Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo

unneccessary bits

okay i just deleted the part where it said "scored a goal against debrecen... but missed start of the season with an ankle injury" because he's already recovered from the ankle injury and doing better than ji-sung park i might add. Also, like it was too brief to be a relevant source towards the outlook of how well he'll do this season (05/06) so hopefully you'll all understand that. peace out: Darkroom Danny 09:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Fanmail

Specific people

"Despite Portugal winning, Ronaldo was critcised by some members[Please name specific person] of the English media for his gamesmanship." Among them was Steven Gerrard: http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0703/gerrard.html Martin Jol: http://www.football365.com/news/story_187979.shtml (UTC)

Ronaldo is 187cm, as he was listed before on here. He stated this in an interview that he had grown, and also on the official Portuguese site www.gestifute.com he's listed as 187cm

birth

He was specifically born in Funchal, in the Madeira islands. I'll make the change to reflect this - as Madeira is a little too general.

i think the did you know part should be converted to trivia and the trivia to physic facts or something alike tnks

trivia/did you know

i think the did you know part should be converted to trivia and the trivia to physic facts or something alike tnks

But did you know that when he was at school, he threw a chair at one of his teachers that made fun of his accent?

temper temper.

Gay Icon?

The Associated Foreign Press say so. Wencer 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone took out the trivia piece about him being voted the top gay pin-up of the 2006 world cup. I'm going to revert that because I believe it's a worthwhile and well cited. I'm more than happy to discuss removing it if someone objects. Vickser 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User: Hedpeguyuk beat me to it. Vickser 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Girlfriend?

In some German newspapers (for example "Bild") you can read, that he`s in Love with a portugese hostess, Merche Romero, which is 9 years older than he. Is that true? -- Anonymous(217.245.242.226)

They have been seen a lot together, and it is widely accepted as truth among the portuguese population, but I haven't found any official statements, or something that could be used as a source. I only found this: http://www.observatoriodoalgarve.com/cna/noticias_ver.asp?noticia=6951

The rest of the references to Merche being Ronaldo's girlfriend come from portuguese tabloids such as "Correio Da Manhã" or "24 Horas". --Phelan 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Their relationship is pretty much official. During the final show of the Portuguese Dancing With The Stars she had CR written on her right(?) arm. Orta 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, I also believe it is pretty much official, but I haven't been able to find any good sources...I didn't watch that show, can you find a screen capture or a source for this statement? --Phelan 11:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go: http://ohlog.com/antimerche/img/a91de30d.jpg Orta 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

~~are they still together? because someone wrote ,'as of July 6,2006 she has stated she is single.'

were they ever going out? because on one of his fan websites, which was updated the day i checked, it was stated that he was single. and anyway, i hardly ever believe tabloids.

well, not most of the time. and there is the possibility that they might be good friends.

but as for the part where his initials is on her arm, that raises the question for a relationship.

Plaigarism - charity

The section on Ronaldo's charity work has, I suspect, been copied verbatim from this fan website: - http://www.cristiano-ronaldo.biz/ It may be the other way round, can anyone conform this? Besides, is this instance enough to justify a claim that's he's "well known" for charity. One needs to do more than the one or to isolated acts to be "known" for charity work. I'll reword it wall tonight unless someone disagrees. hedpeguyuk 20 June 2006 13:00 (UTC)

Well, we need a reliable source. Is this link reliable? Bacause we can use it as the citation. Kingjeff 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=&cc=5901. Definitely, Ronaldo isn't very "known" for his charity work, though 100,000 euros is quite a bit. And he definitely flew out there: http://www.oikos.pt/index.php?set_albumName=album01&option=com_gallery&Itemid=&include=view_album.php has picsEalgian

I know that he did do the 2 things mentioned. But we need sources for them. Kingjeff 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He's single at the moment http://groups.msn.com/CristianoRonaldo-Thephenomenon/crslovelife.msnw

Cristiano Ronaldo

The 3rd paragraph of the Ronaldo article starts, "By 1995 ..." which doesn't sound right in the context of what follows, because at that time he would have been just 10 years old.

Not really, footballers get snapped up at young ages on semi-professional contracts, especially if they are talented enough. I know that he was certainly playing for Nacional when he was 11/12. hedpeguyuk 21 June 2006 13:15 (UTC)

Actually, you're right only if they are very specialy players at age 10. Kingjeff 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be awkward. That's what I meant by "talented enough". Besides, I think there are still questions about Ronaldo's ability. I know he's young (three days younger than me!) but he still seems like a one trick poney at times - at that comes from a Manchester United fan. hedpeguyuk 21 June 2006 18:05 (UTC) I wasn't being ackward at all. I know there is one kid in Brazil that has a lot of talent. But you still don't hear anything about all the other talented kids in Brazil. Kingjeff 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Career at Sporting Lisbon: "Ronaldo SCORING two crucial goals and demonstrated his ability to play on both wings." Someone should edit that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.45.80 (talk • contribs)

Done. -- Steel 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

Although charges were dropped by the Police should a comment be included about the rape allegation against him in the personal life section? --Vivbaker 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think the allegations, and the fact they were dismissed, should be in there. I note similar allegations against Robin Van Persie and Matthew Kelly are displayed on those pages.Andywall 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi page protection

I think it only needs protection till tommorow. Kingjeff 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, however the heavy vandalism caused the semi protection. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. But it'll probably die down tommorow. Kingjeff 18:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Disgruntled England fans were quick to act!--Andeh 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Grr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristol2006 (talk • contribs)

Can someone do the same for the Portugal page? It's being vandalised as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazuhara (talk • contribs)

Users are vandalizing now. Can we get a full page protection till Monday? Kingjeff 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Are people calling him a cocky f*cker? A bastard who deliberately incited his short tempered Man United *team mate*, then after getting him sent off strutted away winking? Because if they are, I fail to see how that's vandalism... *whistles*.... what a cock. I hear he wants to leave Man United... he's going to *have* to leave now.(195.92.168.169 03:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

He might play for the same club but they were on opposite teams in the match. Rooney's stamp got him sent off. Phildav76 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though that may be correct, there still has to be a NPOV. Kingjeff 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a full page protection? It's obvious that it'll take a few days fr the England fans to calm down in Wikipedia. Kingjeff 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Its ludicrous that this article barely makes mention of his notoriety as a play-actor. I am not an English or French fan, but some of the things he did in Portugal's games against those teams were absolutely disgusting. There is no doubt that he is extremely talented, as I believe the article makes clear. But his penchant for theatrics definitely warrants its own section. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a hagiography. --Pbasu 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't actually read the whole article. Phildav76 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ummm

some bitter brit "tweaked" the entry. now it sucks.

What aspect do you find "tweaked" -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 18:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That would have been a bitter English person, probably not a Scot or other. Jooler 19:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks accurate. Bang bang you're dead.

All vandalism has been reverted/removed.--Andeh 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the part about how Ricardo Carvalho made no appeal for a foul is unneccesary and misleading. I would think that Carvalho was not making an appeal for a foul because he was in agony over having his genitals stepped on. If you look at any replay footage of the incident he is clearly writhing on the ground, so no wonder he is not appealing for a foul. How it is worded now seems to imply that Ronaldo's call for a foul was unwarranted. --PIngp0NG 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize the referee did not see the foul to begin with.? Bang Bang you're dead 03:26, 2 July 2006

Basically, Rooney accidentally trod on the guys crotch when he was getting up. The referree didn' see this. Ronaldo runs over and looks like he starts going "Rooney deliberately did this, he's just foulled him! Rarrghh!" Rooney, being an angry short, gets pissed and starts pushing Ronaldo "What the f*ck yo talking about?" etc. The referree thinks this warrants being sent off. Whatever. Gah. By that point, I just wanted Rooney to lamp the bastard. He was already on red, might as well have. (195.92.168.169 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Swearing is very insulting and insults is a red card offence. Kingjeff 05:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

i watched the portugal vs. england game and it seemed to me that the referee did see that Rooney did step on Carvalho because in the replay , I saw the referee watching in the background. I also read that the referee was somewhat glad to be rid on rooney because Rooney was supposedly bothering him. So i feel that Ronaldo hardly contributed to the red card.

speaking of insults as a red card offence, why didn't italy get a red card in the final match against france? zidane got one, because of what that italian player (forgot his name) said.

Unbelievable

I cannot believe the vandalism on his page! I watched the entire three hours of the England v. Portugal match and thought it was really good. I'm neither English nor Portugese, yet I was really hoping for England to win. I also love Portugal, so I was okay with either one, really. Ronaldo has always been one of my favorite players and definitely my favorite from Portugal. As much as I love the English team, I wouldn't blame their loss on Ronaldo. Robinson could have saved a few shots, etc. I didn't think it would become such a big deal. I really hope all of this calms down and Ronaldo will be able to return to Manchester United without being booed out of the stadium or having things thrown at him. The one thing that really gets me was the person who put his death day as tomorrow. That's just cruel and wrong...--KaitlynBelle 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I wrote this shortly after the said match, but it seems the person below me deleted my entry. That is also unbelievable...geez.

Sour Grapes, anyone?

Although Ronaldo has gone back to manchester United, i wouldn't have blamed him if he left because after England lost the game, his house was vandalized by thugs. England needs to seriously get over themselves. I bet you that Rooney only wanted Ronaldo to put all the criticism behind him because Ronaldo is one of Uniteds best players, diving or no.

PS: Proof that ronaldo's home was vandalized is right here: http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=4005 s2j4u

England lost a football match because they couldn't take decent penalties. They were up against Ricardo, who is one of the best goalkeepers in the World! Get over it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.139.211 (talk • contribs) Its not sour grapes to not want cheaters to win I for one will "vandalize" this article with the truth of CRs poor sportsmanship till my dying breath :p Yeah, and conveniently forget Owen's dive in the last world cup (cheating), or Gerrard's dive the other week in a friendly (cheating), or the fact that Rooney just can't behave. hedpeguyuk 2 July 2006, 10:30 (UTC)

You English need to get over it. Its a game. You lost. You barely beat T&T and Paraguay, easy teams. Don't blame Ronaldo for your misfortunes. Blame it on poor play and you poor formation.

It won't be vandalism if you can find a credible source. Kingjeff 10:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any sour grapes, Cristiano Ronaldo/Portugal was hunting to get Rooney/ any other English player sent off, its just the way european football has evolved over the last few years... But i do think it relevent to the artical to mention Ronaldo's Penchent to diving....

Why aren't we allowed to be upset, no-ones blaming ronaldo, its just he cheated. Football is one of the most important things to england. So you can shut up. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Ronaldo cheated. He was naturally reacting to a foul on his team-mate the same as anyone would. Phildav76 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronadlo did what he did, its fact, its clearly seen on TV. its definately notable. therefore it is right to be on WP. pretending the event never happened (as people were trying to delete my cited edits!) is what is bias and NPOV. there are citiations. he is well known for diving also, which owen and gerrard are not (whats the point of diving in a friendly?). besides, these are matters for their respective pages. Rooney as u say is known for a short temper... "Rooney is also known for his hot temper and ill-discipline on the pitch." - and its on his wikipedia page! also, whilst pretty much everyone who edits such pages clearly has an opinion / POV, what i wrote was NPOV. and yes there was no statement saying that england lost because of ronaldo's actions, however true-- or untrue-- that may be.Bungalowbill 13:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to put it in, find a credible source and they can't take it out. Kingjeff 13:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bungalowbill, i re-added what you wrote (with a bit of modification) and put credible sources (from Reuters) for the wink and headbutt incidents, those points can't be deleted now. I agree with you that he is well known in the premiership for his diving but unless sources can be found to back this up then it shouldn't be added. Modulus86 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, i realised u added it back, thanks.. but it should have never been deleted in the first place. some of it may have not be cited, but millions of people accross the world saw it; its not something that was disputable. if it came accross POV, then make it NPOV. anyway, all is well now. my second edit did actually have citations (including those from reuters) which covered everything- just where they were repeats i didn't think it was essential to place a copy of each one in every sentence. [1]

Yeah Bungalowbill, there is no point in diving in a friendly so why did Gerrard do it? Whether players are known for it or not it of no importance. If they dive, even the once, they are cheats. It also annoys me that some people (esp. Ian Wright) justified Gerrard's cheating as it led to a goal, and then condemn Ronaldo. It's hypocritical. I know Rooney's article mentions his temper and that's only fair. However, my point was that it was unfair to "vandalise" due to the player's "poor sportsmanship" till one's "dying breath". Of course a cited claim about his actions in the match should be included (pref. A video clip!), his actions were despicable. But such talk shouldn't be excessive (just as Rooney's article will not be full of claims about him wrecking England's WC run - even though it was his fouls/push/possible language that led to the sending off - his own fault). hedpeguyuk 2 July 2006, 18:10 (UTC)

Here is a recent example, and this comes from a registered user. "CRISTIANO RONALDO IS A CHEATING BASTARD WHO DESTROYED ENGLAND'S CHANCES OF WINNING THE 2006 FIFA WORLD CUP HE ALONG WITH RICARDO CARVALHO". Now this was rightly reverted, but can people please stop it. I can't rememver Diego Simeone getting this sort of treatment after helping to get Beckham sent off with his exaggeration in 1998. Beckham's kick (or flick) was petulant) but Simeone's "fall" to the floor was even worse. And who got the death threats? hedpeguyuk 2 July 2006, 18:17 (UTC)

That because Beckham intentionally Kicked Simeone!!!

"Sour grapes" is a fable of a fox who couldn't reach some grapes too high on the vine and said they were probably sour anyway. No one has said the WC is not worth winning (though it is only a children's game...); they have said CR behaved in a disgraceful way. That is true. Many other players have behaved similarly in this WC - that is disgraceful too. If Portugal had won sportingly, I would have wanted them to win, now I want France to win - Italy cheated against Australia (penalty) and Germany killed lots of innocent Jewish people. Pliny 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says "Despite Portugal winning, Ronaldo was widely critcised for his gamesmanship by the English Press.". Surely the English press would not have bothered criticising him quite so much if England has won, therefore the first words should be "Because of", not "Despite".

If England had won, they would still have been without Rooney for the semi-final.Pliny 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronaldo interview citation

just to let anyone know who is feeling delete-happy today, here is the citation for Ronaldo's interview in which he repeatedly claims Rooney is his friend and that he didn't want to get him sent off. but as the only version i can find has Ronaldo - Cheating Scum written over the full duration, i didn't think it was so wise to place it in the main article. love how when asked about if rooney will bounce back he starts talking about the next round with a big smirk on his face lol.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungalowbill (talk • contribs)

Very POV

This line 'was involved in a challenge with Portuguese defender Ricardo Carvalho, who made no appeal for a foul, ' I see as very biased. It's technically correct that Carvalho made no appeal for a foul however it might have been a tad difficult to do so when he was writing on the floor in apparent agony at the time. I propose that the words 'who made no appeal for a foul' be removed. Adam777 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Would it be appropriate to add the nickname "Destroyer of English Football" as a nickname? It sounds a little off, but I've heard at least 3 different TV personalities refer to him as such, and to be frank, it's true (btw, I am from Canada, so feel free to consider my suggestion unbiased). Jaskaramdeep 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. that would probably be one. i put the thing about him not being able to return to England(see right above this). i think he is going to get booed out of the country.

Well, some atheletes have ever been the same, at least in a paticular city, after certain events. Kingjeff 02:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they were to blame or not. This is IMO silly bitchery for the fact that the overpriced(?) English players simply can't handle penalties. - G3, 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be added. Wayne Rooney is a "destroyer of English football" as much as Ronaldo. As I've already said, people seem to ignore this. Throughout the tournament players have been trying to get opposing players booked or sent off. It certainly doesn't make it right but it shows that Ronaldo isn't alone (a sad fact) I can only remember hearing mild condemnation from English/British commentators/pundits when it was other players who were trying to get others booked, especially in non-England games. Rooney still shouldn't have done what he did, and Erikkson's poor player choice and tactics were just as much to blame. Can we please drop it! Also, G3 is right. England played better with 10 men, but just like 1990, 1996, 1998, 2004 and now 2006 they don't have the nerve when it comes to penalties. hedpeguyuk, 9:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Merche

As of spring/summer of 2006 there's seams to be some kind of relationship between both. She has so far, openly supported him at the world cup in Germany. If it is just friendship or something more, time will tell, as both haven't step forward to announce some kind of official relationship. --Netshark 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What CR says

http://worldcup.sportinglife.com/football/teams/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/06/07/03/manual_091057.html&TEAMHD=england

"Between me and Rooney, there is absolutely no problem.

"I reiterate, no problem.

"At the end of the game, we sent each other some text messages and also today. Between the two of us everything has been cleared.

"He wished me the best of luck in the World Cup. He told me we had a great team and that if we continued to play like this, we would go far.

"He wasn't angry with me and moreover, he told me to completely ignore what the English press has said, that all they wanted was to create confusion but we are already used to that."

Clean Up Help Requested

The following got removed by a vandal. I'd like to reiterate my clean up request. Vickser 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• If someone is feeling bold and has a bit of time on their hands, I think it would definitely be worth going through this article and just cleaning up the style. There's a lot of repitition, tense changing, and a bunch of unwieldy sentences. I feel I'm probably too involved, biased and new to do a proper job of it, but a style clean up would be greatly appreciated. Vickser 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Notes

I've noticed someone had citation notes over the "boo-ed during the match" and "best player for portugal" parts in the description of the semifinal agaisnt France. Articles 16 and 18 say that Ronaldo was booed, and 17 and 18 say he was considered the best portugese player on the pitch. These articles are cited after the diving sentence. Since it would be silly to repeat the citations several times in as many sentences and since it doesn't make sense to call into question the validity of fact established by cited articles, I'm taking those particular citation notices down. I would, of course, be happy to discuss the issue if people believe they are still needed. Vickser 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There was another over the theory that the vote had been hijacked by english supporters despite the fact that a BBC sport article to that effect was cited at the end of the sentence. I switched it to "BBC Sport reported . . ." and removed the . I'm not sure who did what, but if you're calling facts into question, please check the references listed. Likewise, if you're adding sources, please take the care to take out the notes questioning cited facts. Thanks! Vickser 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some of the "who" tags and to be honest, I should have explained myself better. The article has a lot of unsourced information and weasel words, and I should've done a better job of discussing them.

It's more a matter of style issue than whether or not there is a citation. I (and Wikipedia policies) have a problem with phrases like "generally considered" and "widely", because they aren't encyclopedic and can introduce POV without actually providing substantive information. And I don't consider "Several ____ reported" to be particularly informative. Several newspaper wrote something, but so what? Besides the fact that multiple papers can use the same AP or Reuters report and run the same story, it doesn't give a reason why anyone should care - if you're citing a source that specifically says that several newspapers said _____, then that's fine. But otherwise, it's better to have one just reliable source that quotes a notable person saying "Cristiano Ronaldo is ____" rather than to list multiple opinion columns that say the same thing.

Looking back, I should've made my point better and I apologize. Finally, please use the more complete Template:Cite news format for citing sources. Thanks. Ytny 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

how reliable is ronaldoattack.com?

I notice that some of the biographical info is attributed to ronaldoattack.com. Although it bills it self as "an Unofficial Cristiano Ronaldo Fansite", it looks fairly professional and complete for a fansite. That said, the site doesn't cite any source in the biography section and it doesn't appear to comply with WP:RS. Can anyone verify the credibility of the site? Or where its sources were, so we can cite them instead of a fansite? Thanks. Ytny 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The biography section on the fansite does cite it's source (at the end of the article). It says: "This article is extracted from United Magazine Issue 146 October 2004, Edited by Ronaldo Attack." If you want to source that, go ahead, but I think that the article can't be edited right now. Ealgian

Thanks. I only looked in the first two pages and the profile. Should have gone to the last page, duh. Ytny 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier I moved a blog "reference" (JeroenArendsen.nl) to the external links section, which Ytny deleted shortly after. I did not just delete it myself because it contains some video content that could conceivably be relevant. Is this content available anywhere else that would meet WP:RS? Gimmetrow 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The videos in the link were YouTube videos that you can link to directly, so there's no need to link to the blog post. Now,the first video's already linked already and the potential relevance of the second video is based completely on a non-notable blogger's interpretation of a video. If anyone more credible comes up with the same opinion or the opinion turns out to be universal, I think it belongs, but otherwise, I think it fails WP:RS. Ytny 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Extrernal link is down

• Official Manchester United profile

invalid Link

http://www.manutd.com/bio/bio.sps?iBiographyID=91960

tabloid rumors?

Imogen Thomas told a tabloid magazine that she and Cristiano had a sexual fling [2]. Nursery nurse Julie Hawkins has also made such claims [3] but Ronaldo has refused to comment.

Removed the above from the article, since these seem to be tabloid rumors... Are the Sunday Mirror and The People good enough sources for a bio article? Phelan 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)