Talk:Bicycle kick

Early Discussion

I made an effort to edit this page earlier today to correct the information regarding the so-called bicycle kick. It was first used in a game in 1917 during the South American Championships in Argentina, and received its official desigantion as "chilena" in 1927 after it was performed multiple times by Chilean club Colo-Colo player David Arellano while on an exhibition tour through Europe. Because it was first seen in Europe performed by a Chilean player, it became designated as the "chilena", or Chilean kick. The Brazilian player who has been credited with "inventing" the move did not play until the mid-30s. Remember South America hosted the first ever World Cup in 1930, and in many ways, the game is much more popular there than anywhere else in the world. I don't understand why the monitor of this page reverted the info, when if you ask FIFA about the "chilena" kick, they will know exactly what you are talking about. The designation "bicycle kick" came much later as other players began to emulate the move, and Brazilian players internationalized it as a result of their soccer success. I guess it is yet another case of historical revisionism told from a more conventional Eurocentric approach. I think the claim above, well known in Latin America and Spain, should at least form part of the official story. If it does not, then Wikipedia is promoting half-truths in this matter. Credited to Leonidas da Silva, who credited it to Petronilho de Brito, but actually invented by a Chile player in 1917, before coming to wider attention in 1927. That's the (confusing) info. you'd get from Wikipedia about the bicycle kick! Ben davison 23:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

There should probably be some sources to some of this info. Also, is a scissor kick pretty much the same thing? I can't find a clear description of it anywhere. Gflores 01:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By this point we need more sources validating the claims of how people call the move across the globe. I've seen many people use this list as a fact in several other websites and day-to-day discussions, but there is no real source validating any of these claims. Here are some things I recommend for those who might want to help out on this: 1. Remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, therefore do not include things related to the "Whole World" or "everybody in [inclue a region]" if you do not have a highly reliable source or a series of different sources validating such a statement. 2. Do not use blogs or forum discussions! These are not good sources. 3. Add working links. Everything else is fair game here just as long as you can find information validating such things.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses

I once saw a bicycle kick used to keep a ball from going out of bounds (in and Under-18 game I was playing in no less). Shall I add that as a use? It hardly seems right that there are only two 'valid' uses. - Zepheus 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I remember having done so as a little kid once (though it was a sort of sideways bicycle kick, whatever you'd call that). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You would call that a scissors kick. Anton1234 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More than football

It's used in more games than just football. In footbag net and sepak takraw for example. -- Viller

Translations

I changed the order a little bit in my attempt to sort translations by language as opposed to countries, as there are usually more than 1 languages spoken in any states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't add biased Blogs.

I just removed this paragraph from the article:

"The Chilean journalist Eduardo Bustos Alister disproves this notion citing several articles from Chilean newspapers written in the late 1910's which make reference to the 'Chilena' while pointing out the absolute lack of evidence, as well as all the inconsistencies of the Peruvian claim. As he points out, the Chileans never called it 'Chalaca'."

The reason for me doing such was because not only it comes from a completely biased blog-website (as it may be seen after looking at webpage and noting the author completely biases on favor of "la chilena"). Also, the author points out an "absolute lack of evidence," when there is plenty of evidence that has been supplied (shown on the article with the various links given to the Peruvian section) and there's also an official declaration from a FIFA official. Then the author claims "inconsistencies of the Peruvian claim" when, once more, in the article here it has been shown that all things pointed out are not inconsistencies and have resources to prove they are correct. In conclusion, please do not post biased blogs because it harms Wikipedia's credibility. MarshalN20 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions

In the Peruvian claim there is a conclusion at the second paragraph, it's written as the article's conclusion, but the point in the attributions section is that there is no known definitive "truthiness" of the origin.--neolandes 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the article's conclusion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing cities rather than countries

All the claims of invention generally approve of the move being created in a particular city. Most of the moves got their early names from their cities, and not their countries. For instance, in Peru the name was and still is used for the Peruvian port of Callao. In Chile, the name was used to refer to the port of Talcahuano. Other variations of creation simply set the claim on a specific player and name their action in a way similar to "bicycle kick" (not related to a country or particular city). The only name that specifically claims a nation as its origin is Chile's "chilena." The point is to emphasize the place of origin, and the more accurate the title the better the people will understand where the move was allegedly created. Therefore it's pointless to simply include the nation's name and be non-accurate (as the encyclopedia is not supposed to be).--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually very unfair to place emphasis on a specific point of origin when the firt person to make the move was someone from Chile. In all fairness I've always known the move as a bicycle kick in the United States, as an overhead kick in other English speaking countries and as a chilena in most of the Spanish speaking community especially in the United States. In order to maintain complete neutrality, The first player to make the move should get the benefit of the doubt since it was first done by someone from Chile in an official match, with respect to other claims. 96.242.82.74 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I explain on the history page. It's not about emphasizing a specific point, and it's not about giving the claim to a specific city, country, or person. This article is supposed to stay Non POV, and thus far that's the way it has been. Moreover, this is an encyclopedia, and in an encyclopedia you have to keep things: consistent, alphabetized, and well validated(with good sources). In terms of what you may think or you may have heard, it's not my fault that Talcahuano starts with a "T" and Callao starts with a "C"; just as it's not my fault that "Turin" has a "U" and not an "A" as its second letter (thus it stays last). Ramon Unzaga first made his move in Talcahuano, therefore that's where the origin of the move is, and Talcahuano deserves as much "honor" in this situation as Ramon Unzaga. In fact, the original name in Chile was Chorera, which was a direct reference to Talcahuano. Now, you might hear the name "chilena," but thus far there is no source that has proven many of the claims of the countries that say Chilena. You can't just claim that something is something if you cannot validate it. For instance, I was born hearing the word Chalaca and everywhere I went I also have always called the move Chalaca, and when I speak about football with my friends from Mexico, Italy, Belgium, and Colombia I always call the move Chalaca and they know what I mean. Yet, that does not mean the place of origin is in Callao. That's why Atributions of Invention explains that various countries have different ideas, different ways of calling it, etc. If you do not comply to Wikipedia's standards, I will be forced to hand you a warning. If further disruptive behaviour from you continues, I will issue someone of higher authority to warn you. If you end up getting IP banned, that will then be your own problem. Contribute to Wikipedia as if it were an encyclopedia, not your personal toy where you can write your personal opinions.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You've re-ordered the article just to satisfy your needs keep NPOV. 96.242.82.74 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made the article more accurate by being more specific on the cities and not the countries. I've also alphabetized much of the article and provided a series of sources. You have deleted several of my sources, de-alphabetized the sections, changed things that I wrote, and placed everything to your nationalistic and POV likings. Leave nationalistic feelings behind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your toy.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another idea is to follow the format of the Spanish article. For instance, they have the names of the moves and their history. I still favor using the names of the cities, though. I firmly believe that using the names of the cities is more honorable for them and provides the proper recognition that they deserve. By using the names of the countries we're going back to foolish nationalistic things that will only bring more problems to the article. I go as far as proposing the removal of the nations of the countries from the titles and simply including the claims of the cities. Anyone in favor, against, other ideas?--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To notify whomever may read this, the solution was found to be that of the names.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has Point of View?

An IP address notified, in a rather unpleasant and destructive (constructive to him, I suppose; therefore not vandalizing as user "Hut 8.5" explained), that the article was POV. Now I'm the kind of person that HATES POV articles, and I do not intend for this article to be such a thing. I'm an avid Wikipedist, and I stay true to my work. I do not edit to vandalize or make other users feel unpleasant times in here. I just write the truth, validate it with facts, and follow all the Wikipedia rules that I know. Nonetheless, the question stands for others to comment. Do you think there's POV in the article? If so, where do you see the POV and how do you think we can fix it? Also please do not delete source citations as it destroys the works other wikipedists have been making.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is a sensitive subject between the nations of Peru and Chile, and should be protected. Looking at the recent edits I propose to revert the origins section and keep it as it was prior. Origins are well expressed within each sub-section and should stay as what it was (Chilean claim and Peruvian claim) since the two countries are much more recognizable than the cities of Talcahuano and Callao. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with using the names of nations. When the change was made, I was originally doubting the inclusion of the names of the countries. I mean, if we include the names of the countries, that further creates more antagonism and situations of "wars" and other idiotic whatnot that should not happen. The cities should be mentioned in the titles as it provides the proper respect to each city and their claim. For example, the "Peruvian Claim" is really not much of a claim of all of Peru makes. Several of the young people in Peru have began to call the move "chilena" and they don't even recall or believe the elders when they tell them that the move was at one point called chalaca everywhere in Peru. Yet, the city of Callao still claims the move to have been born there, and when the Argentine CONMEBOL journalist came to Peru he went to investigate in Callao, not all of Peru. Hence, such a thing as the "Peruvian claim" does not really exist. I hope I explained myself good here. Next comes the reference to Talcahuano. In several other websites I've seen people refering to this article and discussing things about the chalaca or chilena or other whatnot, but when they mention the chilena the main mention is David Arellano and not Ramon Unzaga, and they much less even mention the port of Talcahuano. I mean, I could only image if I was from Talcahuano and nobody even remembered that at one point the move in Chile was also called "Chorera" in order to honor my city. If we are to take the Ramon Unzaga account as true, we should then include the city of Talcahuano in the mention of the title. I'm doing this not because I want to place the article in the way that is "convenient to me" like the IP Adress stated, but rather because I feel it's more important to mention Talcahuano in the section title as the place of origin than simply mentioning the broad and inconclusive "Chilean Claim". I mean, before the edit wars began with the IP address, I was going to include the Brazilian cliam of Leonidas, and the city in which Leonidas apparently invented the move starts with a "B." Therefore, if we continue using the cities and alphabetizing, the said city of Leonidas would go first in the section. Yet, that does not mean I'm favoring Leonidas as the creator; that just means I'm still alphabetizing the work.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is made because in the end it's each country claiming the move as its own not the city of origin. If you'd like to include Leonidas than it should go under Brazilian claim. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you really want Talcahuano to be removed, I suppose the situation can reach a mutual agreement. The article could get new titles in the following way: Origin in Talcahuano, Chile is changed to Claim of Chile, the Origin in Turin, Italy is changed to Claim of Italy, and the Origin in Callao, Peru is change to Claim of Callao. Yet again it's important to mention that the city of Callao is the one making the claim of invention and not all of Peru. People in Lima, Tacna, Arequipa, Cusco, Piura, etc. do not claim the Chalaca as their move; they simply support the claim of Callao. The other reasonable option would be to simply include the names of the moves like in the Spanish article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Due to the horrible IP war with IP address: 96.242.82.74 ; I have to propose semi-protecting the page in order to protect the content that has been provided by users like me, Selecciones de la Vida, HenryLi, and other users. I'm well aware that IP addresses have made past good contributions to the article, but I'm afraid the situation is escalating to a whole new different level. Please discuss this proposal and report any more acts of extreme editing from IP addresses that you might find (Make sure to mention the IP address name here). Note that this is not the place to report or seek an IP address ban, but it is good so that you can share your experiences with fellow contributors.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the encyclopedia

Just like any other encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be alphabetized in order to help the people trying to find useful information in the article. Some of the users seem to think that because Ramon Unzaga's record is "older" then it should be mentioned first. Well, there is also the record of the Chalaca in the 19th century, which is older than Unzaga's. Does that mean the Callao section should appear before the Talcahuano section? NO! The first thing to note is that alphabetizing means setting the article in order of the alphabet where it would be most useful. In this particular section there are currently 3 setcions: "Origin in Callao, Peru", "Origin in Talcahuano, Chile", and "Origin in Turin, Italy." Callao starts with a "C", which comes before the "T" of Turin and Talcahuano, and the next letter "A" in Talcahuano comes before the letter "U" in Turin. Does this mean the article is emphasizing the Callao section? NO! Please go look at Flag of Mexico, a Featured Article, and you'll see that "Coat of Arms" is before "Meaning of Colors" even though the "Design and Symbolism" top shows the color scheme of the flag. Alphabetizing is part of all encyclopedias, and therefore Wikipedia also needs that.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramon Unzaga is reported as being the first person to make the move in an official match. The name chilena is result due to that first move and also because of the European tour by Chilean club team Colo-Colo. The term chilena is supported by FIFA through their online publications, much like how BBC news offers the term overhead kick, or how American sports media label the move bicycle kick. Nation of origin should go over city of origin since chilena is named after the country and not the city of Talcahuano. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anybody is doubting the Ramon Unzaga account. The name chorera was used before Chilena. I just found another article, a 2008 article, done to Jorge Barraza in which he further explains his investigation. Jorge Barraza is truly a person of much fame and prestige, and he supports the term chalaca. You're being biased towards the chilena by simply noting that the move refers to the nation of Chile, but you're ignoring that the move Callao refers to the city of Callo and not the nation of Peru. If the move was a "Peruvian Claim" then the move would be named "la peruana" and not "chalaca."--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. This is not supposed to show a "record" of when the moves were allegedly made because the topic is highly controversial. There can be no record because the invention has not been 100% certified for a particular claim. The best way to keep this information is through alphabetizing. Using the terms "so and so claim" (which was an idea I believe I developed some time ago, probably years ago) such as "Chilean Claim", "Peruvian Claim", "Brazilian Claim", etc. makes little sense by this point. It is highly childish to have something such as that. A more professional manner in which to express this is by either having the section titles as "Origin in Callao, Peru" (mentioning the city and the respective country of origin) or the name of the move such as "Rovesciata." Remember: The more professional the encyclopedia, the better. I will also seek another person to colloborate as a third opinion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Names over cities/countries

Following the example of the Spanish wikipedia, I think this would be an even better idea in order to prevent future conflicts and better classify the names with the origin. After all, at the start of the article we do not mention things such as "claim of so and so", we just simply state the names. Later, if the reader wishes to read more, he sees the section of "overview." Then, if the reader suddenly gets the fantastic urge to learn how this was made, he goes ahead and looks at "attributions of invention" and reads each section headed by the name of the move. In the Spanish wikipedia this seems to have worked perfectly fine, and therefore there is no reason as to why that could not work here.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for accepting.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging from your past edits in the discussion, it is clear that the claims are based on national origin and should be reverted as it was before. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The titles were already decided to stay as the version with the names. This version is improved from the past claims section.--70.253.243.80 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Read all of the posts in the discussion and you will clearly see that the invention of the move is attributed to national origin. Especially when considering that in Chile the kick was shortly known as the chorera, and came to be known internationally as chilena when the press of Argentina labeled it that way. Each section explains a history of how the move was invented with a focus on Peru where the kick takes into account cities such as Callao, Lima and the advancement of their sport across other South American countries. Content deals with the invention of the kick and how it has spread to other parts of the world from that country of origin. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Tennis in Peru

The small wordings in the Chalaca section that mention tennis should not be erased from the article. When Selecciones de la Vida made the original deletion, the mention of tennis was in a complete sentence. The sentence was in complete context out of the article and Selecciones was correct in editing that out. Nonetheless, the small mention of tennis is highly important in the first sentence of the second paragraph because it helps the reader understand that sport in Peru evolved in other ares besides football. Yet again, it's not my fault the other sections don't have as much detail. I've tried to improve the Italian and Brazilian sections, but I have limitations in such areas. My Italian is really basic, just like my French, and therefore I can only read and understand (and in that context speak) very few of those languages. In the matter of Portuguese, which is where most of the information about Leonidas can truly be found, I know nothing of it and barely understand it thanks to my knowledge of Spanish. Once again, do not delete the small tennis section as it does not constitute a whole sentence and is important to broaden the minds of the readers.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of tennis would be fine in an article regarding the history of sport in Peru, but is rather irrelevant when the article deals with the bicycle kick and the sport of football. Seriously is the chalaca, chilena, bicycle kick performed in the sport of tennis? You say that it's important to broaden the minds of readers when in reality is a far stretch and a tangent.

On another note the mention of club games between Chilean and Peruvian clubs doesn't have a general puropose unless the bicycle kick was made in those games and as a result Chileans learned about the move. What's the point of making that argument unless someone is trying to imply through circumstantial reasoning that because of these games one country copied the move from another? For example you mention that Alianza Lima made a tour across Chile and played against Colo-Colo. What's the point when the games were played way after David Arellano had exhibited the bicycle kick in the fields of Spain, especially when regarding the fact that he died from an injury that was inflicted during a match in 1927.

Also, all of these Chilean and Peruvian club matches happened after 1920 when the move was already exhibited by Unzaga in an international Copa America game against Argentina. Anything else would just be an historic foundation of the development of Peruvian football which has no reason even being in this article becauase none of it directly involves the invention of the bicycle kick. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is such a thing irrelevant if it is just a small wording that says "such as in tennis"? The link that says Peru has the second oldest Tennis foundation in the Americas is supposed to help demonstrate that Peru has a very old sports foundation, therefore I have to include the small "such as tennis" thing. You tell me these things almost as if you've never written a paper in English in your life.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Next, on the mention of games, for your information (seeing as you seemingly haven't read the complete section) that section is supposed to help the readers understand how the spread of the word Chalaca took place, the early importance of Peruvian clubs in the world of football (Therefore another explanation to help the reader see why the claim of Callao has any foundation), and it brings forth Alejandro Villanueva into the story (Further explaining why he gained recognition in Peru). If you haven't noticed, the section does not simply refer to Chile, it also mentions Colombia and Venezuela. Yet again, it's not my fault that the Peruvian clubs made more tours in Chile than any other country. All I'm doing is recording the facts. I see you put the dates that the football tours took place, therefore there is no more problem with this part. Obviously, a person who is reading this can go to the Chilena section and see the date of Unzaga's alleged move.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Writing an English paper about the history of sport development in Peru is different than when you're writing a Wikipedia article about the invention of the bicycle kick. So keep your sly comments to yourself because they are in no way helping your case. Tennis in Peru is needless information with no overall purpose, nor is it notable when discussing the subject matter which is the bicycle kick, yet you insist on including something which is very irrelevant.

• Adding club games between Chile and Peru team that happened years after the first bicycle kick was performed during an international match has no direct correlation with the invention of the bicycle kick. The section is general can best be categorized as "filler" with no real purpose.

• You say that you record facts and input them onto the article yet, certain facts are unnecesary when discussing a particular subject matter which is the bicycle kick. If we're discussing the color of the sky and why it's blue, you'd include 2+2=4. Sure it's a mathematical fact but where do you see the relation between the two?

• Anyone that views this article will realize that the section on chilena is directly linked to the claim or the term, while the section on chalaca is a drawn out Straw man theory. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sly comments? Hahaha. I don't see a sly comment on my earlier response. I stated what I saw and believed. Sly would have been me making a sarcastic comment or something of that ilk. The link, which directly helps relate the ancient status of sport in Peru, mentions tennis, therefore there exists every right to include a small excerpt about the link. Writing an English paper and writing in Wikipedia has its differences (especially in the English Wikipedia), but the concept is the same.

• In both you need to have explanations supported by reliable sources.
• In both you need to mention a certain something of the source for it to be validly use. Per se, I can't write something such as: "According to a recent study, people are fat in the United Sates for a series of reasons,[1] but one of the major reasons comes due to Mexican cuisine.[2]" If source 1 just mentions hamburgers, then to further help elaborate the source, it needs to mention hamburgers; therefore the correct way to include it would be: "According to a recent study, people are fat in the United states due to a series of reasons, such as hamburgers, but one of the major reasons comes due to Mexican cuisine.[2]"--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"...that happened years after the first bicycle kick was performed during an international match has no direct correlation with the invention of the bicycle kick." According to this statement by you, the Italian and the Brazilian sections should not be in there because they were also performed years after the "first bicycle kick." Lol. How is that? According to the Chalaca sectoin, the first bicycle kick was performed also several years before Ramon Unzaga; does that mean that section should also go away? The games are there to help explain a series of things to the readers. 1.It helps explain why Alejandro Villanueva was a figure in Peruvian sports. 2.It helps explain the early international development of Peruvian sports (helping develop the modern reasoning of the claim of the chalaca). 3.It also helps explain why sports in Peru took a momentary stop in the late 1800s. All of these things are valuable to the reader.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say that you record facts and input them onto the article yet, certain facts are unnecesary when discussing a particular subject matter which is the bicycle kick." Let's go step by step again: The chalaca, or bicycle kick, is a football move. All the facts in there speak about football (The only non-football mention is that of tennis, but I already explained its inclusion for the sport in Peru). If all the facts speak about football, is it still related? Yes, because the facts do not deal about modern football, it specifically stays in the early 20th century (even prior to the 1940s), and at this point Peruvian sports once again began to re-expand. If the facts dealt with years such as the 1950s or 60s (or ahead), then it would not make any sense, but this is not the problem. The last paragraph simply mentions all the modern support for the football move. Yet again, the two paragraphs dealing with sports development in Peru helps link the first and the last paragraphs.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're discussing the color of the sky and why it's blue, you'd include 2+2=4." Lol. Okay, so you state I'm writing sly comments and then you include this? You're quick to get angry about something but just as quick to aim it at someone else.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw man theory? The first thing to state is, seeing as though you apparently firmly believe the chilena is the 100% true way, all of the 4 proposals at the Attributions of invention are considered theories. Therefore there is no set official way to claim something at this point. Let's take some time to analyze what you claim to be a straw man theory...

• Wikipedia writes this on the mater: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position...it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." 1.This is not about trying to refute the other sections, it's about explaining to the reader the history of the Chalaca. 2.All the information in there has several and much evidential weight; I took the time to count the sources, it has about 28, and that out of 65 is nearly half of the article's sources. That breaks up the first 2 points on the straw man theory.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Informal fallacy? Let's read what Wikipedia calls that: "An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion." Let's see here, as previously stated, the paragraphs are in there to help explain the history of the chalaca. Does it support the original paragraph? It certainly does: It further helps explain the history of the chalaca and its basis on football in Peru. The proposed conclusion? Simple, the bicycle kick was invented in Callao. Yet again, your claim at the straw man theory makes no sense. All I see you doing is seeking eristic arguments for little to no reason. If you want to improve the article, do not destroy the section of the chalaca, improve the other sections.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis has no reason being in this article. 68.192.50.193 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your reasoning? Just stating a comment does not give a justified reason.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source Lying: Not Encyclopedic

I made a thorough investigation and found out that these sources:

• http://www.azcentral.com/lavoz/spanish/sports/articles/sports_204036.html
• http://www.laprensagrafica.com/accion/1121429.asp
• http://www.laaficion.com/olimpico_internacional/nota/35180
• http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1202735907109/noticia/Noticia/1986_87.htm
• http://www.laprensa.com.ni/cgi-bin/print.pl?id=deportes-20020605-01
• http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/05-03-07/
• http://www.listindiario.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=19195
• http://www.radiocaravana.com/index.php?page=masinformacion&nid=12142&tp=1
• http://www.colombia.com/futbol/autonoticias/Noticias/2008/08/17/DetalleNoticia43172.asp
• http://www.venezuelaesfutbol.com/imprimir.php?id_noticia=1664
• http://www.elpais.com.co/historico/abr022008/OPN/opi05.html
• http://www.elpais.com.co/historico/abr022008/OPN/opi05.html

These sources are sport articles that happen to mention the chilena once in their publication. Yet, this does not constitute for a whole nation. In order to prove yourself correct in the naming of the moves for different countries and languages, you must provide something such as in the chalaca where it provides a source that clearly states that the name is done in Ecuador and Colombia. The specific articles above clearly already show that the move is called a certain name by the nation that allegedly invented the move, therefore you do not need to prove such a thing that in Italian the move is called so and so, or that in Chile the move is called so and so, etc. You need to prove that other nations call it in such a way, but referencing a sports article that just happens to mention the move once does not constitute for a whole nation. You may use these things in the topics specific for each name if and only if you give specific notification of the newspaper stating such a thing. This rule applies to Wikipedia, so don't break it; and don't try to fool others with sources, it's cute, it's funny (one source talked about Playboy), but it's not good for the encyclopedia.--MarshalN20 (talk)

On another note, remember Wikipedia's policy of: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources If you're going to claim that all of Latin America or the Spanish speaking world calls the move something, you must either have a very good source or a series of good sources. Note that sticking a bunch of sources does not constitute for providing the correct sources. As you can see above, the person who added these sources apparently did not know that these sources did not specifically prove such a thing as a nation calling the move a certain something. I know it's tough to look for such things, but Wikipedia needs for you to find them otherwise the tab of "" will need to be placed.--MarshalN20 (talk)

What amazes me, after watching you steadily destroy this article over the last week or so is that you believe you're doing the right thing... Nanonic (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're refering to me, which I hope you're not, I've been working on this article just on this week.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Logic dictates that if a country features a sports article by an outlet of the media which uses the term chilena it is fairly understood that the term is known, used, and accepted. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a reasonable person, I'll accept your standards if that's the logic you're using.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Defending Interests

As written in Wikipedia's page:

"In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

The intermediate territory will naturally contain some grey areas. In many articles, criticism tends to collect in a separate section. There you may find properly referenced reports of well-publicised debates next to vague assertions that "Some people say X, while others think Y." Treat everything on its merits. Ask for reliable sources. Before removing a whole criticism section or article and distributing its parts over other sections of the article, which may be the best way ahead, consult other editors on the Talk page. Use crisp, informative edit summaries to detail what you have done, an excellent way to establish your reputation as a diligent editor. Raise any less obvious reasoning as a note on the talk page, with any additional links that support your edits."

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. The material in the Chalaca section of the article is reliably sourced material that has information that is critical for readers to see in order to better understand the claim of Callao. By removing such a thing, an important part of the section would be taken away and the section would make little sense. By engaging in an edit war because a certain side wants to erase such an information, it is completely disrupting the stability of the article. When improving Wikipedia articles, the editors should be constructive and not destructive. Therefore, the best way to improve the article would be to expand and improve the other sections that are not the Chalaca section. An Edit War should be avoided, especially if you're going to start one because you want to obtain a version of your particular liking.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation?

This section contradicts the reference that it is citing. http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/BibVirtual/Tesis/Human/Alvarez_E_T/Cap2.htm

Other information shows that Peru holds a very old sports foundation, such as in tennis,[7] and a football foundation that is older than Argentina's 1867 Buenos Aires Football Club[8] and Chile's first recorded football club, Santiago Wanderers, in August 15, 1892.[9][10] The oldest football club in Peru was founded in 1859 by English immigrants in Peru prior to the War of the Pacific. This club originally went by the name of Lima Cricket Club as it was based mainly around the sport of cricket, but its instruction on the sport of association football was just as old as that of cricket and, due to the demand of the football sector within the club, the club would eventually change its name to Lima Cricket & Football Club.[11] Nonetheless, by the time the change in the name was made the club had already participated in several football events in Peru, prior to the War of the Pacific and one record being found for August 7, 1892, and people often refered to it as simply Lima Cricket. During the War of the Pacific, the destruction of various Peruvian towns and cities, including the raid of Lima, brought the spread of sport in Peru to a momentary stop.[10]

The paragraph states that Argentina's 1867 Buenos Aires Football Club and Chile's first recorded football club, Santiago Wanderers, in August 15, 1892 are younger than Lima Cricket Club. The Cricket Club being an older institution than the two mentioned is true, but no where is it revealed that they were a football club prior to 1893. Nor is there any evidence of when they changed their name to Lima Cricket and Football club. The source states that the Union Cricket Club which was founded in December of 1893 was the first sports club to practice football.

• Fue el Unión Cricket el primer club peruano en practicar el fútbol cuando son admitidos Pedro Larrañaga y John Conder como socios, quienes fomentaron este deporte entre las actividades de la institución 118.

In reference to when Union Cricket was created

• En 1893 un grupo de jóvenes de la elite, interesado en las actividades deportivas organizadas por el club Lima Cricket, solicita a sus directivos les otorguen permiso para ingresar al campo de Santa Sofía a practicar deporte. En diciembre del mismo año aquellos jóvenes fundaron el Unión Cricket para practicar tenis y cricket115

After that the source provided goes on to include that the first club created for practicing football was the Association Foot Ball Club in 1897.

• 2.2.1 Los primeros clubes de foot ball.

El Association Foot Ball Club fue el primer club fundado para la práctica del fútbol el 20 de mayo de 1897.

The source clearly provides their evidence that is in contrast to the unverifiable information prior to the first registered football being played in Lima in 1892 and before the War of the Pacific. Also no where does the information help corroborate Lima Cricket Club's claim that they participated in several football events.

• La información que ambos presentan, desgraciadamente no va acompañada de ningún elemento adicional que ayude a corroborarla, por ejemplo, avisos en diarios y revistas o fotografías de los jugadores. Sin embargo es muy probable que esta información sea cierta. ¿En qué nos basamos para considerar verosímil esta versión?.

-Another point, Santiago Wanderers is not Chile's first recorded football club. It is the oldest surviving but not the first. That information is never even mentioned on their official site.

-Because this paragraph needs to be further verified, and since verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia:No original research it should be changed or removed until the problems are clarified. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seriously, you really have issues with trying to delete this information one way or another. First, in the Lima Cricket website it especifically states that their football program is as old as 1859. The other source, which is used to certify the impact of the War of the Pacific on sports has a different information on the matter, with its appropiate sources and therefore a rightful claim also, but the direct source of the association of Lima Cricket (Which is completely more reliable) refutes this particular idea of the other source. As far as the name change, in their history section they explain their original name; comparing that to the current name can obviously show that they had a change of name (It doesn't take a genious to figure that out). Moreover, on Lima Cricket's history section they show an "El Comercio" newspaper article validating their idea of the games they held. In conclusion, please learn to accurately read the sources before trying to single out things for your own convenience. Remember that although the information cited in the investigation done has its verified sources, Lima Cricket's information (being a direct source) still remains completely more valid. If they were lying, then they would have probably gotten sued by the government of Peru by this point and time. We are not the government of Peru, we simply take the most accurate information from the most direct and reliable source as correct.--MarshalN20 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the sources you have provided and they have proven what you're adding wrong. A constructive suggestion would be for us to get arbitration from peers that are well versed in the Spanish language. I've presented the contradictions that are included within that section by copying and pasting information directly from the source. If you say that the Lima Cricket and Football club changed their name than I recommend you cite the exact source that states the name change. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you simply enter the Lima Cricket & Football Club website it states: "Fundado en 1859" which in English would be "Founded in 1859." Later, they state:

• "Se puede afirmar que el Club nació de la iniciativa de algunos ciudadanos ingleses residentes que laboraban en empresas británicas y que buscaban un lugar propicio para practicar los deportes que ellos jugaban en Inglaterra como el futbol, el rugby y el cricket y que eran desconocidos en el Peru de mediados del siglo XIX."
• (English) "It can be confirmed that the club was born with the initiative of certain English citizens that resided and worked in British companies and sought a proper place where they could practice the sports they placed in England such as football, rugby, and cricket, and which were unknown in Peru in the middle of the 19th century (1850s)."
• According to the website "www.cricketeurope4.net": "Cricket in Peru dates back to 1859 when the Lima Cricket and Football Club was founded."

How is this misinformation? This is the oldest club in Peru and it has had football as a sport ever since its foundation! The other source obviously did not take into account this particular information. Just because you have suddenly learned how to copy and paste information, it does not make your statement correct. Why do you insist in erasing information from the chalaca section? We need peers that know about sports, not people that simply know Spanish.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have yet to unbelievably comprehend Wikipedia policy which is outlined in Wikipedia:No original research is amazing. You have provided two sources which according to you are conflicting. The official Lima Cricket Club in no way designates a specific date as to when they changed their name by adding football. You are putting two sources together and coming out with your own conclusions. Lima Cricket was founded as a sports club and the one source clearly presents a detailed counter argument to your claim. It states that Union Cricket was the first sports club in Peru to practice football by adding a date and, yet, you still go back to the Lima Cricket Club website that offers no specific date and time, simply because for you it proves convenient. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Pinochet's way of making arguments must be a Chilean thing. You have edited my information to your likings and then comment on your own edits. Lol. The two sources are not conflicting. First, the source that states Union Cricket is the oldest source makes no mention of Lima Cricket. On the other hand, Lima Cricket's source states their year of foundation as "1859" and state that they were founded for people seeking to play "rugby, cricket, and association football." Moreover, a book on "Latin American Popular Culture" states an actual date of the first English vs. Peruvian football game in June 24, 1894 (organized by none other than Lima Cricket, the Englishmen's club in Peru). In other words, 5 sources state/show Lima Cricket as Peru's oldest football club, and the source you claim has a "counter argument" does not even mention Lima Cricket's foundation. What kind of game are you playing Selecciones? Why do you wish to delete all information on the chalaca? Why can't you find information that further validates the chilena as a rightfully historical term? Why do you erase my work and re-phrase it and then comment on your own words as if they were mine?--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator, by stating that the source which discusses the foundation of the Union Cricket Club makes no mention of Lima Cricket Club. What a way to contradict yourself further by failing to realize that the first English vs. Peruvian football game organized by the Lima Cricket Club occurred in 1894, it only proves that the football match happened even after Chile's first football clubs were established such as Valparaiso Football Club and Santiago Wanderers. Seriously do yourself a favor and stop pushing your pov. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet you keep trying to make yourself a victim. The year 1894 fits in perfectly with the time-span that the chalaca was allegedly made (further making Jorge Barraza's statement true). On the other hand, Ramonsito only allegedly does his little move in 1914. The difference is about 20 years. *Gasps*--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Barraza needs to have done himself a favor and actually given educated readers at least the title of the book that he was talking about so it can be verified, without that it's just a fable because there is no direct evidence to support it. The match you mention that happened in 1894 doesn't even mention a bicycle kick being done, so nice try. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to justify Barraza's actions, he was probably worried that the information would be stolen much like Lima's library was stolen (and then awkwardly burnt) of a series of texts that could have probably verified a series of things these days. Of course, the sun can't be hidden with one finger (or with many fingers, no matter how hard you may try). The truth eventually speaks for itself. The match in 1894 obviously does not mention a chalaca, but that just simply serves to show that Englishmen did play sports (especially football) in Peru by the time Barraza's alleged match where the kick was made occured.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go making asumptions again, you have no clue as to why Barraza didn't include the nameless book that only he has read and which intelligent people cannot decipher on their own. Please, we need evidence, not word of mouth. Many countries in the world were playing football matches in 1894, it doesn't make what happened in Lima any more notable nor does it support the origin of the bicycle kick. If it did there would be documented evidence, but guess what there isn't. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What Barraza states counts as good evidence. The man has made a name for himself as a decent journalist, and his status as Chief Editor of CONMEBOL was not just gained by mistake. Obviously, whatever you say is not even worth a dime and probably will never be even worth a quarter of a dollar, but you can't compare yourself to Jorge Barraza. lol. That's your POV, please keep it out of the article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, on Santiago Wanderers, unless you can find a reliable and accurate source that shows any other older club from Chile, then Santiago Wanderers has to stay as the oldest club. They claim to be the oldest club in their website, and you cannot delete such a thing unless you find another source that finds an older football club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The link never states that, so you're wrong. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The RSSSF feed lists it as the oldest. Moreover, there is nothing contradicting such a thing. If you're able to find a source that says they are not the oldest club, such as the two sources I have for Lima Cricket that says it is the oldest, then you cannot erase well-sourced information from Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are relying on two sources that prove to be conflicting, the argument isn't about Lima Cricket Club being the oldest club in Peru, that in the revised version that I made includes that fact. On the other hand, the conflict exists when it started to practice football, one source states that it wasn't the first club, while the other source is vague and does not prove reliable because there is no Wikipedia:Verifiability. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What source states that it wasn't the first club???? WHERE IS THIS SOURCE???? WHAT WAS THE FIRST FOOTBALL CLUB OF CHILE???? OMG, please, if you know Santiago Wanderers are not the first club, then what is the first football club of Chile???--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you proved yourself wrong with that one, since Valparaiso Football Club came before Santiago Wanderers, I at least give you credit for learning the error of your ways. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I proved myself wrong? Without meaning to insult, but your English probably needs some work on that sentence. I corrected myself with information that you were not capable of giving me. That simply shows you're worse than a piece of dirt that gets stuck in your shoe. Instead of coming out with the truth and helping Wikipedia by inserting the correct information, you simply erased everything that you did not see convenient to your views by claiming I was collocating incorrect information; but at the same time you had the correct information but did not want to share it. You might as well get the "error of my ways" and stick it up your nose, it will probably find plenty of company in there.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it just shows that you are digging deep and filling Wikipedia with your own original research to substantiate a claim that is a fable at best, keep working at it you're making Aesop proud. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is digging deep to find accurate information original research? Not only that, but you're the one who showed me the sources. You could have simply added the correct information into the article, but you did not do it for reasons that escape my mind. Instead, you opted for deleting the information instead of adding that which you apparently already knew. Here yet again you show your disdain for the chalaca, claiming it to be a fable. Well, that just goes to show your biased opinion on the matter. *sighs* Aesop? lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are bringing up apples and organges because Santiago Wanderers were solely created as a football club not as a sports club, unlike Lima Cricket Club which primarily were created as a sports club with emphasis on cricket. Like I mentioned before the other source you provided never ackowledges it as the first sports club to practice football. The following two links provide more detail than what you for some reason are trying to push. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges? Lima Cricket's website state that they were founded on the basis of cricket, rugby, and football! Moreover, Lima Cricket was at first called "Salon de Comercio" and was founded in 1845, and then (according to Lima Cricket's official website) in 1859 the club was founded (which in this case would be re-made) on the basis of rugby, cricket, and football. You can't call this just a simple "Sports Club" as football was already being formally practiced by 1859. Furthermore, even at the point when they were called "Lima Cricket and Lawn Tennis Club" they organized a series of formal football games (as the sources show). Yet again, it's not my fault that Peruvian sports organizations happened to be highly varied (apparently unlike Chilean sports organizations). Other multi-sports organizations in Peru that also practiced football was Lawn Tennis Club (Tennis and Football) and Ciclista Lima (Biking and Football). On another note, the sources you gave me finally stated the oldest football club of Chile, in this case being the 1892 Valparaiso F.C.! If you do the math, that's 33 years of difference between the formal creation of Lima Cricket (based on Cricket, Rugby, and Football) and the first official football club of Chile. Wow. Of course, I expect that by the time you make a reply to this statement you will find yet another abnoxious idea that makes sense only to you, or you'll simply keep on stating the sources do not state such things (when they clearly do) and that one source "counter attacks" the other 5 sources (even though that one source does not even mention Lima Cricket's foundation; while the other 5 state that Lima Cricket is the oldest football club of Peru), or you'll simply re-arrange my statement and claim I wrote those things. Here's some mind-destroying questions that might disturb you for a while: Where and why do you think "Union Cricket" got their name from? Doesn't "Lima Cricket" sound close to "Union Cricket"? Of course, these questions have no sources attached to them, but just some food for the brain. The sources do show that Lima Cricket is the oldest football club of Peru, though.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question, what year did Lima Cricket Club change their name to Lima Cricket and Football Club? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer. In 1900 they changed their name to Lima Cricket and Football Club; they were founded on the basis of football, cricket, and ruby; and they were capable of organizing football games when their name was Lima Cricket & Lawn Tennis Club. Therefore, what prevents them from having made football games even before 1865 (when their name was not Lima Cricket & Lawn Tennis Club)? Obviously, they did not need the part "& Football Club" to organize football games, and that has been proven by two sources.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between two sources regarding the name change. The book you list states 1900, while the official website states the proposed name change occurred in 1906. Just to further clarify a point, you include that Lima Cricket Club is a very old sports club which is valid, but how do you equate their history to other places in Chile that were also practicing the sport of football such as the Mackay and Sutherland school of Cerro Alegre (founded in 1851) which wasn't a sports club nor a football team but still practiced football. I mean why not bring up Uruguay which I am almost positive has an historic sports clubs of their own? As of now the sources you include are actually building more of a basis to Peruvian football history, yet, lack an understanding of football history elsewhere especially in Chile. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The most reliable source remains the official website of Lima Cricket, hence 1906 must be the time they made their name change. Now, why exactly did you constantly state that the name change was nowhere to be found on their website if apparently you knew of this?? Yet again proving my point that you hide things for your own convenience. Also, it's not about me equating things. Like I previously stated, I'm simply writing facts. Mackay and Sutherland school are, like the name itself mentions, schools. They are not sports clubs, and much less an official football club. On the website you showed me the "Mackay and Sutherland School FC" has no dates attached to it and they obviously cannot be the first football club of Chile since that claim has been certified and attributed to Valparaiso F.C. On the other hand, Lima Cricket was founded as a sports club for cricket, football, and rugby. That's what Lima Cricket states on their website, and obviously they can't be wrong about what they're posting otherwise the Peruvian government would have fined them for lying (You can't just claim to be the oldest club in a country, you have to certify it, which is what Lima Cricket apparently has done). The team "Union Cricket" was made by people who wanted to rival Lima Cricket, hence further proving that Lima Cricket is a much older sports institution (including football, cricket, and rugby) in Peru. Quite obviously, if Lima Cricket was a sports club, they had members, and the members that played were what made up the team. Mackay and Sutherland was a school, they had students, and the students that played were simply students playing in a team. If you seek to put a school and a sports club in the same level then you seriously need to re-think what you're trying to propose.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was not aware until you properly cited the page where the information on the official website was to be found, before you had just linked the statement to the frontpage of the website that did not include that information which was extremely unprofessional. Secondly, the proposal of a school that practiced footbal signifies that there was a foundation for the sport of football in Chile prior to the first football club being established. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong, I see where this is going. Well, if you want to add that into the chilena section you might as well. I still don't see how you can compare a school with a sports club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you include Uruguay if that's what you wish to include in there? Their Peñarol team is apparently not even as old as that of Lima Cricket, and they also used to be called "Railway Cricket Club." In other words, that just further proves that just because you don't have "Football" in your club name it doesn't mean that the club did not practice football! Next you say the section is based around Peruvian football history? The first paragraph has information extremely relevant to the subject as it presents the ideas of Barraza and information from Popular Culture and Jorge Basadre. The second paragraph further continues the extremely relevant information as it relates to Lima Cricket, which hold the "ticket" as having the record of holding the oldest recorded Peruvian vs. Englishmen game in Peru. The third paragraph presents Alejandro Villanueva, the most famous Peruvian footballer that made the bicycle kick during those old times. Hence, all the information in there is relevant to the Chalaca. Yet again, if you wish to include more information into the section of the chilena, feel free to do so (nobody is preventing you).--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to include the history of Chilean football to support the claim of the chilena that is associated with Ramon Unzaga. Unless the bicycle kick was performed during an official football game prior to 1914, than there is no relation. For example since David Arellano and Colo-Colo went on tour across Europe and he exhibited the bicycle kick, there is absolutely no reason to discuss the history of Colo-Colo, that's why there exists a wikilink. The purpose of the Chilean section in general is to put focus on the exhibitions of the move that were done in matches which directly deals with the invention and eventual recognition. As for Uruguay, the Railway Cricket Club is not their oldest sports institution, so don't include that type of information as you have been doing. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Do you even know what history is? For instance, you state that Ramon Unzaga performed the move in Talcahuano and...well...that's it. Yet, you mention almost nothing of how he could have possibly learnt he move, or why the move would have even been invented in Talcahuano. The point of recording information (history) in an encyclopedia is for the reader to understand the topic being read. Also, it's not about discussing the history of Colo-Colo, because Colo-Colo was not the oldest team of Chile. If you could find more information on Valparaiso F.C., on the other hand, then that would be perfectly fine to include in order to sharpen the minds of the readers on the subject and how it relates to the chilena. According to some websites I've found, it is the oldest club. I guess I'll have to post all of them.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding more information regarding the Valparaiso football club does not help support Unzaga's invention of the bicycle kick, don't be foolish. Colo-Colo's relevance to the bicycle kick is the same as Lima Cricket Clubs connection to it, which is none, zero. Apparently you like making up your own history. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lima Cricket, unlike Colo-Colo in Chile, was heavily involved with the rise of football in Peru. So don't try to trick people into thinking that Lima Cricket has no relevance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Colo-Colo and David Arellano are involved with the naming of the kick by Spanish journalists. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. So now you contradict yourself by voluntarily denying your previous statement. By which I mean, didn't you say that Colo-Colo has "none, zero" relevance to the bicycle kick?--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You silly rabbit, the foundation of Colo-Colo doesn't, because any historical content that doesn't directly relate to the bicycle kick can be found within the article about Colo-Colo, sigh. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody has discussed the foundations of Colo-Colo. You stated that "Colo-Colo's relevance to the bicycle kick is [...] none, zero." Then you contradict yourself by stating that "Colo-Colo and David Arellano are involved with the naming of the kick." If that's how you clarify things, then by all means I think that you do not seem to understand what even you are writing. And please don't call me a silly rabbit again, it makes it sound like you're some sort of queer.--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not taking you seriously is why you were called a silly rabbit. I already mentioned the irrelevance of including the history of Colo-Colo in a prior post. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Interruption

I'm sorry to interrupt this 2-person discussion, but I would like to give my humble oppinion on the Peruvian claim section.

• References are good enough to keep the claim in the article, though perhaps not to drive conclusions (which is also not our job)
• The section needs to loose a lot of weasel words
• A big chunk on Peruvian football history just doesn't belong here

I suggest you let me copy edit the section in order to trim it down and keep it as neutral as possible. Mariano(t/c) 07:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I undesstood your silence as a yes, and trimmed down the Peruvian claim section.

I removed all the information about early football history in Peru, which even though the Peruvian editor feels it give a wider ground to the claim, it does not. I also removed more recent Peruvian football history for the same reason. I also removed some Peru-related comments from the international recognition section as they where out of place.

Please, let's discuss any wider change of the section before hitting it.

Thank you, and good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not contacted by you. My message box is empty and proves this as a fact. Therefore, my silence did not respond as a yes. Next time please have the delicacy of messaging me through my talk page before claiming that I did not reply because I agreed on what you were stating.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Marshal, I really don't understand why you felt attacked bymy message or my edits. I never claimed I contacted you and you failed to reply. I could have started editing the article without leaving any message in this talk page nor sending a message to anyone, but I thought it was best to talk about it before givinh it a start. I admit it should have been more useful to leave a message on your user pages, but I never claimed that the fact that you did not reply in the talk page granted me any powers, I just went on following the directives I stated some days before.Mariano(t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good sir, you stated: "I undesstood your silence as a yes, and trimmed down the Peruvian claim section." According to such a sentence, you're implying that I did not reply to you and therefore that gave you a right to edit the Peruvian section. How could I reply to you if you did not send me a Personal Message? I'm not in Wikipedia all day long and, in order for me to know someone has contacted me here in Wikipedia, I need a Personal Message. In other words, you did not talk about this with anybody but yourself. Like I stated on the PM I sent you, next time please have the delicacy of contacting people through their Personal Message box.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, I asked to talk about changes on the section before reverting/modifiying broadly the article, but you saw fit to just go for restoring everything, including the hole block on Peruvian history that I sugegsted was best in the proper article than here, all that without giving any reasons.Mariano(t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not try to victimize yourself. You deleted everything on the section but the exerpt of Jorge Barraza. Like I explained the Selecciones de la Vida, Jorge Barraza does not account for the complete Peruvian section. Yet again, you're failing to understand that Barraza did not invent the word or the claim of "chalaca." The word has been in use in Peru and various other South American countries for quite some time, and by simply including what Barraza stated as if he were the "sole carrier of the standard" makes the section completely (and rather idiotically) useless. By which I mean, a one-person claim does not constitute for factual information.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Currenty the Peruvian clain saction is bigger than the article Football in Peru, isn't that ironic? I really don't understand why you think that stating how old is Football in Peru gives any ground to the claim of the Chalaca; Football in England is even older and that means nothing. I would suggest you move that content to the History section of the Peruvian football article.Mariano(t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What's ironic? The article Football in Peru has the information that Selecciones de la Vida took (or stole, whichever way you see fit to say) from the section I wrote in this article. The only reason I haven't had the time to further expand that article with more information just happens to come from my lack of time available to do such things. Nonetheless, by the time I expand it, the section in the Peruvian claim will be but a small exerpt from the large idea. Next, it's not what I think that matters here. The section states (and specifically stays) with the times around the 1850s and the early 1900s. Such a mention is needed in order to help the reader understand: 1.Why the move was allegedly invented in Callao. 2. How did football get into this port of Callao in the first place. 3. What kind of history does Peruvian football have that revolves around this city: Lima cricket in this case.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Barraza is actually the only 'neutral' source to the claim, and considering his possition, a respetable one, so yes, I think it is the strongest support for it. Again, all the history that comes from the 20th century adds nothing to the claim of its origin.Mariano(t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

History is always needed! The whole point to people recording history is for it to be used to help people further understand past situations. By simply including the exerpts of Barraza, the reader, aka the "average idiot," cannot possibly understand: 1. Why Barraza would claim the city of Callao would be the place of birth of the bicycle kick. 2. Why Barraza claims Chileans copied the move from Peruvians. 3. Why Peru would even claim such a thing (They don't know what kind of history revolves around this time for Peruvian football).--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not when there is undue weight involved, or a claim that one countries sports development is older than a club from Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Buenos Aires had one of, if not the largest expatriates of Britions living there, and cricket was a sport that was widely played prior to the development of football or the publication of the Rules of football in 1863. Thomas Hogg a British merchant set up a cricket club in 1819. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Peruvian club is older than the others is certainly not undue weight. This is a fact, and a verified one at that. Even if Argentina has a cricket foundation older than Peru or any other country in the region, we're dealing with football clubs, not simply cricket.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hogg's cricket club of 1819 would still be older. The Rules of Association Football weren't made until 1863, any organization that is claimed as a football club prior to that date is debatable (Salon de Comercio). Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do whatever you want to have fun with Hogg's cricket club, it's not of my interest and certainly irrelevant to this article. FIFA gives the title of the oldest football club in the world to Sheffield F.C. (Founded in 1857). Two years later, Lima Cricket comes to appear as a sports club of football, cricket, and rugby. Both of these clubs are founded proir to 1863. If FIFA allows the 1857 football club with merits and an important title, then an 1859 club has nothing against it. That is, unless you suddenly want to claim to be a member of FIFA. lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield is a football club and designated by FIFA as such. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you constantly contradict yourself? First you state that "a football club prior to that date [1863] is debatable," and now you agree that Sheffield F.C. (founded in 1857) "is a football club." Please learn to stick with one opinion because it really gets annoying to have to discuss things with some fence-struggler that can't find valid information to support his claims.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a contradiction when Salon de Comercio nor Lima Cricket aren't even football clubs or wasn't designated as such until later. So you can't compare Buenos Aires Football Club with the former.

• The following reference includes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IzRTVU2NS5wC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=lima+cricket&source=web&ots=Xz7kGGiug1&sig=8hY-N1DyZw3WbzIHruwZx3A0pBc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA11,M1

• The source states that football (soccer) arrived in 1880's aboard an English ship.
• In 1893 and in conflict with the date that Lima Cricket was renamed (according to the official website) two exclusive soccer clubs were formed Lima Cricket and Football Club and Union Cricket. (This information coincides with the information Basadre wrote about.)

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lima Cricket website specifically states that since their creation in 1859, they have been a club of football, cricket, and rugby. Since Lima Cricket's information is superior to the information of any other source, they hold a supremacy over what is stated about their club. The book certainly does state that in the 1880s English ships "soccer arrived" in Peru, but that information becomes automatically invalid as Lima Cricket claims that in 1859 they practiced football. Unless you especifically get a letter from Lima Cricket that states that they really did not have football in their club, you cannot over-ride the most factual information from the article. Perhaps you've never learnt this, but the reason as to why more than one source is needed for these kind of things comes as a result that sometimes they can be wrong. In this case, judging between the official Lima Cricket website and a book talking about Lima Cricket, the official information from Lima Cricket is superior to the book. Next, with Buenos Aires F.C., since Lima Cricket claims that in 1859 their sports club held football, then it was, along with being a cricket club and rugby club, also a football club. I know it might be hard for you to understand, but try to use your apparent great knowledge to learn a couple of things from this.--MarshalN20 (talk)

Moreover, according to the definition of Wikipedia, Lima Cricket from 1859 to this day has been a multi-sport club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, you restored the International recognition as it was, including Peruvian supporters that have nothing to do with the international recognition, and wether Panama is North America, Central America, Latin America or Caribean, you seam to pretend to cover continents as if that increased the validity of the international recognition, rather than giving any information.

Manuel Burga and Teofilo Cubillas are internationally known figures of the sports world. Therefore, they fit with the international recognition section. Panama is from North America, get that into your head or go study geography. There is plenty of information with valid sources, so don't come here trying to claim that I have given no information at all. It is you who wants to erase the information.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to see the Peruvian claim stripped down of all the pieces that don't add to the claim, accordingly to the rest of the sections; after all, that would make it a much more encyclopedic. Mariano(t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because the other sections don't have as much sources as the Peruvian section, it does not mean that anybody has the right to "strip down" the Peruvian section of its component. That move is highly childish and anti-encyclopedic.

Truncated the information to a more appropiate standard.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here is, yet again, a little exerpt from Wikipedia: "the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted."--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

International recognition section

The purpose is to divide the type of information that is contained in each corresponding section. For example the chalaca section starts off with a claim of origin, followed by a history of Peruvian football, concluding with recognition of the name. In order to facilitate the flow of content the division is done to differentiate the topics being discussed. The same with the chilena section which starts off with the claim of origin, followed by sources that support the claim and ending with the recognition from various countries. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The name is too long.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas on a shortened version that maintains the subject matter? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You simply take out the phrase "chalaca" or "chilena" (as the subject already tells the idea comes from those sections), and tah-dah!--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable now we should do that with some of the content featured within the chalaca section and only keep the information that is directly associated with the bicycle kick. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the section is related to the chalaca. Moreover, you deleted an entire paragraph (which does not even count as "some of the content"). I know it might be hard for you, but show some respect for other people's work.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because that content has no relevance to the article. If the Lima Cricket Club made up the bicycle kick than yes, it would. Which member of the Lima Cricket Club invented the move, and on what date? Lima Cricket Club isn't even located in Callao as the Peruvian claim of origin states. There's a reason as to why an article about Football in Peru exists. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...you just created that article! Moreover, you created the article with my information, cheapskate! No relevance in the article?? Lima Cricket is the club that set up those games, including the Englishmen vs. Peruvian game that was mentioned in the first paragraph. Moreover, as one of the oldest football clubs of the South American club, if not the oldest, it is highly relevant to mention how old the sport of football is in Peru. Also, this does not constitute as "Peruvian football history" because the history of football in Peru is extremely longer. What kind of illogical person, aside from you, could ever come to reason that a mere truncated paragraph (It's not even as large or as noticeable as it could be, it only has what is relevant to the subject at hand) is all that is "Peruvian football history?" Furthermore, it was the Lima Cricket Club the place where sports games were first formally organized in Peru, including football. Therefore, the small paragraph on Lima Cricket is completely relevant to the article! Oh, and next time you take my information to create an article, for the least have the decency and manners to state who found the information you're using.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case than Jorge Barraza would have said members of the Lima Cricket Club witnessed the invention of the move. Guess what, he didn't. Rather the claim is based on English sailors who were playing in a football game that involved locals from Callao. Never any mention of a club, etc. Another note, read the fine print, neither you or I own the content that we input onto Wikipedia. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cheap talk buddy. It simply means I can't sue you for taking my material, but that doesn't mean that you can't for the least state in your creation the information you're using if you know who the person was (in this case me). Next thing on the subject is your apparent idea that the whole "claim of callao" relies on Jorge Barraza. Well, here's something that might make you cry and cut yourself, the term chalaca has been used in Peru for quite a very long time. According to my grandfather, which does not constitute as a real source but does count as good information to me, he heard the term chalaca from his father; and his father heard it from the people in Callao around the 1880s. Obviously people did not record things, but then again, if you knew anything about history then you would know that people back in those times did not understand the importance of recording things. Even the Ramon Unzaga account is not complete as it is simply taken from a newspaper article that briefly mentions his exploits; and yet there is no mention of a direct source from that particular newspaper article. Therefore, Barraza is not the only source that serves as the foundation for the term chalaca. Whatever Barraza said counts as part of the idea, but his statements do not count as the idea. If the whole thing Barraza said would count as the complete story, then his one-person claim would not even be something encyclopedic. Yet, since that is not the case, he simply counts as evidence. I suppose you know how to distinct evidence from the main idea by this point.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I at least perfectly understand that anything I write can be used and redistributed throughout Wikipedia. As for crying, the only emotional person here has been yourself, which has resorted to insults left and right. As for your personal story, any claim made in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, even though according to information you presented Peruvians were also clueless as to the name of the bicycle kick since they were calling it the caracol in 1928. The Ramon Unzaga account is supported by various sources such as published books. Regarding the rest, Jorge Barraza's interview with El Pais is used as a source in the article, which is fine, but that doesn't mean what he says can't be challenged and verified especially when it lacks pertinent information, such as the name of the book he brings up.

Lol. In Chile people originally called the move "chorera," so don't go saying that Peruvians were clueless of their move. The term "chilena" was not even invented by people from Chile, it was invented by the Argentine press. On the other hand, people in Peru called the move chalaca, the people in Lima for a while called it caracol, but at the end returned to the original name developed by Peruvians for a move made by Peruvians. There might be a million books on Unzaga, but there is no actual original article. If you wish to seek more exact information from what Barraza states, then you might as well go ask him those things. As for reliability, Barraza's position in the world of football makes him a very reliable source.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you mention Peruvians and reinforce the concept that it is indeed a nationalistic claim, I am changing it back to the original version of the claims being attributed to national origin. Including the fact that in each country the kick has gone by different names such as caracol and chorera rather than chilena or chalaca. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you take out what I write and put it out of context, and then with that you come up with a conclusion? Nationalistic claim? Excuse me, but the only nationalistic person in this is apparently you. The claims as the names worked in the Spanish wikipedia, and therefore they can also work in here perfectly fine. Chalaca and chilena are the names by which the move is currently known.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original name developed by Peruvians for a move made by Peruvians is not taking anything out of context. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! You took out a section out of my reply and interpreted it to your own style. That, in the world of reasoning, is called taking things out of context. The term generalized my point, but the move was specifically invented in Callao. I already explained that, and you agreed with it.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, mentioning things such as the existence of the Lima Cricket Club serves as historical content best applied elsewhere. No source has provided information that because of a game that they organized the bicycle kick came to be. You're linking point (A) which is the claim of origin, to point (B) which is the oldest sports club in Peru and not providing a direct link to the invention of the bicycle kick. You want the reader to draw their own conclusions, which is a disservice because unless there is a viable connection with verifiable sources than it's just an unverifiable claim, and you're left playing a guessing game and reading information that doesn't exactly relate to the invention. You say that Lima Cricket Club set up that so called game which resulted in a bicycle kick, well guess what I'm calling out the fabrication, because no source you have provided establishes that argument. All you're doing is trying to sway the reader by presenting an idea, but never offering evidence which is essential. You are adding more and more information, that presents game after game, but not one of those games mentions the invention of the bicycle kick or at least one being performed for that matter. So from now on I will allow you to keep adding information, but eventually someone will stumble upon the article and realize that a lot of the content really has no reason being included. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to add information? Hahaha. So now you're the boss of Wikipedia and you decide what gets in and what gets out? Hahaha. Seriously, don't attribute yourself jobs that you don't have. Nowhere in the article do I state that Lima Cricket set up the game where the bicycle kick happened. Unlike the other clubs of Chile, the Lima Cricket club of Peru was actively involved in setting up games and playing games during the later half of the 1800s. Is it my fault that Lima Cricket was, and is even mentioned, actively involved even with the sailors in Callao? No. Is it my fault that important Chilean sports club or football clubs were not involved in Talcahuano? No. Guessing game? Hahaha. Everything in the chalaca section is straight-forward and properly cited, and there is no need for guessing. The claim of origin is completely linked with the Lima Cricket club because that club was actively involved during those times. In other words, it relates by helping expand the minds of the readers on the matter of why the city of Callao claims the move as theirs (the small historical paragraph aids in presenting the importance of Callao during the early years of football in Peru). Now, if Talcahuano does not have a strong sports backing, then...guess what...it's not my fault!!!--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

It is clear that MarshalN20 believes that he owns the Peru section, refering to it on more than one occasion as "my material", "my imformation" and "my sources" even accusing selecciones of "stealing" when he used some of the sources to create the much needed Football in Peru article to give a place to the historical information that is irrelevant to the invention of the bicycle kick. He has reverted myself and two highly respected editors when we have tried to remove some of the superfluous information. The long rembling paragraph about the origins of the game in Peru and the Lima Cricket and Football Club does not even mention the bicycle kick once, it is unneccessary and should be trimmed. Sourced material can and should be removed if it is not relevant. 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 unless a source can be provided that shows that the club played a specific role in the invention of the move, rather than a general role in the history of Peruvian football. EP 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the "Peruvian Claim" section, get your facts straight buddy. I only stated that nearly all of the information in the Peru section was information that I provided ("my information," as in the information that I spent days gathering). Selecciones used all of my sources (the sources I provided), not "some," to create the new article. Oh, and please don't start again with your "Respected Editors" thing because I really don't give a *&^&# to people who act like they're the Mafiosos of Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding the point of a growing consensus among editors that is both important and a must. My position and concern with the Peruvian section has been stated throughout the talk page. After the latest edits the section now reads more clearly while maintaining sources that refer directly to the claim of invention. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My contributions to Wikipedia are simply aimed at improving the quality of this website and at providing factual information in order to uncover the truth out of controversial topics. Nonetheless, after all the hard work I do to improve articles, gather sources, gather pictures, and all other sort of information; I end up getting back-handed by a bunch of imbeciles that, like you, think you're some sort of "bad boys" of Wikipedia and that with your self-given title of "respected editors" you can and have a right to act as if you were professionals of this website. I do not have to bow down to any of your stupid comments that try to make me seem as if I was some biased freak. Also, I have every single God-given right to state the information I provide to Wikipedia is information that I gathered. I am the one that has taken the time to search throughout the internet for sources, for information, and for other things important and relevant to the section. Still, if I dare mention that I am the provider of such sources I get blamed of being selfish and, yet again, a biased freak. Yet, to further contribute to the irony of things, in the Bicycle Kick article I get attacked by a biased group of people led by a guy from Chile that firmly believes that the bicycle kick was invented in Chile and that the Peruvian claim holds no foundation and is a piece of crap. If you actually take some time to read the article you'll see the user "Selecciones de la Vida" is the biased person that has been constantly attacking the Peruvian section. Still, you take sides with him to work against the Peruvian section under the claim that it is "too long" and "unecessary." Without trying to make a direct comparisson, it would be like saying some sections in the Bible are longer than others and therefore should be truncated in order to fit the size of the other sections! But you know what, I really do have better things to do than to argue with you or any other of the "respected editors" of Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia). I already did as much as a "biased freak" like me can apparently do in the article before the "respected editors" gang up on me. I really do hope you someday understand the mistake you're making. Until then, happy editings "respected editor."--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you really just compare your work here to the Bible? Get a sense of perspective and read the message that comes up every time you edit a page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." EP 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG. I feel like I'm speaking to a bunch of foreign people that do not know how to write or speak English! Seriously, without trying to insult you, if you guys don't know the English language then please do not comment in the English Wikipedia. When referring to the Bible, I specifically stated: "Without trying to make a direct comparisson." For a "respected editor," you certainly do not know how to read "English" Peasant. Next, obviously I know that Wikipedia has a policy of other people taking your work and re-destributing for free; nonetheless, that does not mean I cannot claim things to be what I provided. Certainly, that also means that for the sake of respect and courtesy, which neither you of you apparently have, you can for the least state in the history page that you're including information that you got from somebody (If you have happen to know who that somebody is). Per se, if I were to suddenly go to one of the articles you've been working on, English Peasant, and then take nearly all (if not all, as Selecciones did with the things I submitted) of what you've provided (knowing that it was you whom provided such information) and made a new article; common courtesy from my part would make me state in the history section: "Made new article on blah blah blah; information gathered by User:English peasant." Once again, that's called courtesy. Happy editings "respected editor."--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One last thing. Callao was a highly important port in the Pacific Ocean prior to the construction of the Panama Canal. Do not remove that again for it is one of the key ideas that helps establish the concept as to why football became prominent in that zone, just as the other things you seek to remove. I'll edit that back in and hope you won't remove it to your biased likings.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflexion

Marshal, EP's complains on you "Owning" the section are refered to your inflexible posture on the subject. I can understand your attempts as Peruvian football fan to make the Peruvian claim as valid as you can, and that's not wrong by itself. What you fail to see is that all that extra information that gives nothing on the subject only add noise to the claim, actually hurting its credibility, and certanly weasel words and redundant paragraphs don't help either.Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, don't tell me what helps the validity or denies the validity of a certain something. I've written a series of research papers in the past and all of them have gained much appraisal from the people who have read them. Also, don't come trying to act as an apologist of English Peasant. He came into the article simply to favor the statements of Selecciones de la Vida and did not act as an arbitrary, which is supposed to be a person that works to find a compromise (something all sides agree on) to the problem. His mentioning of me "owning" the article did not relate to my "inflexible posture," but rather it was obvious that he meant it as a personal insult. Out of the whole bunch that have attacked me in this particular article, you, Mariano, have been the only one that apparently actually came sincerely with the purpose of working a compromise; and I respect that.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having 2/3 of the section talking about things such as Peruvian players without any historical background that support the claim, or Peruvian football history the 20th century does not talk about the claim. Another example, what are those images supposed to bring to the article? I wish you used that energy to expand other Peruvian football related articles, such as its history.Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of the article talking about Peruvian players? Certainly, you must have not read the section very clearly. The majority of the article dealt with the port of Callao: its football history starting from when the English brought the sport and how the sport evolved in the port. After that historically valid section, with a series of valid sources, came the statement of Jorge Barraza. The only part I admit that strayed away from the article was the too exact description of Lima Cricket Club, but that only came about because Selecciones de La Vida kept on claiming that the Club was not founded in 1859 as the official of the website of the club states. This claim later went on to be followed by English Peasant, and he claims that the official website does not state the truth. Now, how in the world can the official website of an organization not be considered a reliable source? Does that mean that in a statement about City Bank, the official website of the bank cannot be used as a reliable source? Pardon me, but that sounds like the biggest bull crap of the century.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only support a the claim, and a perfectly valid one, is the report of respected historians, or in this case Barraza's research. The rest of the section only contributes to hide this fact, and reduce the claim's credibility. Keeping the important suff clean sounds like the best idea.

Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. All the work that was done against the Peruvian section section meant to make it shorter for the sake of "keeping all the sections equal." Do you think I'm retarded enough not to notice what Selecciones de la Vida wrote to English peasant? Here's exactly what he wrote: "Is there any way that you can review the article, I have a concern with the overall length and validity of the Peruvian claim section, and neutral editors are needed for assistance." So then English Peasant comes here and further takes away a series of many more things even after the section was edited to fit what you, Mariano, proposed as a compromise. Furthermore, English Peasant draws up a list of names and states that they are all "Respected Editors" of Wikipedia; including himself. Here are some of his exact words: "Mariano, Nanonic and Selecciones are the respected editors." Therefore, yet again, he tries to insult me by stating (in other words) that I cannot or am not allowed to judge any of his or your actions because you're all "above" me. As far as that concerns me, this idea of English Peasant's competes rather well with the other idea for the biggest bull crap of the century.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Marshal, you seam to start from the idea that people are trying to invalidate the Peruvian section. I've worked with English Peasant in several football related articles before even if we shaare very different backgrounds, and I can assure you that he doesn't support any claim over the other.Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Good Mariano, I value your positive intentions with much appraisal. Even if we did start in the wrong foot, I know that you're only trying to actually help. Nonetheless, here is something that English peasant wrote in the Wikiproject Football page. In this you can perfectly see that he is completely biased towards the move not being invented in Peru and, to furthermore prove this, he states that "lazy journalists" will think the move "was invented in Peru" in a manner that seems almost as if he were telling a horror story. Moreover, it also proves that his sole intention was and is to make the Peruvian section shorter. In this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MarshallN20) he writes:

-"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." HE ALSO STATES: "This is a dangerous development for two reasons: 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, publish it in a newspaper without citing Wikipedia, then it will become a reliable source to support the minority POV that modern football [and the bicycle kick] was invented in Peru."-EP 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated before, Mariano. I value your attempts at trying to make this peaceful, but the above quotes by English peasant clearly show: 1. He does not agree that the bicycle kick was invented in Peru. 2. He insults me by saying that I have "hijacked" the article and thus completely twisting the facts and ignoring that I've provided a series of sources to verify what I write. 3. By directly stating that "7.5 kb is a bit much" he is hereby auto-declaring that he does not want the section to be long; in other words, he wants to truncate it (and invalidate it) in order to prove his biased opinion that the bicycle kick was not invented in Peru. 4. He also uses the word "idiot" (which like imbecile, retarded, etc.); therefore completing destroying his "sense of civility" at later stating that I wrote the word "imbecile."--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But with your answer to my message you are showing that you are not open to conversation, and you read everything as an attack. For instance, I wrote that 2/3 of the article has things such as Peruvian players oppinions. (ie. "Teofilo Cubillas, an association football star of the 1970s, has asked the Peruvian government to seek international recognition for Callao and its invention of the bicycle kick").Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Mariano. I do not know how old you are or what your knowledge on football is; and neither do I care or want to know. Teofilo Cubillas is a football star from the 1970s and reached a certain degree of high fame due to his ability to play. You may not know about him, but people who know about football and know some history of those particular times can all certainly agree that this player was one of the best to have ever appeared in the football field. His status goes beyond that of his nationality, just like Pele, Maradonna, and Platini do for their respective countries. In other words, his opinion goes beyond that of a simple Peruvian player. I'm sure you can understand this.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking. Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing and I've been willing to reach a compromise. I won't simply give in to the opinions of others, if that's what you seek, Mariano. That's not what the outcome of a debate or discussion should be.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see now about these "respectable editors." Nanonic only came in here once and said the article was "being destroyed," but when I asked him for some advice on how to then fix the article he never replied. How is that a "respected editor"? Selecciones de la Vida is a biased Chilean that seeks to shorten up or take away as much information from the Peruvian section as he possibly can. I can bet you my life that if someone came in here and said that Jorge Barraza was not a respectable source and deleted that entire paragraph, Selecciones de la Vida would stand right behind said person and work agains the Peruvian section. How is that a "respected editor"? English Peasant also showed his true colors by seeking to make me feel inferior and simply taking away chunks of the Peruvian section in order to make the size somewhat equal to the other sections, and did not act as a fair arbitrator that would give a compromise that everyone agreed upon. How is that a respected editor? The only actual "respected editor" that did not seek an argument, even after (I admit) I rudely responded to him, was Mariano. He actually explained his concerns and points, and I complied to most of them. Now, I do not and never will claim myself as being a "respected editor," because such a stupid idea could only come out of the mind of some childish idiot that wants to be try and be "somebody" in life by trying to make himself sound like an awesome Wikipedist. My only purpose was to bring up as much factual information as possible in order to make the Peruvian section more valid. Moreover, I also provided more information (and reliable sources) for the construction of the Italian and Brazilian sections of the article. Even if any of you said everything in that section was my POV, you could not and you still cannot get such a thing upon me because I have actually used and will still use a series of reliable sources that show it's not my POV and certainly that does not mean I "own" the article. If whoever reads this cannot understand that, then there's nothing more I can do.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another series of personal attacks, false allegations, rudeness and misrepresentations of other editors words and motivations. You worked in a mention of that club again, with no reliable source to verify that they have anything to do with the invention of the move, it is irrelevant and misleading as has been explained before, yet you persist. All of this and you have the cheek to call anyone else childish, unbelievable. EP 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The source specifically indicates that it was that club which organized the game that Jorge Basadre mentions. You seem to have problems with the mere mention of the club's name.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does this source state that an overhead kick was used in this game? How is this game relevant to the invention of the bicycle kick other than the weak correlation that Jorge Barraza says an overhead kick occurred in a game between Englishmen and Peruvians and this is the earliest mention of such a game you could find? How is this not WP:OR? EP 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The mention of the game is relevant to the idea supported by Jorge Barraza that the bicycle kick was invented in an early football match involving Englishmen. According to the source, not me, the research of Jorge Basadre is the oldest football match record thus found. The information has been published, therefore it is not WP:OR. Moreover, the information relates to the subject discussed. Please stop trying to attack me or the Peruvian section by making yourself sound wise with Wikipedia terms. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking 3 questions is not an attack on you or the section, comparing people to dictators, calling people imbeciles, and worse than dirt and making accusations of bias are personal attacks. EP 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Please stop your personal attacks against me. User:Alexf already stated that he wished for the discussion to be calm, but you still keep flaming and destroying the peace. Nonetheless, here is my response: Comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument. It's not an insult unless Selecciones qualifies himself as truly being a dictator. This same thing goes with him calling me the awkward name of "Silly Rabbit," which would only be an insult if I truly believed myself to jump around fields like a rabbit. The word "imbecile" is a valid English language word that describes retardation, stupidity, or idiocy. If you can't learn to live with that word, then you might as well think about learning another language; of course, take note that in a series of other languages, such as in French and Spanish, the word sounds nearly the same and has the same meaning. Finally, the "dirt" mention of Selecciones (which you so obviously take out of context to facilitate your means) came about because he hid information from the article that he knew existed and would help clarify things, and instead he waited for me to waste my time looking for the information he already knew and argued with me for no reason at all. Even after reading what I wrote to him, I still think that he acted quite like a piece of dirt. If you know information that you know you can provide to Wikipedia in order to solve a dispute, it is obviously best to provide such information in order to prevent further arguments; which is something Selecciones de la Vida admittedly did not do because he simply wanted to see me get frustrated. Now please stop making inflamatory demands against me, English peasant. Remember to stop being a hypocrit and keep the discussion peaceful.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of making personal attacks for asking 3 questions, I only used diffs to show your personal attacks against myself and other people to illustrate what personal attacks are. You still fail to address the point that saying "Jorge Barraza that the bicycle kick was invented in an [unspecified] early football match involving Englishmen" then digging out the earliest [specific] game that matches and giving a description of that game in the article is speculative and misleading. If there is no source to say that a bicycle kick was used in that game, how is it relevant to the bicycle kick article? I can't see how you fail to understand the point and construe it as a personal attack. I also fail to understand which demands I am accused of making, I have not demanded anything only pointed out your incivility. EP 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

English peasant, I don't care about your silly and aggressive opinions that make no sense. The whole point of those games being mentioned in the article is to illustrate a time frame for the academic community that is interested on knowing a certain date when such a move could have been created. Obviously, the sourced material that talks about the "first recorded football game" among Englishmen and Peruvians is highly relevant to the section (since it was during one of those games when the move got created). The material provided by Jorge Basadre also serves to illustrate a time frame since it shows that the move itself could have gotten invented even earlier than the "first recorded football game between Englishmen and Peruvians," since Englishmen (Of the "Lima Cricket" club) set up a game among Limeans and Chalacos. What I do not understand, because you don't explain, is why you think such an information should be removed.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply the argument"it shows that the move itself could have gotten invented even earlier than the "first recorded football game between Englishmen and Peruvians" = conjecture, not fact. I am not disputing the fact that the games occurred and believe that the information would be suitably placed in the football in Peru article. If you could just address the point without insults or accusations, I would not have to defend myself or point out your incivility again EP 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the personal insults, this defence "comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument" is unbelievable. What if I had a disagreement with a German in a public forum, would comparing him to Hitler be funny or would it be inflammatory? O.K. maybe "Hitler" was worse than Pinochet, where does it stop being insulting and start being funny, comparing Cambodians to Pol Pot? Ugandans to Idi Amin? Iraqis to Saddam Hussain? Zimbabweans to Robert Mugabe? It was clear that Selecciones did not find your comparison humourus, yet your response was "you keep trying to make yourself a victim" a role you yourself seem to be revelling in. I cannot defend all of SdVs actions here, but in my opinion calling you a "silly rabbit" shows some restraint after the Pinochet comment. The fact that you have repeatedly called me biased and have insinuated that Selecciones and I are part of a secret cabal colluding to work against you without presenting any supporting evidence, caused me to postulate the existence of a paranoid conspiracy theory, if this insulted you I apologise. In your most recent comment you accuse me of hypocrisy, attempt to defend comparing people with dictators, call Selecciones dirt (again) and explain that when calling people imbeciles, the word describes retardation, stupidity, or idiocy and in the same edit you instruct me to "keep your ugly and inflammatory comments to yoursel[f]", the unintentional irony is impressive. EP 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Selecciones did not tell me he felt insulted. His words were: "It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator[...]" That was everything he ever said about that, and that was all I ever said about that too. You're the perfect example of someone who likes to spark arguments where none had ever existed. Please stop your aggressiveness and lies. Added that people like Hitler and Hussein can only seem bad depending on the opinion of people. In the matter of Pinochet, I see the man as having done much for Chile but receiving too much bad press because of his crude methods to keep his country stable. In other words, in my opinion he was not that bad of a person (He was actually quite smart). On the matter of "cabal," I still think that you and Selecciones are working to simply get the Peruvian section shorter. Whether you're working together or alone, you're still acting for a common goal. Also, I gave my reasons for calling Selecciones "dirt," and yet again you try to make it seem more terrible than what it actually was. What's impressive are your cheap and constant attempts at making a time bomb out of this discussion. Nonetheless, like I priorly mentioned to User:Alexf, I do not care for your aggressiveness and will simply dismiss everything you try to inflamate with this unconstructive discussion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You state "Selecciones did not tell me he felt insulted" read what I said again, I never said he did, I said he clearly didn't find it funny, this is a misrepresentation of my point and doesn't stop such comparisons from from being personal attacks. You then call me a liar without presenting any evidence which is another personal attack and present a case that personal insults are sometimes justified, which they are not. Please just read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your misrepresentations and unsubstantiated allegations are succeding in winding me up and forcing me to defend myself but they are fooling nobody. I shall expect further allegations and insults rather than reasoned debate in response even though you are clearly intelligent enough to stick to debating the issue rather than clouding the debate by insulting people and casting aspersions EP 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You shall expect what you deserve. On your own words: "As for the personal insults, this defence 'comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument' is unbelievable. What if I had a disagreement with a German in a public forum, would comparing him to Hitler be funny or would it be inflammatory? O.K. maybe "Hitler" was worse than Pinochet, where does it stop being insulting and start being funny [...]" This is clearly what you wrote, and clearly you were relating the situation to that of Selecciones. Please, before you post something, make sure you re-read what you wrote; otherwise you simply look foolish. lol. And at the end, nothing was accomplished out of your little inflamated comments. Good job "respected editor." lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the individual talk pages, English Peasant voiced his concern with the section to Mariano 12 days before I even asked for his assistance. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one way to contact a person other than through the talk page.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence contradicts your point, so rather than accept that you made a mistake, you invent another paranoid conspiracy theory to fit in with your "everyone who disagrees with me is part of the Wikipedia mafia" theory. EP 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your aggresive comments that wish to incite more "fire" into this discussion. There exists more than one way to contact a person from Wikipedia, and that is a fact. Also, if you wish to state that what I state are theories, then you are stating that what I write are valid ideas that have received other approvals as testable or highly likely. Otherwise please learn to distinguish a theory from a hypothesis. Furthermore, by stating I have a "paranoid conspiracy theory" you are obviously throwing a personal insult at me; next time you want to go whine to people (such as User:Alexf) about "uncivility," please do not be a hypocrit and try to get away with insulting me. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making allegations of collusion, and you have made the mafia claim on several occasions, which I interpreted as a Conspiracy theory, hence the use of the word "theory". The reason I went to an admin is that you suggested I go talk to a real Wikipedia Administrator (not that Mariano isn't) and I was getting sick of the way you rile people up by abusing them and twisting their words instead of addressing the issues that they have raised. So I asked him to review the behaviour of everyone here including myself. EP 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep making allegations and personal attacks on me. You say that I "abuse" people and that I "twist their words," and even though in a political sphere that would make me sound like quite an awesome politician, I do take your wordings as insults. Please remember that User:Alexf has stated to keep civility in the article. You are breaking the civility by continuing to insult me and making false allegations. I have neither abused people or twisted their words. Here is an example as to how User:Selecciones de la Vida "abused" and frustrated me during a discussion: {{{What source states that it wasn't the first club???? WHERE IS THIS SOURCE???? WHAT WAS THE FIRST FOOTBALL CLUB OF CHILE???? OMG, please, if you know Santiago Wanderers are not the first club, then what is the first football club of Chile???--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Well you proved yourself wrong with that one, since Valparaiso Football Club came before Santiago Wanderers, I at least give you credit for learning the error of your ways. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}}} NEXT, the same user twisted my words to the point that at end went as far as to state on the matter still relating to the date of foundation of the Lima Cricket Club: {{{Actually I was not aware until you properly cited the page where the information on the official website was to be found, before you had just linked the statement to the frontpage of the website that did not include that information which was extremely unprofessional. [...] Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}}} As you can see, he went as far as to call me "unprofessional," which is also a personal insult. Therefore I state, no matter how bad you (which by this I mean English peasant and Selecciones de la Vida) want to make me sound in front of others (such as Alex and Mariano), what you wrote still remains as a proof that this mud slinging went back and forth from both sides. Now please stop trying to infuriate me. Alex already stated that he wanted no more uncivility in the article or inflamatory comments. So please, English peasant and Selecciones, keep your ugly and inflamatory comments to yourselves.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (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)