news stories released on Luka Modric joining Tottenham. They are all using some basic pictures of him as their display, so I think it is safe to do the same. It would just be really great if we had a picture to put!

Adding in quote from Slaven Bilic

Slaven Bilic commented a lot on Modric's transfer to Tottenham but I think it can be best summarised in one quick statement. I put this in earlier but took it out because I wanted to clarify it here first. This was what I was thinking of putting in:

---His International manager, Slaven Bilic went on to say "The reason Tottenham were in a rush to sign Modric will become clear at Euro 2008".--- I dont quite know how to cite sources yet, so I will leave it to you. Here is the source of the quote: http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/news/kind=1/newsid=689622.html

And, if its not too much, I also think it would be worthwile to mention that since being signed by Tottenham, Modric has expressed happiness to play in England against fellow team mates Eduardo, Corluka and Kranjcar. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/tottenham/article3835647.ece Anyone feel free to comment on this or include it. I would appreciate credit where possible if this gets included :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't believe either of these are notable. Many people say many things, an encyclopedia is not a forum for peoples quotes. If and when Modric does something notable at Euro 2008 it will be noted. As for being happy playing against coutrymen... every player does that every day. driving a flash car may also make him happy. not notable.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How to say his name

Is it Modrick or Modrich?

Many english mans does not know a Croatian letters, it is so funny to hear them on commentary. It is Modrich lets say.Croatia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.249.23 (talk)

BBC say it Modrich but most others say Modrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkingoftheworldx (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the latter. Ć is pronounced as soft "ch" in Croatian. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article status update

First of all, thanks for the picture to whoever uploaded it. About time :)

I just recently learned his true stats from Dinamo Zagreb's league, which is 31 goals in 112 games. I saw and heard this on his farewell video on youtube. Please leave the current stats from Dinamo as they are correct.

Also, I would like to recall the small sentence I previously put in there about his appearance, style of play and even ability being compared to Johan Cruijff. Many people have said this, and I'm sure I would even be able to find articles on it. I think its worth putting it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Style of play section?

Who here would agree that the article could really use a 'style of play section', just to include some info on how he plays because it is really interesting and difficult to tell first hand. For example, while playing for Croatia, he is used as a defensive midfielder who then creates quick counter attacking passes on the offense etc. This could also include the Johan Cruijff comparison, and the fact that he has, to date, a 100% penalty record - never missed a penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound negative in response to your obvious enthusiasm but WP is all about objectivity and talking about a player like that is really only possible about those truly legendary players and normally only in retrospect. There are just too many rising stars for that to be notable and unique. If you can find a citation on his approach to the game fine but I think that will be tough to find one that is of sufficent quality and is not just a fanzine / blog / forum. Comparisons with JC will almost certain be seen as contravening WP:POV. On penalties a) proving that with a reliable source will be again very difficult and b) on a purely selfish note I would just not want to tempt fate in his first season in the Premiership. But despite this I would encourage you to still have a go as improving articles collaboratively is what WP is all about. Good luck!Tmol42 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the penalty thing has become a non-issue methinks. Also, I never like this comparing one player to the next. He is not the next Cruijff, he is the current Modric. A players ability should be good enough to stand on its own merits, not piggy back on someone else.--ClubOranje^Talk 00:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The style of play section is currently very POV-ish, and the article to which it is referenced a) is not reliable as it is one man's opinion on a fansite-blog, and b) does not back up the stated content. -- ClubOranje^Talk 07:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I made that section. It backs up and cites pretty much 98% of what the article says, I think thats more than enough. Though it does seem like a little bit of a fansite, I would have to object to its non reliability that you say. Its obvious that if there are so many people saying and reporting the same thing time and time again about the same player playing in the same manner, then it has to be reliably true. Thats a very good source considering what the reference is coming from. Most 'playing style' sections dont even have references, no matter how good or well known the player is. And thats not something to make a big deal out of. Its extremely difficult to find a 100% legit article on how a player plays football, it just comes down to bare knowledge in the end. Watching Luka Modric a lot (cant remember the last game he played which I didnt watch), I know how he plays, being based on what I have heard from other news stories as well. If someone is really interested about reading about Luka Modric on Wikipedia, then Im sure they would find this style of play section of great satisfaction. Anyone is welcome to add to it as they wish if they dont agree with something though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to back up what User:ClubOranje has said. The article a) does not back up what you say and certainly not 98% and as crucially b) the citation is written by an individual on a fanzine site this does not meet WP:RS requirements. You have admitted this yourself. Something that so many people are saying does not make it reliable. It is not a good source according to what WP defines as such see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Arguing its merit based on the low standards of other articles in terms of reliability etc is not an argument that carries any weight on WP. As you say its extremely difficult to find a 100% legit article on how a player plays. Therefore don't go there don't construct something that others cannot and which you cannot verify with acceptable sources. WP is not a newspaper so unlike forums and blogs like the sites you have used it is not there to pander to fans interest in players. And sorry to say this but just because you have seen every game he has played does not make you a reliable source for WP. I strongly encourage you as User:ClubOranje to go and check the guidance on article writing on WP look at NPOV and some of the better footballer articles referred to on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Then tone down the article and remove rather than add the POV. Tmol42 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at other legit articles. All great players' articles have style of play sections, very rarely directly backed up by sources (because as we agreed, its almost impossible to find a legit source of this). In the end, I think WP also relies on self knowledge, unless of course its saying something completely ridiculous like "the grass is really blue". For an extreme statement like that, I admit you would definitely need a source to back you up. But saying that a certain player can do 'this or that' isnt something extreme. Anyone who has heard about the player themselves would probably agree with their style of play section as its obvious information. It would be like asking for a source that David Beckham is good at free kicks. You dont really need one, nor would you find a legit one. In the end, you have to go by your own knowledge! Specifically to this article, a lot of people have seen Modric play and would agree that the style of play section is pretty much true. If anyone is actually harshly against it, then they would have to admit its better than nothing. But dont get me mistaken, I'm not diminishing the value of my section. I think its a good section, and from what I know analytically, its true information that people would want to know! Have to admit :)

Oh, and I dont mean to be harsh here, but I would like to say that I think I deserve some leeway in this argument seeing as I'm the one who provided most of the information on there. The club stats, picture, and other general vital info was contributed by me. I think my opinion can be justified, no? Domiy (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how being a major contributor to an article gives you the right to disregard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anyway, it's worth taking a look at the three player articles that have achieved featured article status: Duncan Edwards, Thierry Henry and Gilberto Silva. They have style of play sections, but they're much better referenced than the one here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK after looking at the article section and taking in consideration a lot of the arguments put forward here, I took the time to edit the playing style section to a more 'correct' type of wording and stating for such a section and even found legitimate quotes to support what is said in there. Should be all good now.

Domiy (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Modric in Euro 2008 team of the tournament

I briefly mentioned this under the International career section, as he was recently named in the all star team for Euro 2008 for his good performance. Quickly wanted to ask, is it official and worthy enough to be included in the 'honors' section? I think it is, but I'll let others have a call in this as well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[Citation needed] and additional tags!

Not needed! I wrote most of the sections in the article and when I did so, I included all references available. The references at the end of some sentences are used to cite some of the previous statements. I just put them at the end of the paragraph because it is not necessary to put the same references near eachother. If you read the sources, you will see that they back up most of the previous statements. For example - 'signed by Dinamo Zagreb in 2002' - is mentions this clearly in the reference at the end of the following sentence on his loan spells at Zapresic and Mostar.

Additionally, the tags are not necessary. There are enough references in such small sections in his early years and Dinamo Zagreb section. I will do my best to find as much as I can to satisfy additional criteria, but I maintain that there is currently enough. Domiy (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?

Out List of Jews in sports identifies Modric as being Jewish, which is news to me. Does anybody have a source for this?--MartinUK (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am from Croatia,have been following Modric instensely and never heard anything at all about him being Jewish.There is probably some confusion about Tottenham being 'Jewish club' and Modric as one of their key players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.171.222 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the reason I disagree with such categories and lists. "Has the nose therefore must be Jewish" sort of mentality, middle name Mohammed - must be Muslim, dark skin - must be black and so on. Simply fodder for xenophobes and barrow pushers. Guidelines on xenotype, religion and sexuality suggest that unless a person publicly self identifies as such it should not be presumed or listed. Feel free to remove him from said list.--ClubOranje^T 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He is Croat and normaly he is catholic. His father is from very small place where di not been jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.28.5 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He is Croat and catholic from place Modrići near Zadar.

Inter Zaprešić loan

He played in Inter while the club was in the same division as Dinamo Zagreb and he did not help the club reach promotion to the first division, as Inter already played in the Prva HNL. He was among 5 players to be send out to loan to Zaprešić club which finished second placed in the Prva HNL for the season 2004-05. Somebody rewrite that. Mrcha (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a colaborative exercise but the somebody perhaps could be you furnished with an appropriate cite of course, rather than issuing instructions to others who do not have access to the references. Tmol42 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I spend all of my good will editing Croatian wikipedia, and since I don't really care much about the English version, I just wanted to make a suggestion since I'm not really in mood of editing the article. As for reference - [4]. I apologise if anyone got offended. Mrcha (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian First League player of the year?

Does this award even exist? I don't think so. Tried to search through the internet but couldn't find no such award. What I believe though, is that someone misunderstood Modric's "Fans Player of the Year Award" which he was awarded while playing in Zrinjski and took it as he was proclaimed the best player of the league and then all the mess started. I'm also trying to write a decent article on him on Croatian language and if anyone can find some info it would be really helpful. Mrcha (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MartinChelsea, 19 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Luka Modric has recently attracted interest from many of England's biggest football clubs. Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea F.C., has led his managerless club to a £22 million offer for the player. Chelsea's offer also nearly tripled the midfielders salary from £50000 a week to £140000 a week. Tottenham manager, Harry Redknapp, commented on the offer as "ridiculous" while Tottenham chariman, Daniel Levy, insisted that Luka Modric is not for sale "at any price". Manchester United alongside Manchester City have also shown interest in the midfielder.

MartinChelsea (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. As you say its speculation and Wikipedia being and encyclopedia does not deal in speculation. Tmol42 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Position

Luka Modric is not an attacking midfielder. He could play there, but he is mainly deployed as an MC at Spurs and it's his natural position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.170.156 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing

he also might me going to chelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.202.212 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

hey its ZADAR,CROATIA NOT YUGOSLAVIJA.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.206.178 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2