Talk:Zinedine Zidane/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Disproportionate attention

Perhaps the headbutting incident at the 2006 World Cup is all some people would like to remember about Zidane, but that is far from summing up the totality of this comparitively great soccer athlete. There is an entire section in this article dedicated to the 2006 World Cup and the Materazzi confrontation, but little is written here about the 1998 World Cup - a MAJOR achievement for French Soccer and of course Zidane. That at least deserves a section.

Please...don't allow political sentiments or generalized opinions towards other cultures to cloud objectivity.

Would it be fair for a European sportswriter to compose an article about Mike Tysons career with extreme focus on the biting of Holyfield's ear??!! Hardly.

SMP

Canal+ Interview

Is anyone watching? What did he say? I bet he didn't get into details of Materazzi's insult.--216.75.93.110 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could not watch the interview. Internet news are very imprecise on Zidane's words. Some say insults to "mother and sister", others to "family" others to his "women". It would be useful to have on Wikipedia the exact transcript of Zidane's words, to match with Ma treazzi's statements that he did not mention Zidane's mother. Apparently Zidane did not say what insults he received.

He said he repeatedly insulted his mother and sister, that he is a man and does not regret his actions but that he regrets it for the millions watching and especially for the teachers etc...

Good for Zidane! --83.45.170.143 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched the interview. Zidane did not want to say what insults he received, even pressed by the interviewer. The racist hypothesis is apparently out. It is true that Zidane mentions his mother and sister, but he does not really clarify. I guess we won't know nuch more from the two contendants. Normally plenty of insults are heard during a football match. Zidane does not suggest why Materazzi's words were so unusual.

Did he really mention his mother and sister explicitly? According to the article about the interview in L'equipe (http://lequipe.fr/Football/20060712_203855Dev.html) he answers a question regarding if it was about his mother and sister. As I understand it, it is possible that it was about his sister and not his mother. --Battra 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PARIS (AP) -- Zinedine Zidane has affirmed yesterday evening that the Italian defender Marco Materazzi had insulted his mother and his sister during the World Cup final that was lost by les bleus Sunday evening. Though he apologized ["Je m'excuse"], he said on Canal+ that nevertheless he could "not regret" his action. (...) Materazzi had said "very personel things" about "my mother, my sister", Zidane explained. There were "words that were very hard and that he repeated several times", words "sometimes harder than actions (...) that touched the deepest part of me." "I would have preferred to take a right on the face over hearing that," the former captain of the French team added. "It was an action that was not excusable and I wish to apologise above all to the children who may have watched it" ... (Feel free to improve my hasty translation) David Sneek 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Later Zidane told TF1 that Materazzi did not make racist statements. I guess this makes the whole story less interesting than the media expected ...

Can we either get a cite on him telling TF1 that it wasn't racist or at least mention in the article that Zidane did not say if the remarks were racist or not? Dead men's bells 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I got the news from an internet newspaper, claiming that Zidane did tell TF1 that there was no racist statement. I cannot quote TF1 directly right now. As soon as I get a sound quotation it is mandatory to insert it in the article (but I cannot, because access is restricted). I will put it here and somebody else will insert it. My indirect quotation is from Corriere della Sera http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2006/07_Luglio/12/Zidane.shtml Orbifold 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Geneva Tribune has this description, which partially corroborates the Corerriere della Sera[1]:

A la question de savoir si les insultes étaient à caractère raciste, Zidane a répondu non. Mais il a refusé de dévoiler avec précision ce qu'avait dit Materazzi. Il a été interrogé pour savoir si la réalité «recoupait» ce qu'avaient rapporté les tabloïds anglais qui, s'appuyant sur des spécialistes en lecture labiale, ont accusé l'Italien d'avoir dit: «On sait tous que tu es le fils d'une pute terroriste.» Zidane a juste répondu: «Ben oui.»

Which I've translated as:

To the question of whether the insults were of racist character, Zidane answered no. But he refused to disclose precisely what Materazzi had said. He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane answered exactly "Yes."

So, according to the Swiss paper, in the TF1 interview, Zidane agreed that Materazzi said something along the lines of "you are the son of a terrorist whore" but he doesn't classify what was said as racist in character. The Italian paper reported only the part where Zidane says no. However, there are thousands of other papers that have cited the TF1 interview (not just the Canal+ interview) but none of them report either exchange. Maybe due to the ambiguity of everything that was said? In any case, any attempt for Wikipedia to do original reporting in this area would be inapproprate. --DaveOinSF 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you were still under the impression that this was said, it wasn't. You can watch the TF1 interview yourself. 67.169.111.72 02:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of nicknames- Zizou yes- but ZZ NO! anyone who speaks french can tell you what ZZ means in french.. :)

Zidane's Action Not Contemptuous?

"On July 12, 2006, it was reported that FIFA president Joseph Blatter had mentioned the possibility of Zidane being stripped of the Golden Ball award [38][39], while German news magazine Der Spiegel speculated that under the non-discrimination provision which FIFA adopted for its disciplinary code on 28 March 2006 [40] [41] [3], FIFA may ultimately impose harsh sanctions on Materazzi and/or the Italian team - up to and including disallowing Italy's team the World Cup victory - if Materazzi's remarks were proven to be discriminatory or contemptuous. This would possibly result in the World Cup Victory being conferred upon France as the runners-up in the tournament.[42]"

Any other sources that mention this possibilty somewhere? I haven't been able to find any that say FIFA is considering this. Also would the WC automaticaly go to France if Materazzi is found guilty of provoking Zidane? 15:24, 14 July 2006

Under FIFA rules, Zidanes action was contemptuous and if both teams penalized, Italy would remain victors.

• If Italy were to lose the World Cup because one of name-calling, it would confirm to us Americans that soccer is not played by "real men". The fact they use penalty kicks to decide a championship already raises that suspicion. The NBA doesn't decide tied 7th games by holding a free-throw shooting contest, for example. Wahkeenah 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is all idle speculation. The whole stink about Italy being disqualified stemmed from an extremely loose interpretation of a pretty vaguely worded rule (in my opinion anyway) by a single journalist from Germany. Every other media source that I have seen has made absolutely no mention of such sanctions. In fact, no one that I have read has really speculated on possible punishments to Materazzi at all. If anyone has read anything to the contrary, feel free to correct me. This being an encyclopedia and not a Tabloid newspaper, I think all mention of posssible punishments to either player should be stripped and it should just be written that the incident is under investigation by FIFA (which is the only absolute fact available) and that FIFA will give their ruling on July 20.

Yes, the article itself should stick to what's known or is general consensus. Wahkeenah 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's a lot of speculation in that part of the article. I've cut-out the whole Golden Ball/Title stripping portion: I think we can all wait three days to find out the real answers from FIFA before speculating on what might happen.

I also have a bit of an issue with this sentence "A prevalent claim was that Materazzi had called Zidane "the son of a terrorist whore"." If the investigation were to conclude that Materazzi said the former, then it should remain on this page. However, if the investigation finds he didn't say that, then it should be removed. -Nicklob 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Charges?

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)

Normally sport players are committed not to go to ordinary courts to decide about episodes of a match, because the agonistic tension can provoke behaviors that the same persons would never show in ordinary life. This both for Materazzi's words and Zidane's reaction. More serious are the words or acts that follow the match or are not directly related with a match. Those should also be dealt with by the FIFA and other sport authorities, without involvment by ordinary courts, but it is less unfrequent to hear of footbal teams going to court. Normally a team excluded from some competition because of his budget goes to court to be admitted. Orbifold 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

but didnt marty mcsorley get charged for an on ice incident a few years back maybe Manus Celer Dei was talking about that?

heres the info on mcsorley, and mcsorley was a canadian playing in the states

On February 21, 2000, McSorley, playing for Boston Bruins, swung his stick and hit Donald Brashear in the head with seconds left in the Bruins-Vancouver Canucks game. Brashear lost consciousness and suffered a Grade 3 concussion. McSorley was suspended for 1 year, and the incident hurt the game's reputation. On October 4, 2000, a jury found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon for his attack on Brashear. He was sentenced to 18 months probation. The trial was the first for an on-ice attack by an NHL player since 1988. McSorley attempted a comeback, but never played another NHL game.

Zidane says insults were not of racist nature

Regarding the request for a citation (see end of section Canal+ interview), I couldn't find something written to quote, but if you watch the interview on the TF1 website (http://www.eurosport.fr/football/coupedumonde/2006/sport_sto924766.shtml) at about 2 mins. 30 secs. you'll hear this (sorry for not writing accents, but my keybord doesn't have them):

INTERVIEWER: "... et quand vous dites 'des paroles tres graves', est-ce que vous pouvez dire si elles sont d'ordre raciste, ..."

ZIDANE: "non..."

INTERVIEWER: "... si elles sont d'ordre familiale... "

ZIDANE: "... oui c'est familiale... "

Which translates into (god, how hard!):

INTERVIEWER: "... and when you say 'very serious words', could you say if they are of racist nature, ..."

ZIDANE: "no..."

INTERVIEWER: "... if they are of domestic nature... "

ZIDANE: "... yes, domestic... "

131.111.225.73 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

...and for anyone (who understands french and is) interested in the video here it is at youtube. Darn I dont understand French. --Oblivious 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a different video. Note that Zidane gave two different interviews, one to Canal + and one to TF1. 193.62.198.107 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason the page can't be updated to reflect that Zidane categorically said they were NOT racist? Is there a problem with citing video interviews? 67.169.111.72 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this article says he said no when asked? Is that sufficient? http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/toute_l_info_test/sports/zidane__13_07_.html Dead men's bells 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My translation of that article's pertinent paragraph:

To the question of whether the insults were of racist character, Zidane answered no. But he refused to disclose precisely what Materazzi had said. He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane answered exactly "Yes." --DaveOinSF 04:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, is he saying that's what was said? If so, that would be a racist remark... Maybe this is why the English articles have yet to report it, it seems like a conflict. Dead men's bells 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

so should it be included on the page that he said they weren't racist? because now it seems a bit up in the air.

I'm inclined to go that way, yes. I can understand that Zidane doesn't want to repeat it exactly, but I'm a bit peeved at these interviewers! The first interview didn't even ask if there was racism involved and the second is unclear. I hope he gives an interview to someone international who'll focus on the question of racism, because as bad as insults about mothers/sisters may be, they don't usually warrant sanctions. Racist remarks, however, would. Dead men's bells 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. The answer "no" was clear. If it is not mentioned the reader believes that there is still room for speculation about the racist content, which is not the case. Read here today's Corriere's published article who repeats the "no" [2] Orbifold 06:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is a full representation of what Zidane said.--DaveOinSF 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While it does appear Zidane has said no, could someone who understands French read the whole thing and confirm that Zidane actually denied they were of a racist nature. Looking at the English translation, it's a bit ambigious. Zidane is asked whether he COULD say if they were of a racist nature and he replied no. This could either mean they weren't of a racist nature of he is not going to say whether they were of a racist nature. Probably it's just an unfortunate wording of the English translation and most media appear to have quoted him as denying they were of a racist nature and Zidane does not appear to have attempted to correct these claims but we need to be sure before we make such claims. Nil Einne 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. At the moment, the article doesn't directly reference the alleged racist remarks other than to say "ranging from racist remarks" yada yada yada. Until Zidane clears this up or English media outlets report this, I think any further mention of racist remarks whatsoever should be avoided. It's too confusing at the moment. So my vote is for not adding the "no," but also keeping the article without the terrorist comments until they're confirmed/denied clearly. Dead men's bells 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful about this "most media" decription. Almost no media have reported it at all. The English translation above was my own from the French in the Geneva Tribune. If you have found any English language media (or any other) source that makes the same claims, then please post it. I have not found one. We are basing this entire discussion on 1) an Italian report in the Corriere della Sera, 2)a French-language report in a Swiss paper (Geneva Tribune), and 3) one Wikipedia user's interpretation of a small portion of the TF1 interview video. There are hundreds of English language press reports which discuss the TF1 interview, none of which included a statement that Zidane categorically denied that Materazzi's taunts included racist or terrorist language, and most of which stick with the line that he didn't even discuss it in the Canal+ interview. I'm confused why that is.--DaveOinSF 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • The psychology of the individual determines what they understand, this is basic psychology. Zidane understood and was angered not by the “Terrorist remark” but rather that it pertained to his “mother” and family. It seems that many of the comments here are delving more into what exactly was stated by Materazzi (a very good thing to find out) rather then what it was in Materazzi’s cursing angered Zidane. From Zidanes interview it is clear that he did not head-butt Materazzi do to a racist comment, rather it was do to a reaction to having his mother and other family members verbally abused. That is clearly why he understood the cursing to be about family, rather then race. --by BB--

Other sources confirming Zidane's denial of racist insults:

from Le Parisien:

Avant l'émission, le journaliste [M. Denisot] interroge Zidane sur les insultes proférées par Materazzi. « Il m'a assuré que ce n'était pas raciste. Mais il n'a pas voulu me donner les mots exacts employés par l'Italien. Simplement que ça concernait sa mère et sa soeur. On peut deviner la suite... »

http://www.leparisien.com/home/sports/mondial2006/article.htm?articleid=261030842

from Il Corriere:

Gli insulti comunque, ha specificato l'ex capitano della Francia, non erano d'ordine razzista (una puntualizzazione che spazza via l'ipotesi, piuttosto remota, che la Fifa potesse privare l'Italia del titolo mondiale sulla base del regolamento che vieta comportamenti di questo genere).

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2006/07_Luglio/12/Zidane.shtml

F4810 11:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My statements are confirmed also by a French user on the French Wikipedia Talk page about Zinedine Zidane [3], who writes "L'article du Monde (dont le lien figure sur l'article de Zidane) semble dire que Zidane confirme la version des propos racistes soutenue par de nombreux Tabloids anglais. Or hier Zidane a nié les insultes racistes (en particulier durant l'interview de TF1 ou Claire Chazal lui a directement posé la question). Je pense donc qu'il faudrait supprimer cet article du Monde et le remplacer par un autre qui ne déforme pas la réalité." Therefore I suggest that a statement on this important fact be inserted. I think it is not fair to ignore this important interview in the English page. Orbifold 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This:

He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane just answered "Well, yes."

has been removed from the article appearing on Le Monde, which was probably also the source for the Swiss newspaper. 193.62.198.148 10:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul needed.

Alright, now that Zidane and Materazzi have publically spoken about the incident, I think it does need to be edited down. Aside from a passing mention that there was initially some rumor about racist remarks, I don't think there needs to be anything else on that front (i.e. the word 'terrorist' anywhere) because Zidane's categorically denied it. Can someone reduce it to reflect Zidane and Materazzi's current positions and get rid of all the speculation? Dead men's bells 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reduced it somewhat and removed the earlier claims coming from newspapers. Zakaria5000 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it is fair to leave the racist matter like that. It should at least be mentioned that Zidane's categorically denied it. I think that this is crucial information to avoid speculation. Just letting the matter fall down is not sufficient. Orbifold 06:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Having just heard that Zidane had spoken, I checked out wiki to get an idea of what Zidane had said. I assumed that Materazzi probably had said that his mother (and perhaps sister) were terrorists whores. However if Zidane has categorically denied that the comments were racist in nature, this clearly needs to be mentioned since A LOT of people would have heard about the terrorist allegations and the article as it stands is likely to lead many, like me, to assume that's still likely the case. Nil Einne 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Any citation that the interview in which Zidane says "no" to whether the insult was racist in character would also have to include that he did not dispute the English tabloids' lipreaders versions. This includes the terrorist whores statements.--DaveOinSF 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have watched the TF1 movie again. There is no exchange like the one claimed by DaveOinSF and Tribune de Geneve. The claims " He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane just answered "Yes." " does not correspond to the truth in TF1 video. The TF1 video does not contain anything like that. Anybody can watch the video and confirm. Asked if Materazzi's statements were racist, Zidane answers "no". There is no ambiguity in the TF1 video about that. No later comment invalidating that "no". Orbifold 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically "son of a terrorist whore" is NOT a racist statement, so both claims do not contradict each other.Krouic 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the words "son of a terrorist wore", or any alike, are not contained in any point of the TF1 video. The interview is long and after the first few minutes, where the matter is clarified definitively, it gets even boring.Orbifold 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is (or 'would have been') a very grave racist statement, as it refers at Zidane's algerian background

Does anyone know if anyone's ever been stripped of the Golden Ball award before? Dead men's bells 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that's a possibility? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Blatter has hinted at it. Of course he also has a big mouth but who knows? We would assume that Blatter was well aware of the terrorist allegations and this was before Zidane made his speech apparently denying that it was a racist slur. So we would assume Blatter was well aware it was potentially a racist slur and yet still thought that Zidane might deserve to have the Golden Ball award removed. Nil Einne 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're getting sidetracked. Zidane keeping or not keeping the award is a separate issue from Materazzi being sanctioned or not. There isn't a "two wrongs make a right" policy. They'll both be punished individually, but nobody at FIFA is even SUGGESTING that Zidane will get off lighter because Materazzi might have said something terrible. They would punish Materazzi in addition, not lessen Zidane's sentence. And it's been reported by many news outlets. They said they'll wait until the end of the investigation. His main point was that the media awards it, but FIFA has the right to take it away if they deem necessary.

I think what's getting lost in this is that Zidane committed a flagrant foul. Whether you personally think he was justified in doing so or not, it carries consequences, because it's against the rules regardless of provocation. The question of justification is a moral/ethical one, not a regulatory one. If he was provoked through racism, Materazzi will be punished, there's little doubt of that. But this idea that the seriousness of Materazzi's provocation will somehow lessen Zidane's punishment is boggling. Dead men's bells 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting that Zidane was justified in his actions. But while I don't know much about FIFA's inner workings, it would surprise me if they didn't consider the kind of provocation when deciding on a punishment for Zidane. Sure Zidane clearly broke the laws and deserves to be punished. But in most cases that I know of, including in a court of law and with other sporting bodies, the entire circumstances would be analysed when deciding punishment. Migating factors would be taken into account.

If for example Zidane were charged with assault, in most countries he would get a worse punishment/sentence if it were a repeat offense for example or if there was no real provocation. On the other hand, a lesser punishment/sentence would be handed out if it were a first time offense or if there was a extreme provocation, especially one of a racist or similar nature. Note that this is not because assault is justified when there is extreme provocation. Nor does it have anything to do with two wrongs making a right. Nor does it have much to do with the seriousness of Materazzi offense. It's more to do with the recognition that the seriousness of Zidane's offense depends on the circumstances in which it occured. I repeat I have no idea on FIFA's disciplinary procedures but again it would surprise me if they really don't consider the entire circumstances including migating factors when deciding punishment.

However I think you might have misunderstood my point. I was not arguing or offering an opinion on whether the specific migating factor should be enough to prevent Zidane losing his award. This isn't the place for such arguments. My point was that if FIFA does take migating factors into account when deciding punishment (and I appreciate that Dead men does not believe they do) then we can assume Blatter felt the migating factor of racist comments was not enough to prevent Zidane losing his award. Whatever people may feel in this matter is for other forums and other places. Nil Einne 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad link

The link under the headbutt photo entitled "Alternate video" needs fixing or removing. The You Tube message reads:

"This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner FIFA 2006 because its content was used without permission".

The "Ben, oui" answer

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)

Actually there is a source for that quote, it's still there (footnote 29: [4]). 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)

3) Ok, now I understand where that sentence was coming from. For those who can understand French, watch the Canal + interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSA_I-nFXOU at 5:10. The sentence from Le Monde (then fortunately removed) was a big distorsion of what has been said here. The interviewer says that the sentences reported on the English and Italian tabloids somehow agree with what Zidane just hinted at, insults regarding Zidane's mother and sister. Zidane comments this twice with "ben, oui", once even before 'agrees with' ("recoupe" in french) is said.

I personally think Zidane's denial of having received insults of racist nature should also be included. Alternatively all the story about who said what should be deleted... F4810 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• • • The psychology of the individual determines what they understand, this is basic psychology. Zidane understood and was angered not by the “Terrorist remark” but rather that it pertained to his “mother” and family. It seems that many of the comments here are delving more into what exactly was stated by Materazzi (a very good thing to find out) rather then what it was in Materazzi’s cursing that angered Zidane. From Zidanes interview it is clear that he did not head-butt Materazzi do to a racist comment, rather it was do to a reaction to having his mother and other family members verbally abused. That is clearly why he understood the cursing to be about family, rather then race. --by BB--

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)

Zidane's Mother's Comments

Comments allegedly attributed to her prove to be a mere tabloid fabrication.

The Daily Mirror was silent in revealing their sources, yet those closest to the Zidane family have stated that his mother did not say that she wanted Materazzi's testicles (cut off) on a platter. If someone stated it, it was not his mother. The Daily Mirror only backed their reporting by reiterating that Zidane's mother told *her friends* "I have nothing but contempt for Materazzi and, if what he said is true, then I want his balls on a platter," This purposeful response by The Daily Mirror reveals only that their news came as an indirect quote, rather then an interview.

It seems The Daily Mirror will have to join the Materazzi apology band wagon.

Look, so many of the famous professional "athletes" are low lifes and thugs, in spite of the millions they make in salaries and slinging advertisements. They cannot get away from their own origins, no matter how hard they try. Both of these players are guilty. This kind of head butt to the chest has the potential to stop ones heart, and the one moron could have actually killed the other moron. A great example for children (inspite of apologies)! If an idiot called my mother (bad, obscene, or otherwise vulgar) names, in order to taunt me, not only would my mother not care, but I would LOL and walk away. That, my friends, is the bottom line, and the true moral of the story. Dr. Dan 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't know if you would walk away. You can only speculate on what you might or would like to do. Then again, this incident really isn't about you, so I'm not quite sure why what you would or would not do is of any importance.

It doesn't matter what anybody on the talk page would do. It's irrelevant. There are forums for discussing ethics.

Dear anonymous editor, I do know what I would do, and that is walk away. No speculation there. But you are right, the fact that I was raised by more intelligent people, and think more rationally is irrelevant.

The talk pages are different than an article itself, and many people add their perspective or "two cents" on them. Sorry it disturbed you. Not surprisingly, you didn't bother to comment on my other imput. What could have you disagreed with me there? BTW, the whole matter is about ethics, and this place is as good as any other forum to discuss the subject. Dr. Dan 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If that were the case, we'd have four archives full of "I think Zidane should/shouldn't have." It's a talk page for an encyclopedia article, primarily for discussion on what to include/not/valid references, etc. At the very least create a sub-topic for "ethical judgments of Zidane's actions," because it's really frustrating to see anti-Zidane/anti-Materazzi statements in completely unrelated topics (this was one was about his MOTHER). Dead men's bells 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I even bothered (big, big, yawn), to get involved with the thug and low life, on this talk page, or his apologists. Naturally no response to the points I made. What could they say? ...this one was about his MOTHER, (what a joke). Yeah, the mother who did a great job raising a primitive, thug, who has lots of money, and obviously not much more going for him. Ah, for the days of the Jean Beliveaus. Dr. Dan 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane denies that remarks were racist?

I removed the claim that Zidane responded "no" when asked if the remarks were racist in nature. There were four references after this sentence. Some in English, some not. The English sources most certainly do not support this! Having put the others through Babelfish, I am fairly certain they don't say this. Given that most accounts of that interview omit this detail (which would be extremely notable, given the Fifa investigation) and explicitly say that he was extremely vague about Materazzi's comments, it seems improbable. I found no account of the TF1 interview which states this. Please don't readd without a better source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The French sources don't make that claim. From what I've seen of the French interview on Canal1, he was never asked the question (the French article refers to "TF1," with which I'm not familiar). He does say that Matarazzi commented on his familly and his sister, however. Apparently the TF1 interview is different (and the one in which the claims are denied), which I am going to watch now. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having now watched the part of the interview referenced by the IP above (with "... et quand vous dites 'des paroles tres graves', est-ce que vous pouvez dire si elles sont d'ordre raciste, ...," etc.), I can say that the transcription above is correct, but not that he necessarily denied that it was racial. The ambiguity is the same as in the English translation. Below I've put the words of the Interviewer and those of Zidane in two parallel lines (and starting another 2 parallel lines when space runs out) to show when the words were said to show the ambiguity (as the answer isn't very clear):

Interviewer:"et quand vous dites 'des paroles,' au fond, 'tres graves', est-ce que vous pouvez dire

Zidan:.............................................................................................

Continued (2 - both are talking quickly, but interviewer faster):

Interviewer:si elles sont d'ordre raciste, si elles sont d'ordre familliale........................

Zidane:.................................................non,_____elles____sont - oui, c'est familiale,

Continued(3)

Interviewer:......................................

Zidane:en fait, je vous dirais quand on attaque votre mère, votre sœur..."

Translation: Interviewer: "and when you say 'some words,' deep down, 'very serious,' can you say if they're of a racist nature, if they're of a familial nature..."

Zidane: No, they are - yes, it's familial [in nature]. Indeed, I would say that when one attacks your mother, your sister..."

The Canal + interview is a bit different (time isn't an issue):

Interviewer: "Les tabloids anglais l'un [????] des italiens, où d'autres, ont des affaires, ça recoupe à peu pres ce que vous avez dites à demi-mots, les insultes qui concernait votre mère et votre sœur.

Zidane: "Oui, oui, oui, de toute façon je dir..je..je p..comme je vous ai dits, j'etait a dix minutes à fin de carrière"

Translation:

Interviewer: The English tabloids, that of [????], those of the Italians, or of others, they have things, it pieces together [literally re-cut] approximately what you told each other without having to spell things out, insults that concerned your mother and your sister.

Zidane: Yes, yes, yes, [yes's are spread out, not in a row], in any case, like I told you, I was 10 minutes away from the end of my career [i.e. so I had no reason to do so without provocation, as he says throughout this and the TF1 interview]

Take from it what you will. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yom, thanks a lot for reporting the important bits of the interviews. I also listened carefully to them. An important thing to notice about the Canal + interview (the second you report) is that the interviewer never mentioned the words "terrorist"... and that he was not posing a question to Zidane, but simply remarking that what Zidane had just said (that insults concerned mum and sister) was somehow in agreement with what the lip-readers had said. Note also that different lip-readers came up with wildly different readings. It's ironic that british lip-readers, as obsessed with terrorism as they are, came up with "son of a terrorist whore". A Brazilian TV channel, Globo, quoted lip-readers as saying Materazzi had twice called Zidane's sister a "whore" before launching an unspecified insult at the player himself... however others said that Materazzi wished an ugly death to Zidane's family and there were even more versions...

I personally think that the French media didn't really want to highlight Zidane's denial of racist insults, and in some cases (Le Monde) even gave incorrect accounts of what he had said (then they corrected their reports, but meanwhile lots of English sources had reported that he confirmed the "terrorist" thing). Italian media (not necessarily Berlusconi's ones...), conversely, have remarked Zidane quick answer in the TF1 interview. Plus they have remarked the Le Parisien sentence reported above in this discussion page. Of course this doesn't excuse Materazzi from calling someone "son (or brother) of a whore"... F4810 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this issue is not resolved yet. He does not deny the racist insult based on the two interviews. Also, it is possible that he considers that the insult is on base of religion. But still, the two interviews do not confirm that he denyed it. The questions were unclear and not directly about it. 14. July 12:38

Anybody can see it clearly in the TF1 video. As for why it hasn't been reported, I don't know, but it's plainly audible in the video. I don't really understand what the ambiguity is... When asked if he can say if they're racist/familal, says "no, they are - yes, familial." He changed sentences in mid-sentence. He didn't say "no, I can't say" or "no" at the end of a sentence. Does that eliminate the possibility that "terrorist" was used? No, it's possible that he didn't consider it such. But that's not an issue because the article doesn't say "Zidane denied the "terrorist" rumor." It says he responded in the negative to the racism question. If you're taking "can you say" literally, then you'd have to take his "yes, familial" answer the same way, because it was posed in the same question, when it's obvious he was agreeing that they were. 67.169.111.72 10:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Crosstalk is hardly a denial. Let's wait until Zidane actually confirms or denies the racism thing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If that were your standard, you'd have to disqualify a huge portion of international interviews in which the questions and answers overlapped. It happens in English too. "Racist nature" was asked, "no" was the response. Obviously, any further comment by Zidane will warrant addition to the article, but there is no reason not to include this information at this time. Dead men's bells 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

Content critical of Zidane keeps being removed. The last time, this happened with the necessary profanity, and a claim by the reverter that I lied about my references, while he doesn't even understand the language they are written in. See [5]. 1652186 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you added the POV tag. Your explanation here suggests that the reason is because "content critical of Zidane keeps being removed". There is content critical of Zidane is currently on the main page, so your claim that content critical of Zidane keeps being removed is false.

However, I see the real argument for your addition of the POV tag is because YOUR particular edit of content that was critical of Zidane is no longer on the front page. Please make your case here in the talk page as to why the encyclopedic entry must include your particular edit, about articles written in Dutch and Belgian papers, in order not to receive the POV tag.

My comment would be that there have been thousands of editorials written across the globe, not only in Holland and Belgium, many of them critical of Zidane's actions. To include mention of them all would not be a good use of space. Currently, two French papers are cited. A statement mentioning that those were not the only two articles critical of Zidane would be appropriate, but listing all the articles worldwide that were so would not be very valuable.--DaveOinSF 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to highlight some others without being verbose. Like "Zidane has also received considerable criticism from newspapers outside, including Switzerland's (swiss paper), Italian daily (whatever), Belgian periodical (yada yada), etc. Something that notes a few significant ones, then with citation links to the actual articles if people want to read. Dead men's bells 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the edits you made just before removing the tag, but since there are now already many references in French, Italian and German, I still don't see why two Dutch ones couldn't be included. 1652186 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you, 1652186, are referring to my reversal of your entry: How do you know I don't speak Dutch? Think about it. Now, on to your entry. First: You were adding claims to your references that were not stated anywhere in these references! Where have you read that "it is stressed that this was Zidane's fourteenth red card for agressive non play related behaviour"? By the way, it wasn't Zidanes 14th red card "for non play related behaviour", it was just his 14th red card. Big difference. This is why I said you were making stuff up. Second, you wrote that "it is even claimed that his actions are minimised because he is of immigrant descent". Not a single word - anywhere - about that. Your entry was removed because you apparently try to enforce some sort of anti-immigrant, anti-muslim (Disclaimer: I am not a Muslim), anti-whatever agenda in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. These are the type of entries that make people condemn Wikipedia as a whole and as a concept, so think about if you're helping our cause here. I am not for or against any kind of opinion , may it be anti-whatever or pro-whatever, but opinions are *not* what we're searching for here. We're looking for facts, plain, simple, sometimes boring. There are other places on the web where you can discuss your opinions with others. Don't come here, if you're into that. Third, you wrote, "Belgian and Dutch media oppose the French forgiveness [...]". This is over-generalizing. You can write: "Belgian newspaper so-and-so oppose Chirac's forgiveness for Zidane's action". Perfect claim, if you can prove it. But hey, you didn't even *quote* a Belgian newspaper, so you cannot write that either. If you are not able to take a neutral standpoint on this subject, why are you wasting everybody's time here (yours included)? Another disclaimer: I edited my post since I do not want this to be perceived as an insult, but just as something to consider before clicking "Edit this page" Zakaria5000 19:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Zakaria here. I can't read Dutch, obviously, but I see no reason to believe the reasons for removal stated above are fabricated. It just seems like a case of poorly-cited statements. I absolutely KNOW that a lot of countries news media are very unhappy with Zidane, including some notable papers in Spain, so there's no reason it can't be cited and I don't think anybody's arguing that they shouldn't. It just has to follow the citation rules and the references actually have to come from the cited articles. If you add a sentence about the Dutch media that is directly supported by the attached citation and THEN someone removes it, you have every right to complain. But all information on either side has to be cited properly, whatever the language. Dead men's bells 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I supposed you didn't understand Dutch because this is an article about an international subject, you are one of the main editors, and only 0.4% of the world population speaks Dutch, so the chances were slightly against you. I'm sorry if I was wrong. Your inference, however, that the fact that I bring up the word immigrant means that I must be a Muslim hating racist, pretty much conclusively proves that you must be Dutch or Belgian. I never claimed that the 14th red and immigrant thing were claimed by the press. If you check the readers' debate on my reference pages, you'll see that this is the general public opinion. It's nice that you edited away your first version, but don't forget that Wikipedia has a history button and a No personal attacks policy. 1652186 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "this is the general public opinion": Well, I think there is no such thing as a "public opinion". There may be trends, yes, but if you want to include these in an encyclopedia, you have to show me numbers. Regarding "anti-muslim": Yes, I must admit that your previous edits on wp suggest that you regard people from muslim countries as evildoers, which is sad if true. Your induction that I "must be Dutch or Belgian" tend to make me believe that you have a special (and maybe unhealthy) relation to this whole subject. Zakaria5000 20:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I don't speak Dutch at all, but there are ways to compensate for that.

Peacock Terms

This article contains an awful lot of peacock terms - "Zidane is often considered to be one of the best footballers of his generation and one of the greatest of all time." This statement seems totally unnecessary given the later paragraph that clearly establishes his CREDENTIALS, and lets the reader reach those conclusions for themselves - see WP:PEACOCK - Cbuhl79 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read WP:PEACOCK, and I would have to say that calling Zidane one of best footballers of all time is objectively a valid statement to make, especially given the lengthy list of his credentials. I would think the statements of your examples, as applied to Zidane, fall under this category.--DaveOinSF 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that fall under [6] weasel words, though? Along the lines of "many consider" or "often thought of" and whatnot? Wouldn'tit be more effective to drop the ambiguity and cite, say, Time magazine, or some other notable magazine's list of sports greats/football players? I'm sure he's been named such and I think it'd be a bit more effective than "considered by many unnamed people somewhere"Dead men's bells 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's more than is one particular commentator or one particular poll puts Zidane among the greatest of all time, because there really are lots of polls and lots of commentators. Saying "Zidane is ranked by FIFA as one of the greatest of all time" would be understating his accomplishments. Saying "Zidane is condsidered by journalist X, former player Y, and organization Z as one of the greatest players of all time" would be too clumsy. How do we deal with that without having to just a laundry list of sources. Pele's article says in the second sentence "He is regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time." Babe Ruth's says "Consistently chosen as the greatest baseball player in history". Joe Montana's says "Montana is regarded to be the greatest quarterback of all time" (I don't actually agree with that one...I'll have to join that discussion...). We could say something along the lines of "Zidane is one of the most accomplished footballers of his generation and is consistently ranked among the greatest of all time"--DaveOinSF 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that the next paragraph mentions that he has a (co-)record 3 FIFA Player of the Year awards, and was included on FIFA 100? Both of those facts seem Encyclopedic to me and worthy of entry. The reader can (and probably will) reach the conclusion that he is one of the greatest players of his generation on their own.

Regarding the other sports figures you mentioned, I would argue that policy violations (WP:WEASEL WP:PEACOCK) on one entry do not justify violations on another entry. 159.153.129.39 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:PEACOCK, it clearly states that sometimes such language is acceptable. It's example is that "World War II was one of the most important wars of the 20th century" is a valid statement to make, although that would be disallowed under a literal interpretation of the peacock rule. The Wikipedia should not refrain from saying something is one of the best or one of the most important if it really is the case. Wikipedia of course should also explain why the statemnt is true (so and so organization had a poll, such and such historian said so, etc.).--DaveOinSF 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't peacock now, it's weasel, and it specifically criticizes vague statements like "widely considered" and "thought to be" and "many consider" and other vague statements of that nature. If many many people have said he is, cite them specifically. That vagueness is clearly condemned in weasel. Dead men's bells 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, WP:WEASEL even says there are exceptions "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify".--DaveOinSF 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they can't be qualified. You could easily have a sentence to the effect of (obviously an example) "Time Magazine, Sports Illustrated, and [Some huge foreign football magazine] have all named Zidane one of the greatest football players of all time." I personally think that has more credibility to the reader if you say WHO said it rather than just "a lot of random people somewhere think this." I think the comparison to wars is a little extreme. It's a subjective opinion on his ability as a football player (which I'm NOT disputing, I just dislike this tendency to attribute it to nobody in particular when huge people/magazines have acknowledge it. If you look at Lionel Messi's page, there's a section for quotes from people like Diego Maradona lauding his ability - much more effective in my opinion than a non-specific statement). I'd actually recommend a combination; "Zidane is considered to have been one of the greatest football players in recent history; in 2001, Time Magazine named him [whatever]. More recently, he received the honor of being dubbed the [whatever] and Pele expressed his belief that Zidane was [etc]." Make the claim, because it is reasonable, but illustrate the point with specific instances. Otherwise the reader's left wondering "Says who," instead of "Wow, Pele said that, he must be really awesome!" or "I remember that Time list, that's a really big deal." I think that's the point of weasel words; if they're important, explain how. I don't think the intent of the article on "sources too numerous to qualify" was to avoid explaining how at all. That strikes me far more as applicable to things like "The Holocaust was one of the greatest tragedies in the last 100 years." That's not just common knowledge among a specific contingent, it's illustrated in every history book covering those years, displayed in countless movies and the subject of memorials. "So and so is a fantastic football player?", however, leaves the questions "why" and "who said" to people who aren't extremely familiar with football (or international football). Barring Mel Gibson's dad, I don't think you'd find many people who'd ask those questions of the Holocaust claim. Dead men's bells 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What you describe here is pretty much what I was advocating for a couple comments up. Start it off with a sentence like "Zidane is considered one of the greatest yada yada". This would on its surface violate peacock/weasel, but my argument is that this is a case where the exceptions to those rules apply. Of course then support that with Organization X, Award Y, Quote Z as you are suggesting. Wikipedia should not be afraid to say someone or something is a superlative if it's really the case.--DaveOinSF 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see why it's necessary for this Wikipedia entry to make any superlative statement on its own. I hardly think the exceptions to the Wikipedia policies mentioned are meant to apply to sports figures - on the contrary I think normal case for those policies is meant for instances just like this. Isn't it enough to simply state the numerous awards and outstanding achievements (including his inclusion on the FIFA 100), without having to precede it with an explicit statement? I think it is.

The wikipedia policy doesn't say to fix weasel words combined with peacock terms by just adding qualifications - it says to replace the weasel words WITH the qualifications. In fact, one of the example entries is sports-related! "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." is replaced with "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team." Cbuhl79 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are Mel Gibson's dad and the Holocaust being bought into this? Now this is a real red herring. Wallie 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms refer to saying a person/thing/event is important/great/amazing or what not. The official examples of instances where importance is just OBVIOUS referred to wars, so I was pointing out that football player ability is a bit more subjective than wars being famous or massacres being horrible (the reference to Mel Gibson's dad referred to his father being anti-revisionist and saying things like "it's all fiction" about the Holocaust. Dead men's bells 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet meme

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)

Good, but references needed. Kahkonen 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How many cards?

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)

A touch biased

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Latest Revision

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)

Even use of the N word

[7]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The idea was to MINIMIZE the text alotted to this section. Adding more interpretations is contrary to this. "Racist remarks" suffices to include the N word, just like "obscene and insulting remarks" suffices to include his sister being called a prostitute. This is not a tabloid, it needs to be CONCISE. Dead men's bells 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Racist remarks can mean all sorts of things. The wording used here is extremely racist, maybe unprecedented. In this case the text is definitely justified. This is a cultural thing. I take it from your tone that you think this is a normal racist/obscene/insulting remark. Well, to me it is highly unusual. Do you mean by being "concise", hiding the truth? I really think you do. Wallie 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of... The truth? It's SPECULATION. That particular comment has no more credibility than any other interpretation. Is it your position that an entire paragraph be devoted to conveying every single alleged interpretation, including deshirting his wife, his sister being a prostiute, his being a dirty terrorist, etc, etc, etc? We could go on for ages with all the interpretations.

As for it being a "normal" remark, you're about 5,000 miles off. I've had the term applied to ME because of mixed racial heritage, so please don't spring this "you don't understand" or "it's a cultural thing" on me. I know that as well as anyone, because it's MY culture. This paranoid, conspiracy theory-edging mentality is completely bewildering. It's an encyclopedia. That allegation has no more merit than the other five. Recounting every single lip reader's interpretation is verbose and unnecessary - and ONLY including that one has no justification. It's not "hiding the truth," it's SUMMARIZING a complex situation that could, if not regulated, be five paragraphs long of just interpretations. You're claiming *I* am biased? I don't see you inserting the more benign allegations. Yelling "foul" and accusing me of some sort of conspiracy doesn't evade the issue of further interpretations being unnecessarily specified. Dead men's bells 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Has either of those guys owned up to what was *specifically* said? If not, then you shouldn't be putting words in their mouths in this article, even if the tabloids are trying to do it, unless maybe the lip-readers have reached consensus, which it sounds like they have not. Wahkeenah 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They haven't. Zidane says it involved his mother and sister, Materazzi says it didn't involve his mother. The closest thing to a consensus is two (non-Italian) lip readers agreeing on "son of a terrorist whore," which is why that particular interpretation is listed as a "prevalent" one. The others, however, have the support of only ones, so I don't see the relevance of saying more than "ranging from racist remarks to obscene and insulting comments toward his mother, wife, sister". Apparently lipreading isn't exact enough to result in remotely similar interpretations. Dead men's bells 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. And besides all of that, it doesn't matter. He let his team down by letting his emotions get the better of him. A seasoned professional shouldn't do that. However, I gather he has been in hot water before for much the same reason, and it appears the Italian guy knew just what buttons to push to set him off. Real professionals, "real men", don't let words get to them; they suck it up and move on. Look at the constant abuse Jackie Robinson put up with, for comparison. Wahkeenah 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And before someone says something about him "defending his mother", those words were not directed at his mother, they were directed at him. Now, if the Italiano went over to the stands and shouted insults directly at his mother, that would be a different story. Zidane screwed up, and I think he has said as much publicly, so it's just the way it is. Wahkeenah 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, we will probably never know "the truth". If we relied on truth, all of the lawyers, judges etc. would be out of a job. Zidane or the media can say all they like. The Italian team will not disclose what was said. I also don't think Jackie Robinson had to put up with this sort of abuse. Anyway, it is not about emotion. It is about honor. In Italian circles there is a real sense of honor. If anyone said that to an Italian, a price would have to be paid. You only need to see the movie "Goodfellas" to know what I mean. Wallie 22:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, come on... are you serious? Movies are movies. If you ask, no, if your Italian girlfriend gets pregnant and you didn't want the baby, people will laugh at you for being stupid, they will not force you to get married. You have watched "Godfather" one too many time... 195.176.178.209 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize you've just completely eliminated any credibility you might have had left? Do you have any idea who Jackie Robinson was? He was HORRIBLY jeered in a time where the n-word was thrown around every day! He was a PIONEER. He paved the way for black players and suffered for it. How on earth can you possibly compare a ridiculed, historic black athlete to someone who MAY have been insulted in a racist manner. Wow. That's just mind-boggling. This is an encyclopedia, how many times must I say that? If it isn't true, it shouldn't be here. Zidane wants sanctions against Materazzi, so he will very likely tell FIFA what he believes was said. Wikipedia will be IMMEDIATELY updated to reflect his claims, whatever they may be, including any racist language. But Zidane has said nothing to suggest that the n-word was used. This was a conclusion drawn by a completely unrelated source. How would you feel if I overheard you and your girlfriend fighting and published an article with my interpretation of what you said, in which I allege you made a racial slur? It's ridiculous, I'm in no position to do so. There are many boards in which you can cry foul and claim that the entire world conspired against Zidane, the earth is flat, every celebrity suicide is really staged and secretly a murder, etc, etc, etc, but this is no place for it. For all of your affection for Zidane, you put no credibility whatsoever in HIS STATEMENTS. As for that comment on what happens with Italians... Wow, you really do know the meaning of racial slurs, don't you? Because you just made one by equating an entire country to an American stereotype. Get out of the house and learn that the world isn't just what you see on television, please. Dead men's bells 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt I ever had any credibility in your eyes. So I have lost nothing. You forget the key point. Jackie Robinson was not a foreigner in the United States. It is one thing to be attacked personally, but another for the family to be attacked. This is nothing to do with having a fight with a girlfriend either, and you know it. This is a key point. Zidane is a foreigner in Italy, and this is reflected in the way he is spoken to. No Italian would use this sort of language to another. Jackie Robinson's name is highly respected in the United States. The exact opposite seems to apply to Zidane in Italy, given the reports from there. Wallie 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

His family was not attacked. As far as I know, whatever was said were words exchanged between the two of them. The words were directed at Zidane himself, and he took the bait, to his team's detriment. Also, the game was held in Germany, not Italy, as I recall, so they were all foreigners. And Jackie Robinson was considered a "foreigner", as far as the white supremacists and segregationists were concerned. He heard the "N-word" so many times that first year he was probably hearing it in his sleep. Having said all that, if there is a no-taunting rule in FIFA, and if the Italian violated it, he could or should have been penalized also. So I'm not going to argue that there was total justice. But this notion of him "defending his family's honor" against the words of a trash-talking moron is absurd. He's being paid big money to win football games. Or he was. Wahkeenah 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson is respected now, but he was NOT during his entry into athletics. He was met with severe protest and received death threats. Whatever Materazzi said, he didn't make a threat against the life of his family or himself. Does it need to be punished if there was a racist remark? Absolutely. But I don't think Zidane would claim himself to be the most disadvantaged person on earth like you are. You act as though he's crying every night over this. It was an insult. A bad one, perhaps, nowhere near being a black person in the US facing constant threats of lynching and violence. Maybe you were too young then, but there was a time when it was okay to burn a cross on someone's lawn. How can you possibly compare what Jackie Robinson faced to what Zidane faced? You say he's unwelcome in Italy - he PLAYED there! Is he being criticized now there? Sure, but so is Materazzi in France. Of course the countries side with their teams and abhor the other player. Do you think the French even HESITATE to call Materazzi an asshole? You are applying a ridiculous double standard. It's okay to include the alledged n-word, but not the more benign statements. It's bad for Zidane to be bashed in Italy, but okay for Materazzi to be bashed in France. It's "horrible" for Zidane's family to be insulted, and yet you don't bat an eye at Jackie Robinson receiving DEATH THREATS. In the end, it's a GAME. It was an INSULT. It was a HEADBUTT. Neither Materazzi's provocation nor Zidane's retaliation even APPROACH the level of making a deliberate threat to end someone's life in a climate where it happened every day. Do not even attempt to downplay the struggles black men like Jackie Robinson faced. Zidane can go onto a football field without having obscenities thrown by the entire crowd, having objects thrown at him from the stands, or having pitchers deliberately and unrepentingly throw balls at his head. He can walk outside of the stadium without the fear of being shoved into a dark alley and beaten. He can go to sleep at night without worrying whether his playing football will mean he'll be assaulted or worse. Jackie Robinson couldn't when he entered baseball. If, knowing that, you can even CONSIDER comparing his situation to Zidane's, you are beyond SANITY. The truly sad thing about it is that I don't think Zidane himself would claim to face anywhere near the danger as Jackie Robinson did. You're defending someone who doesn't want nor need to be defended, and insulting the unimaginable hardships of another athlete in the process. For someone lauding sportsmanship, you're hardly adhering to it. Dead men's bells 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Steady on... you are calculating 2 + 3 and coming up with 427. I was comparing the sort of insults that Jackie faced with those issued to Zinedine. Naturally what you are saying is true about the other violence around at the time. You and I would have few disagreements about Jackie. I have seen this sort of double standard myself in the past, but now believe it has virtually disasppeared in the United States. However, it seems it is still alive and well in Italy. My uncle was in Italy around or just before Jackie Robinson's time, and found the place to be extremely violent. You really have to compare like times with like times. I do adhere to sportsmanship, and I think that what happened to Jackie Robinson in the past and Zinedine Zidane today is not right. Wallie 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting "Jackie Robinson" and "Zinedine Zidane" in the same sentence with regard to hardship is the most absurd thing I've heard on this page - and before you yell 'your side' again, so would "Jackie Robinson" and "Marco Materazzi" for the headbutt. This isn't a forum for your grievances. It's a talk page for an article. It should (and has, if you ignore your comments) consist primarily of discussions involving the inclusion/exclusion/modification of content in the article. Before you cry foul AGAIN, the same is true for Marco's page. Find an outraged forum and go vent if you like, but don't bring your anger to an ENCYCLOPEDIA of all things. Dead men's bells 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not vented any anger. You bought up Jackie Robinson. I could have just said that Jackie Robinson is not a footballer, and that would have been that. But I try to be diplomatic. I am also willing to discuss any aspect. I have been reasonable all the time. I think you have gone on a personal attack of me quite a bit. I don't mind, but please don't keep harping on about discussing the article. I really think that in general people say this when they are losing the argument - and I am not referring to you here. Wallie 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you personally; I'm irritated because you a) suggested I didn't understand the "cultural" impact of the n-word, b) slandered Italians by suggesting they're all revenge-hungry and c) compared a horribly, horribly discriminated against person to a relatively happy sports icon who isn't under fear of death. That's not a personal attack. It's frustration at absurdity. As for "harping on discussing the article," I hate to be the bearer of this news, but, that's sort of what the concept of a TALK PAGE is for. There is no argument here. There is you making statements I find absurd and me telling you why I find them so. I'm not an Italian football fan, a Materazzi fan, or someone who dislikes Zidane. I am, however, somebody who abhors comparisons that denigrate TRUE suffering and borderline racist stereotypes that lump an entire race or country together into one category (Italy = mafiosos is along the lines of the alleged "terrorist" comment concerning Zidane's being Algerian, by the way). If you want to characterize my taking issue with your points and rejecting them as a "personal attack," you really must be attacked a lot, because that happens every day to everybody. Dead men's bells 18:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I think you are reading too much into what I am saying... As you say, there are various degrees of racism, which I pointed out earlier. I don't know whether I am slandering Italians. I never said all Italians were mafiosi. I used the film as an example of Italian honor in protecting the family. I would also doubt that Zidane is happy. He and his family have been gravely insulted, and this is public knowledge. Earlier comment... I still cannot work out how you bring the Holocaust and Mel Gibson's dad into a discussion about football...? Wallie 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I say again, that whatever Materazzi, or Maserati, or whatever it is, said to Zidane, it has nothing to do with Zidane's family's honor, it has to do with one player trying to rattle another player. And it worked. Wahkeenah 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you let Zidane decide whether he's happy or not? He's a grown man, he doesn't need you making assumptions about how upset he presently is over the insult. As for the Holocaust comment, I explained that earlier - a poster brought up an exception to weasel/peacock that related to the greatness of wars. They were drawing a comparison between WWII being an important war and Zidane being considered a great player. I was actually arguing AGAINST the comparison - football is a bit more subjective than statements about wars or atrocities. Reread my comments above and you'll understand that I didn't initiate the football/war comparison - I refuted the association on the grounds that it was a huge leap. Dead men's bells 04:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats n*****? Philc _T^E_C^I 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Where are you seeing that? Wahkeenah 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• In the article in at the top this section. Have a look at article N-Word. That will explain. Wallie 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some user asked "Whats n*****?" There is no "n*****" on this page except for his comment. There is also no article called N-Word, as of this writing. And I know very well what it stands for. It's like an obscenity, hence it is not spoken aloud in polite company very often. Wahkeenah 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thalassemia

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)

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)

Aha! So the disease made him do it! Wahkeenah 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As this is a Talk page for discussing the article, and not a discussion forum as pointed out by so many people, I think it would be appropriate that we speculate no further on what made him do "it".--Sagacious 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

You are absolutely right. Wahkeenah 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is left intentionally blank...

"This is not a forum for discussing matches or headbutting! Any such messages will be deleted." Well.......... what else is there to discuss, then? Wallie 11:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article, oddly enough, seeing as it's a "talk page" for an "encyclopedia." Dead men's bells 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The article is about Zinedine Zidane. If most people are asked at the moment, who is he? The answer is, he played in the recent World Cup and he headbutted that Italian guy. So that pretty much covers what we are not allowed to discuss. Silly, isn't it. Wallie 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Not allowed" is not quite accurate. You can discuss anything you want. Then, whoever posted that banner, might delete it, and then it can start over. Wahkeenah 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wallie 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You can post whatever you like - just don't whine if it gets deleted. The banner is fair warning and if you ignore it and your post is deleted, you've really nobody to blame. It states quite clearly on the top of this page (and any page, really) that it's for discussion concerning CHANGES to the article. Not "I like Marco!" or "I love Zidane!" or "I think it was a good/bad thing!" Seriously, wouldn't you rather discuss it on some website where people didn't tell you you were being silly (i.e. an actual football forum?) Dead men's bells 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so negative? Wallie 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm exceedingly tired of your attempts to "avenge" Zidane, clogging up the talk page. You can get sassy to Nil if you like, but the fact remains that the linked wikipedia guideline articles support what was said This isn't the place for it. Find somewhere else. Dead men's bells 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. This is talk page and as with all talk pages for articles is intended for discussing changes to the article. It is not intended for discussing Zidane himself in any shape or form unless related to improvements to the article. If you want to suggest that the section on headbutting be modified in some way and you aren't repeating a suggesting that has been suggested and rejected a million times already, I'm sure no one will remove your suggestion and if they do, I'm sure people will support you in re-adding it. On the other hand, if you want to discuss your opinions, future possibilities, conspiracy theories or whatever else about the headbutt unrelated to improvements to this article it is understable that people will remove your comments and you may find it difficult to get anyone to support you in re-adding them.

BTW, as you might have guess, this is also not really material for the talk page for an article. Nevertheless, some leeway is usually allowed. In most cases, the occasionally OT remark or comment on the subject of an article won't be removed. However given the volume of comment, it's understable that some users are trying to control things and remove OT comments. Should you need any further help understand the intentions or purpose for talk pages, you should read up on wikipedia policies and guidelines and general help and ask questions in the appropriate places. :::Nil Einne 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spare me your lectures. The talk page is the place for debating issues about the article, hopefully in place of constant edit wars in the article itself. When it gets too voluminous, it can be archived and more discussion can be had. And who posted that banner? If it's an admin, that's one thing. If it's just one of us, then its nannyism. Wahkeenah 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it was added by a user named Fredil Yupigo, at 22:31, 14 July 2006. That user says he "is not an admin but would like to be one." Evidently he's trying to get a head start. Until he actually is an admin, I don't have to answer to him, and neither do you. Wahkeenah 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He will make a great admin. He should fit in nicely with the others. Most of them are negative types of people, who like apply rules to others, but not themselves, and do not contribute much to articles, prefering to criticize others. Wallie 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had too much trouble with admins. Most of my conflicts have been with non-admins who think they are admins, or who think they know better than I do (which, of course, they don't). >:) Wahkeenah 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we start to consider separating the section on the headbutt?

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)

• Maybe it should have its own article. Until or if these characters own up to what was said, it will continue to be debated and discussed until the next World Cup tournament. Zidane's apparent unwillingness to explain his actions are about as offensive as the action itself, as it shows his contempt for the public which paid him big bucks to try to win football games. But the Prima Donna athlete is not exactly a recent phenomenon. Wahkeenah 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

As it currently stands, the section within this article is way more detailed, more updated, and better than The Zidane headbutt (which has the definite article in the title, wtf). All that article does, really, is mention that it was a ginormous meme + uploaded on YouTube and passed around the internets. Should I just merge “The Zidane headbutt internet meme” here, or should we take info from this article to flesh out the headbutt?
Also, the Zidane headbutt article is really crappy. Wiki Wikardo 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Légion d'honneur

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)

Does this work? Ytny 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

This is not "the British press". It is a blog. Wallie 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting blog from? The Guardian link is a proper newspaper column, byline and all. Ytny 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Um, every article we cite is, including the ones you've added. Dead men's bells 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

chop the trivia section?

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)

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)

Thanks for doing that. I'll go through it too, see if any other items can be removed or integrated into the main article. Ytny 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

For what it's worth, I haven't made an edit to the section so I don't know who you're addressing exactly. And what you suggest is exactly what I meant by "chopping" - move the relevant information to the main article. But if you think a relevant piece of information was removed, why don't you put it back in? If we disagree, we can talk it out. My initial concern was that "trivia" was taking up far too much of the article, but I also noticed that some of it weren't so trivial, which is what I meant by "merging some of the more relevant stuff".

Now, I disagree that people come to Wikipedia to get "as much information as possible". I personally come to Wikipedia for the very basic information so I can get the basic idea, and go to more in-depth sources if I want to learn more - just like an encyclopedia.

But back to the trivia section - I think there's information that's relevant to understanding Zidane but there's no right section for it. That's what the trivia section should be for. But the truly trivial stuff, i.e. "Zidane is an avid follower of tennis and Formula 1, and occasionally delves into cooking. While playing for Juventus, Zidane frequented a restaurant called Chez Angelino every day, where he sometimes practiced cooking. His other hobbies include theatre and movies.", that needs to go. I mean, a European sportsman who's into tennis and Formula 1? That's not exactly special. Ytny 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Speculation

"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)

[[[[[ saw it in Vancouver News actually - I agreee that we can wait a day or two - but I think it is also speculative to write whther Materazzi's comments were racist or not - there is still so much ambiguity on this subject - even Gabriele Marcotti can't attribute any of his sources who deny the jibe was racist. 07/18/06 SMP

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)

Verdict

This hasn't been reported widely enough (at the moment only The Guardian and a South African reuters affiliate), but I thought I'd let you guys know that FIFA did issue a verdict involving fines and bans for both parties. Hopefully this'll be reported in more detail soon so we can trim down most of the speculation. Dead men's bells 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the information on this, please wait until you have a valid citation. I have little doubt that the information is credible, but an English news source should be included. Wait an hour or so, I'm sure everyone'll be reporting it. Dead men's bells 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN has the story Manus Celer Dei 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As does Reuters, now. Article updated to reflect the verdict. I'm not up to it at the moment, but the section needs to be consolidated. The speculation on the racist nature of the comments has been put to rest by both parties according to FIFA, so there's no reason to include multiple paragraphs on it. Dead men's bells 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

biast

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)

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)

My comment was a mere 50 minutes after theirs, but it's possible. - BalthCat 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane

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)

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)

Ridiculous changes

This article should be suspended until contributors have their attention on something other than the World Cup of 2006. It bears little resemblance to the article prior to the final, let alone the competition as a whole, and reflects badly on the whole concept of a people's encyclopaedia. Just because it can be edited by anyone with a computer and an internet connection, does not mean it should be re-written on a whim. I am sure this has been said before, but clearly it needs repeating.