Talk:Bicycle kick - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 31 August 2008 (→Misinformation?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:29, 31 August 2008 by MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) (→Misinformation?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Football Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has its differences (especially in the English Misplaced Pages), 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, but one of the major reasons comes due to Mexican cuisine." 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."--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...

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's page:

"In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Misplaced Pages’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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 refernce 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, and a football foundation that is older than Argentina's 1867 Buenos Aires Football Club and Chile's first recorded football club, Santiago Wanderers, in August 15, 1892. 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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policy which is outlined in Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

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)

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)

'Un Verso Para El Fútbol, con Bautizo Universal'
http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/BibVirtual/Tesis/Human/Alvarez_E_T/Cap2.htm
http://html.rincondelvago.com/futbol-chileno.html
http://www.chile.com/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=765

Categories: