Talk:Zinedine Zidane/Archive 3

message: Has there been any mention of criminal charges for Zidane's assault on Materazzi?  Or does law not apply to athletes on the field?
Re: The law always applies. There was a case a few years back where a hockey player in the USA attacked another player on the ice and was charged with assault.  However, I have not yet heard about possible charges against Zidane.  Manus Celer Dei 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hockey player was from Canada, not the USA.  Todd Bertuzzi got his revenge on Steve Moore for a knee-on-knee collision with his teammate Markus Naslund.  Bertuzzi jumped on Moore from behind, and broke 3(?} vertebre in his neck, and caused severe nerve damage.  Moore has not played in the NHL since, but Bertuzzi has basically gotten off scot free.  He has community service. 68.149.136.136 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Charges? 

message: I removed this from the article:
:Asked if Materazzi had called him "the son of a terrorist whore" (referring to an analysis by deaf forensic lip reader Jessica Rees), Zidane replied: "Ben oui" (Well, yes)
The reasons are:
1) A source is not provided. The primary source would be Le Monde, but (as someone noticed at the end of section "Zidane says insults were not of racist nature") they have removed this sentence from their article (still accessible)... All the other newspapers were citing Le Monde.
2) This contradicts Zidane's denial of racist insults, which is reported by Le Parisien (http://www.leparisien.com/home/sports/mondial2006/article.htm?articleid=261030842), by several italian newspapers, and can be heard clearly in his interview with TF1.
F4810 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a source for that quote, it's still there (footnote 29: ). But I agree it's a bit suspect. I watched both the Canal+ interview and the TF1 interview and I didn't hear that question. David Sneek 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right. Neither interview has the phrase quoted in Le Monde. What CAN be clearly heard is Zidane's denial of the racist comments, and I'm going to update the article to reflect that. If anyone can find either video or independent evidence of his agreeing his mother was called a terrorist whore (which I can't imagine he WOULDN'T consider racist, but that's irrelevent - I'm quoting his "no" to racism response, not saying he said "My mother has not been called a terrorist "whore"), it can be added, but as it stands there's one newspaper and a bunch of people who copied from it, despite the fact that the interview video it's purported to be in doesn't contain it.  Dead men's bells 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's speculation at this point. We don't know if he said it wasn't racist because a) he didn't interpret terrorist as racist or b) because terrorist just wasn't said. Zidane may have reacted to his mother being called a whore and his sister a prostitute. Not cool things to do, obviously, but the terrorist is the key word because it's what will make a difference between a shameful offense and a punishable violation of non-discrimination policies. Hopefully Zidane will clear this up during the FIFA hearings.Dead men's bells 05:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Ben, oui" answer 

message: Despite the controversial nature of the headbutt, it's rapidly become something of an internet meme, sporting facebook groups, myspace groups, chatroom discussions, and scores of youtube and google video edits and postings.  I've added a section that mentions it, and will leave development of it to others.
I've also added an external link to the youtube search for "Zidane".
Almondwine 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, but references needed. Kahkonen 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We could add a little regarding the headbutt causing quite a reaction on the net but we need some good references. here's a good list of news sites you may want to use.--Andeh 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's good too, but I moved it to trivia and slightly rephrased it (also added those insane flash games, but no links). Zakaria5000 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: YTMND should be mentioned as well, as the gif featured on this page was first shown on that site. It had many tens of thousands of hits before the final even ended. Frinkahedr0n 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet meme 

message: Are there anywhere statistics, how many cards Zidane (or any other player) has got? Zidane, 14 reds, but how many yellows? Kahkonen 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many cards? 

message: There seems to be rather a lot of criticism of Zidane in this article. It may be interesting to delve into what prompted him to do the headbutt. Wallie 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes about five seconds after someone claimed it wasn't critical ENOUGH. The article DOES delve into what the headbutt is believed to be the result of - read it closer. Anything more is speculation by at least five different lipreaders who independently viewed a video (with no affiliation to FIFA) and can't come up with a consensus. There's no point to clogging the article with "Jessica said this, while Bob said that, and Lonny said this." Materazzi's comments are represented. Zidane's entire INTERVIEW is represented. FIFA is conducting an investigation and are actually QUESTIONING the players, unlike the people examining videos for newspapers. What more can you possibly want? Dead men's bells 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little about the intentions behind the Italian provocation. Was this initiated by Materazzi or was this part of the overall strategy. Did other Italians also provoke the incident. What about the involvement of the referees? Did they know what was going on? This is very important. If it was just Materazzi, then the incident is relatively minor. If it is part of an overalll strategy, this is another matter. Please don't say this is speculation, and rationale is one of the central parts of any  encyclopedia. Wallie 06:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That borders along the lines of a conspiracy theory. It IS speculation because you have nothing to support it. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Italians secretly plotted to provoke him? What evidence do you have to support that the referees were involved? An encyclopedia is the place for accurate recount of established facts and citations. It's not the place for baseless speculation. If it were, the article might as well have things like "Maybe Zidane insulted Materazzi's mother first" and "The referee might have had a grudge against Zidane" or "Perhaps Materazzi ran his chest into Zidane's head." Completely absurd. All of the content in the encyclopedia is established by notable newspapers, interviews and statements. Can you really say the same exists for some wide-reaching conspiracy? FIFA clearly doesn't think so.Dead men's bells 07:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. As the "notable newspapers" you mention would back up what you say, and they plus FIFA would agree that what I say is "completely absurd". However many people are upset at what transpired, and there is another side to the story, not just FIFA/The Italians/Materazzi's/your side. Wallie 11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't "my side" and I resent your implication that you know what my position on this is. This has nothing to do with sides. You should note that no one has tried to insert ANY Italian newspaper's remarks on this matter into this article, despite the fact that they are as valid as France's. Why? Because it's a matter of balance. 6,000 citations of how Italy's pissed off would do nothing to help the article, and they've claimed all sorts of things without cause (like Zidane purposefully trying to bow out of the game to make himself a martyr and other bizarre allegations that I'm sure you would be upset over if they were included). I really don't understand where your "bias" claim is coming from; The French newspapers are quoted in their distress, and then one is mentioned to have apologized. Chirac has praised him, albeit in saying his actions weren't acceptable. Algeria has sent a letter of support. The only "Italian" side is Materazzi's direct statements. How in the world did you somehow draw the conclusion that Zidane's being underrepresented here? This is a completely factual, very balanced article. I understand that people are upset about this on both sides, but that doesn't warrant rampant, unsupported speculation. If there is a legitimate reason to believe that the Italian team had a hand in planning the provocation of Zinedine Zidane, or that the referees collaborated to do so, by all means, insert that information with the same standard citations and references. I have yet to see any serious allegation of this, so until that time, it has no place in the article. If people being upset and speculating wildly was the only criteria, it would be an op/ed column and not an encyclopedia. Dead men's bells 12:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is your side. You seem to be very interested in reverting anything said which is critical to the Italians. Wallie 22:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A touch biased 

message: I cannot alter this page as I am new.  I did notice, however that the latest revision includes, "Zidane is often thought to the greatest player of his generation, one of the greatest French players of all time and also by some to be one of the greatest footballers of all time."
Such a comment seems to be a likely interjection of an individual point of view, but whether or not such is the case, it is clearly ungrammatical.OckRaz 12:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Revision

message: Can it be added maybe to the trivia section that Zidane has Thalassemia minor (hereditary disease affecting the blood, his version just makes him tired?)?  Its mentioned in the wiki article on Thalassemia, on Zidane's French wiki page, and apparently in this report
http://www.sportpro.it/doping/inchieste/periziajuve04.htm#Zidane
(I don't read Italian so I don't know what all is being discussed there). Barnetto 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, he's spoken out about it before... I'll try to find an interview or something of that nature. It really is amazing how some of these athletes have diseases causing fatigue and yet overcome it. More power to him. Dead men's bells 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! So the disease made him do it! Wahkeenah 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What made him do it can only ever be speculation. Otherwise we can only say "Zidane headbutted Materazzi. Reasons are not given, as any reason is speculative.". Good ideas for the article come from discussions. If we don't allow humor in the discussions, and just the teacher telling off the students type dialogue, it would become very negative and boring.  Wallie 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. Wahkeenah 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thalassemia 

message: Given it seems highly probable the headbutt incident will remain a controversial and large topic that we need to discuss in detail, should we start to consider spinning it off into a seperate article? This is the common practice when a section gets too large and becomes disproportianate from the whole article leading to inbalance. To be fair, perhaps the headbutt section deserves to be as large as it is now given that it is clearly a very significant part of Zidane's career but IMHO, it's fairly likely that the headbutt incident is going larger then it's relevance to Zidane and therefore deserving/needing its own article. N.B. This doesn't mean we don't discuss the headbutt under Zidane, instead, we summarise the info as appropriate and link to the main article. Nil Einne 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I was going to do it myself. As you have suggested it, please go ahead and create the new article. Thanks. Wallie 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there should be a seperate article for it as well. It is taking up way too much space in this one.--Sagacious 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we start to consider separating the section on the headbutt? 

message: Could someone search for another authentic link to Zidane receiving the Légion d'honneur in 1998. Most of the english language websites (even The Guardian) seem to have taken the information from wikipedia as most of those i have gone through state that he was awarded in 2004. However the link i myself have provided shows a picture from 1998 when he got it.Is there any other way to confirm it (though i suppose a picture speaks louder than words) but i still want someone to double check incase i'm mistaken.--Sagacious 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this work? Ytny 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I misunderstood your question. But I think Reuters is far more reliable than the Guardian. Fact checking is an oxymoron in the British press, it seems. Ytny 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not "the British press". It is a blog. Wallie 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting blog from? The Guardian link is a proper newspaper column, byline and all. Ytny 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fact gathering is an oxymoron in the British press". This is not a formal press article appearing in a printed newspaper. It is on the internet for discussion. Wallie 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, every article we cite is, including the ones you've added. Dead men's bells 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Légion d'honneur 

message: I counted over 15 entries for trivia, and that seems exactly what Wikipedia is not. I suggest cutting it down to four or five more important pieces of trivia (contradiction in terms, I know) and merging some of the more relevant stuff (i.e. Legion of Honor, internet meme) into the main article. Ytny 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Brought the number down to 7 and juggled around with Honours, Personal Life and Trivia. Look if something's missing. Zakaria5000 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Err..just a suggestion...instead of "chopping" the article down, why don't you just move the content that you removed from the trivia section into the sections you deem are appropriate...for eg. his being nominated for the Prince of Asturias Award or less importantly, the names of his siblings (this is just an example...the siblings names do not have to be added of course, though i do not see any harm in doing that as well :)). The Prince of Asturias Award, though, was of particular interest to me because his candidacy for it was announced after the headbutt incident. I know many people, including myself, come to Wikipedia to get as much information as possible about a particular subject and isn't that what an encyclopedia is for anyway? And though Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", adding information that might be of interest to a user and does not interfere with the flow of the article, does not necessarily have to be chopped out.--Sagacious 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My comments were not directed at you in particular.It was a simple suggestion for anyone who intended to go on a chopping spree to move the removed parts of trivia to the relevant place in the article. The trivia section was getting far too long and I don't disagree with you there. As for the hobbies, they were just an attempt in giving a personal insight into the man's life...no one said that they had to be extra-special to warrant an inclusion in the article so I don't see why that even has to be an issue.--Sagacious 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chop the trivia section? 

message: "German news magazine Der Spiegel speculated that FIFA may impose harsh sanctions on Materazzi and/or the Italian team (including disqualification) if Materazzi's remarks are proven to have been discriminatory or contemptuous. [46]"
As the above states, this is speculation, which means it shouldn't be on this page. I think we can all wait three days to find out the conclusion. I tried finding other sources that carried the same claims as Der Spiegel and have come up dry. If ESPNsoccernet doesn't have football news of this magnitude then I don't think it's actually football news.  -Nicklob 15:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One major difference is that Materazzi himself is on record as having addressed (and denied) the speculation as to whether his comments were racist.  Thus, it's part of the story, not just speculation by someone uninvolved in the matter.  Neither FIFA, the French or Italian teams, or either Zidane or Materazzi have even addressed Der Spiegel's speculation.--DaveOinSF 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: this article is massively biast towards zidane in his actions in the world cup final.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtatour (talk • contribs) 
:Please explain how you view the segment as biased.  I just read the section and I see his explanation as to why he did it, Matarazzi's comments on what he said, the claim that both denying it was racist talk, and then numerous examples of people who celebrated him as an athlete but did not condone his actions.  If anything, we don't have quotes from people saying Matarazzi deserved it, so I don't see how this is biased in his favour. - BalthCat 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They may have been reacting to the earlier version, which had quite a bit of speculation/focus on possible racism, though I can't sure. Whatever the case, I really do think it is a bit more balanced now, though I think it still needs to be trimmed down (we need to decide what reactions are most important to keep, because that section is far too long). Dead men's bells 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was a mere 50 minutes after theirs, but it's possible.  - BalthCat 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  biast 

message: Zidane no longer redirects here. Looking at it, there's a minor edit war going on. Perhaps we need to reach a consensus on whether Zidane redirects here or the disambig (actually IMHO rather then redirecting to the disambig it should become the disambig). Nil Einne 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible somebody meant something else when they searched Zidane, but this is far and away the most likely result. I would think it would be most plausible that Zidane would redirect here and that there'd be a "this page refers to the football player" bla bla, see the disambig if you meant something else. Dead men's bells 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zidane