Talk:Ronaldinho/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

World's Greatest..

OK, why does someone keep on changing back the article to state that Ronaldinho is one of the top players in the worlds as opposed to the top player in the world?

I mean, the man has won the Fifa Player of the Year the past two years plus the 2005 European Footballer of the Year plus the Fifpro Player of the Year award for 2005.

It is perfectly objective to state that he is the top player in the world, since he has been granted awards to that effect by his peers and the football literatti.

JRVJ64.117.207.154 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. I feel that it's POV to say he is the best. There must have been runners up and they are also amongst the best. It will also help to stop vadalism as editors will be less likely to vandalise it. Also next year they may be another winner and then it all gets changed. All those awards mean is that those two groups consider him the best at that point in time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a POV the way I'd drafted it, wherein I indicated that he is considered the top player world evidenced by all the major awards he'd won (in fact, Ronaldinho is the current holder of all the major soccer world individual player awards. All of them, bar none). Ronaldinho being considered the best player in the world is an objective fact.

Your position is extremely politically correct, because you are more concerned about possible dissents by putative third parties than by the objective fact Ronaldinho has won awards handedly (in fact, he won the Fifa 2005 world player of the year in land slide, according to this article in a Barcelona sports daily - in Spanish - http://www.elmundodeportivo.com/20051220/NOTICIA208691714.html )

This being the case, I also see no problem in amending Ronaldinho's page next year when somebody else wins. In fact, it will almost certainly suffer many modifications in the meanwhile, due to Barcelona's Liga and Champions outcome and Brazil's play in the 2006 World Cup, so this is certainly not going to be a static page during the next 12 months.

I will amend this page again. If you still feel strongly about your opinion, then slap a discussion warning on top of Ronaldinho's page and let's see where this take us.

JRVJ200.46.176.111 12:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to put a warning on the top of the page. There's no real need to make the page look ugly. I'll leave as is. Of course it could all change tomorrow when he falls over and breaks his leg. (a feeble joke) CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This keeps happening with Pele, with people who are certain that he's the best player of all time saying so and people who are equally certain that Maradona was the best player of all time reverting them. While there's probably a little less debate about this issue (although I'm sure there's still plenty), it's best in an encyclopaedia to just state what his achievements were and let people make up their own mind. If somebody notable was quoted as saying he was the best in the world then that might be worth mentioning, but stating opinions without citing them is just going to lead to an edit war, which is a complete waste of time. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have redrafted the page to take your objections into account. However, I disagree with your premise that it is subjective to call Ronaldinho the best player in the world, since he currently holds all 3 major individual soccer awards, by a landslide no less in case of the Fifa World Player award.

While it is possible that someone somewhere is of the opinion that a player in (say) Thailand's third division is the best player in the world, Ronaldinho objectively has been voted as the best player in Europe (by France Football - this voting is done by sport journalists), best FifPro player (voted by - I understand - 38,000 footballers the world over) and now the Fifa World Player again (in a landslide).

As to the Pelé - Maradona argument, while you can argue which one is the best player all time, it is undeniable that Pelé was the best player of his time and Maradona the best player of his time. That is not open to objective debate.

In a nutshell, it is possible, indeed likely that Ronaldinho will not be the undisputed best player in the world in the future (say if someone has a better World Cup), but as of RIGHT NOW (December 20th, 2005) his undisputed position as the best active player is not open to debate.

JRVJ64.117.207.154 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

None of this gives us the right to define him as the best player in the world. We can point out that those people thought he was the best player in the world, but that's not the same as making a definite claim that he is the best player. I've found a notable source who agrees with your claim and cited it in the article - hopefully that'll be alright.

As for Pelé, there are several football experts who were watching the game in the 60s who rate Best or Garrincha more highly. They're in a minority, of course, but they exist. We can't just pick one of several opinions and state it as a fact, although we can mention which is most popular if we cite a source

Finally, what is and isn't open to debate isn't up to you.

File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pelé, I think, also said that Best was the greatest ever. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: this is a petty argument, because I am basing Ronaldinho's claim to being the best player in the world on the fact that he has been recognized as such (read my comment above about being the current holder of all three major individual soccer awards). Again, there is always the chance that someone may subjectively disagree with anything, but I have not based my arguments on a subjective opinion, but on an objective fact (which is why my previous correction stated that Ronaldinho is considered as the best player in the world by those who have voted for him as - DAH! - the best player in the world. Yes, I know this is a very evident tautology).

Since you two seem intent on changing this page back and forth, I figure that I'm going to take this in a different direction. I have copied the following phrase "These and other achievements have persuaded many that Jordan was the best to ever play the game." from Michael Jordan's Wikipedia entry and paraphrased it to Ronaldinho, BUT TIED DIRECTLY TO THE VERY OBJECTIVE FACT TAHT HE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE AFOREMENTIONED INDIVIDUAL SOCCER PLAYER AWARDS.

If the above language is good for Michael Jordan, then it's good for Ronaldinho. If it's not good for Michael Jordan, then I hope to see you over at Michael Jordan's page to argue this point out.

As to what is and isn't open to debate, of course you can choose to debate anything. You can debate, for example, that pigs have wings or that the moon is made out of green cheese. However, arguments such as the above would not amount to an objective discussion.

JRVJ200.46.61.130 04:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey hey hey. No personal attacks. Everybody's just trying to get the article to best it can possibly be, OK? Assume good faith, JRVJ. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected my comments a bit, to try to avoid any possible inference of a personal attack. I still have grave reservations about the line of reasoning buttressing the aforementioned page changes, and consider that my previous revision of the page accurately reflected facts. However, I have taken the page in what I consider a lesser direction with the hope that using language which has proven acceptable for another great athlete's Wikipedia page is acceptable here.

JRVJ64.117.207.154 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The reasoning is this: It is a fact that he won these awards, thus we can reasonably infer that these organizations consider him to be the best in the world/continent/wherever. However, there is no way to prove that everyone in the world considers him to be the best player. Some people might reasonably argue that Frank Lampard is most deserving of the World Player of the Year Awards (as was done on ESPN SoccerNet recently, but I can't find the article now), which by your logic would make him the best in the world. If you read a number of articles on Ronaldinho in the press, you will find that they all describe him as, "generally considered the best player in the world" (or something to that effect). howch e ng {chat} 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You either haven't read or have ignored the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, so here they are:

I'm not interested in Michael Jordan's page, but the fact that it violates these guidelines doesn't mean that we should do so here. We state facts on Wikipedia, not opinions. That Ronaldinho won those awards is a fact, that he/Messi/Lampard/whoever is really the greatest player in the world is an opinion. If you disagree with the guidelines, you can discuss them at their talk pages. If you're just determined to have an argument about this, the page you need is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do please explain the logic of deciding not to comment on Michael Jordan's page for what you consider are a guideline violation but to maintain your position in regards Ronaldinho's page?

In any case, could you please explain what was wrong with this statement, which was previously changed "[Ronaldino is] currently the sole holder of all three major individual soccer awards, which reflects the opinion of [a significant number of] sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community that he is currently the world's best soccer player."

Seeing as how a number of sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community DID vote for Ronaldinho as the best player in the world or in Europe, how was that statement wrong? (I do make the caveat that I have added the words "a significant number of..").

What I am complaining about is the fact that this page is being corrected without any objective basis to the corrections.

Since I already suggested to have this page tagged so that this issue be worked out and that suggestion was taken up neither by you nor by Cambridgebayweather, I fail to see the validity of your recommendation that I seek dispute resolution.

I will modify this page once again reflecting the above language.

If you are to change it again, please provide an objective argument why the above statement is erroneous or non-objective. Frankly, I don't see how it could be seen as a non-objective argument, unless the argument here is that those sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international community who voted for Ronaldinho were not convinced that Ronaldinho was indeed the best player in the world or in Europe.

And I see no basis to argue this.

As to your comment on weasel words, it doesn't apply, because I am not stating my opinion but the opinion stated by the very people who voted for Ronaldinho.

I am not using peacock words in the Ronaldinho article itself, so that doesn't apply.

And the use of a citation here in a way makes this argument even MORE subjective and the page weaker, since it is just Pele's opinion that is being provided to readers, as opposed to the thousands of votes that Ronaldinho has received form sports journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international community as the best player in the world and/or in Europe.

Or could it be that the argument here is that even though nobody seems to be disputing that Ronaldinho is the winner of the aforementioned 3 individual major soccer player awards, there is no proof that Ronaldinho was indeed voted as the best player in the world and/or in Europe.

If so, I truly do not understand this line of reasoning.

JRVJ

I like the way it looks right now. It states he won the awards and that Pelé declared him the best right now. The reader then can draw their own conclusions. The original problem I had was with stating that he is the best when Pelé had also said he considered that George Best was probably better than him (Pelé). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, somebody has to be courteous and budge on this issue. I know you like this page differently from how I like it. However, is there an objective reason why you reject the way I'm drafting it?

If so, please state what you are against in my drafting.

If not, do please exercise tolerance and accept that others prefer the page to read differently.

Really, let's be civil here and end this instead of getting into eternal bouts of modification.

JRVJ64.117.207.154 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, nobody have to budge, what is needed is active work towards compromise, so let's discuss some ideas instead of reverting. Look at the paragraph:

"blablabla...[Ronaldinho] won the European Footballer of the Year award in 2005 and the FIFA World Player of the Year in 2004 and 2005 as well as the 2005 FIFPro World Player of the Year, making Ronaldinho the holder of all three major individual soccer awards, which reflects the opinion of a significant number of sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community that he is currently the world's best soccer player."

First half:

"[Ronaldinho] won the European Footballer of the Year award in 2005 and the FIFA World Player of the Year in 2004 and 2005 as well as the 2005 FIFPro World Player of the Year"

= Ronaldinho is the best in 2005 (2004), according to: Magazines, national captains/coaches, and players.

This makes

"which reflects the opinion of a significant number of sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community that he is currently the world's best soccer player"

redundant, as it is exactly the same as the first part!

Try blending it, like:

blablabla...[Ronaldinho] was voted 2005 European Footballer of the Year by the European sports press, the 2004 and 2005 FIFA World Player of the Year by national team captains and coaches, as well as the 2005 FIFPro World Player of the Year by players from leagues all over the world, making Ronaldinho the holder of all three major individual soccer awards. Furthermore,...blablabla"

What do you say? Poulsen 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Poulsen, I will buy your language if your bridging line at the end starts: "In addition to the international recognition granted by these awards, .... blablabla (Pelé quote)".

BTW - Maradona has repeatedly stated that he considers Ronaldinho to be the best player in the world, but I'm not too sold on having grand poobah's be the end-all-be-all of determining who is the best player in the world (as compared to the votes reflected in the above 3 awards), which is why I haven't pushed for that quote to be included:

http://elmundodeporte.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2005/05/09/futbol/1115665023.html (Spanish)

http://servicios.diariovasco.com/pg051124/deportes/200511/24/RC-maradona.html (Spanish)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1796524,00.html (Spanish)

And if the Pelé - Maradona debate weren't enough (it reminds me of Yankee and Red Sox fans going at it year after year), Pelé has thrown more fuel to the fire by stating that Ronaldinho is better than Maradona (I disagree: Ronaldinho still has a way to go before he achieves what Maradona did. However, if Barca win the CHampions and Brazil the cup, it is likely that Ronaldinho will be at the center of it all and may actually earn that distinction):

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/051127/21/5e30.html

JRVJ64.117.207.154 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, let's have some more opinions before submitting it, though. And by the way, noone will ever be bigger than Michael Laudrup :P Poulsen 00:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either the Pele or Maradona quotes need to go in. As you said, the opinions of grand poobahs shouldn't matter. Since Pele and Maradona are widely considered the best two ever, if you have one you probably should have the other. The alternative, which I prefer, is to have neither. howch e ng {chat} 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Poulsen, I think you're forgetting Rory Patterson :-P File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do please explain the logic of deciding not to comment on Michael Jordan's page for what you consider are a guideline violation but to maintain your position in regards Ronaldinho's page? The standard of editing on Wikipedia isn't always that high and most of its 900,000 or so pages have something or other wrong with them, often involving one of the three guideline pages that I mentioned above. Unlike a lot of people on here, I rarely go through articles that don't interest me looking for errors to fix – I prefer to just work on what interests me. So when I spotted what you'd done on this article, I changed it back. I can't be bothered going through all of the basketball articles looking for similar mistakes.

In any case, could you please explain what was wrong with this statement, which was previously changed "[Ronaldino is] currently the sole holder of all three major individual soccer awards, which reflects the opinion of [a significant number of] sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community that he is currently the world's best soccer player."

Seeing as how a number of sport journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international soccer community DID vote for Ronaldinho as the best player in the world or in Europe, how was that statement wrong? (I do make the caveat that I have added the words "a significant number of.."). Putting "a significant number of" in that sentence made it a lot better. I'm more opposed to the idea that his being voted the best in the world is logically equivalent to him being the best in the world. Given that he won the awards, your amended statement must be correct.

What I am complaining about is the fact that this page is being corrected without any objective basis to the corrections.

I don't follow this. I've explained which guidelines I thought were being violated and why I thought this was a bad thing.

[snip]

As to your comment on weasel words, it doesn't apply, because I am not stating my opinion but the opinion stated by the very people who voted for Ronaldinho. Phrases along the lines of "many people consider him to be..." are weasel words.

I am not using peacock words in the Ronaldinho article itself, so that doesn't apply.

And the use of a citation here in a way makes this argument even MORE subjective and the page weaker, since it is just Pele's opinion that is being provided to readers, as opposed to the thousands of votes that Ronaldinho has received form sports journalists, professional soccer players and members of the international community as the best player in the world and/or in Europe.

It was an attempt to improve on something like "Ronaldinho is the best player in the world", which was your opinion rather than Pelé's.

Or could it be that the argument here is that even though nobody seems to be disputing that Ronaldinho is the winner of the aforementioned 3 individual major soccer player awards, there is no proof that Ronaldinho was indeed voted as the best player in the world and/or in Europe.

Being voted the best and being the best are not necessarily the same thing.

If so, I truly do not understand this line of reasoning. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, someone amended this page without respecting what Poulsen and I had been discussing and without opining here on that proposal.

That being the case, and considering that Howcheng shares my opinion that quotes from grand poobah's are irrelevant (or at least not the way to determine the worth of a player), I have gone back to my amended language (which excludes Pele's quote).

As to the discussion above with CTOAGN, I respectfully disagree with his arguments. I will just state one thing: I still don't understand his concern about something like "Phrases along the lines of "many people consider him to be..." are weasel words. "

While it would be weasely to use those words in regards an athlete that has not been voted as the best in his field/is the holder of all 3 individual soccer player awards, I fail to see how it is weasely to use that term when inevitably, those who voted for Ronaldinho as the best player surely must think he is the best player in the world (unfortunately, CTOAGN did not answer my last question on the matter).

In fact, I don't quite understand how "a significant number of..." is not a weasel word (or at least is considered much better by CTOAGN), but "many people consider him to be...".

A very strange debate, this one.

JRVJ64.117.207.154 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to say who the "many people" are who agree with a statement and, if possible, cite a source showing them doing so. So a sentence like "The results of these awards show that many journalists consider Ronaldinho to be the best player in the world" is preferable to "These and other achievements have persuaded many that Ronaldinho is the best active soccer player in the world."[1].

unfortunately, CTOAGN did not answer my last question on the matter

Reading back, it looks I did. Which question are you referring to? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

je vous remerci infinement pour ce site ainsi qu'une bonne reussite .veuillez accepter tout notre respect.

Being voted the world's best is a fact but a subjective one. He was certainly voted the best, but it is impossible to say that he is the best. I could say that Wayne Rooney is the best player in the world, but is he? I could say that for plenty of people.

To put this issue straight, it's simple: we will never know for certain whether Ronaldinho is the best footballer in the world at the moment, therefore it cannot be put into this article. But he's certainly one of the best, as the awards prove. x42bn6 Talk 02:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

JRVJ, calm down, will you? Ronaldinho is a footballer - fact. Ronaldinho is the best footballer - opinion. And even tho many people may think so, sport journalists, football managers and other players among them, it's still just their opinion. Orange--62.168.125.219 09:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)--

I have removed the following reference, because it does not meet the standards set out in WP:V; it's an online poll with ~50 voters: http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=4031957902 --Muchness 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Among his many achievements and accolades, Ronaldinho has been awarded the FIFA World Player of the Year award twice (2004, 2005), as well as the European Footballer of the Year award and the FIFPro World Player of the Year award (2005) and is regarded by many as the best player in the world.[1]"What I have bolded is what should be deleted.Why?Because Wikipedia only wants FACTS not OPINIONS .Also,I thought many people voted for those mentioned awards,this makes it redundant,like what Poulsen said.--192.169.41.40 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "he is widely regarded as..." makes this fact rather than POV. It just is a fact that he is widely regarded as the best player in the world. He is perhaps not "universally regarded" as that, there are dissenters, still the titles he presently holds make it fair to say that he's widely regarded as the best player in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.34.254.171 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2006

he is joining middlesbrough along with messi eto'o and messi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.227.151 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2007

Honours

I've added the honours quoted in the FC Barclona profile, but even though I can read the Paris-SG and Gremio articles for their honours in his periods there, I don't know for sure what he played and what he didn't so any input would be great. 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

As a Brazilian I felt that I needed to point this out: "I'm very happy with Barça. I can't imagine being happier anywhere else but with Barça. There isn't enough money to buy my happiness. I see myself being here the rest of my life and I hope to keep on bringing joy to the Barça fans".

Barça is Brazilian Portuguese Coloquial for Barcelona. I don't think that Barça is used in Spanish as a nickname for the team because the character "ç" is not present in the Spanish language. Barça translates phonetically to "Barsa."

I want to make a little comment saying Barça is a Brazilian Portuguese nickname for Barcelona. Should I go ahead?

Gukarma 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the FC Barcelona article, not here. howch e ng {chat} 07:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Barça is Catalan coloquial for FC Barcelona, not Spanish. The character "ç" exists in Catalan but not in Spanish, but in all Spain people write more "Barça" than "Barsa" (see for example these articles in [Marca] and [As], wich are newspapers of Madrid). --Darz Mol 19:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

Why does someone keep on deleting my website link? And why do some of you feel like you own Wikipedia, and all the pages? You are being very selfish, do you know that? Miss Fan 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files - unless the links are used in the articles, people can use google to find fanpages, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, including accountable sources to shed light on the subjects, and not a collection of links to fan pages. Poulsen 13:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the site becuase it has TONS more information on Ronaldinho. But its like whatever you know if it makes you feel like you own Wikipedia, go ahead do your thing :) 72.27.12.169 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Miss fan

I think the common goal is for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not to collect links to various fan pages no matter how much more knowledgable those sites are. The focus should be on building the Wikipedia article, and if the external site contains info which would enhance this article, that info should be added and the website cited as the source. Do you think having a long list of fan pages is desirable, or are you only objecting to the removal of your own site? Poulsen 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should use the information on that link, then post it because it was used. 24.203.182.78 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone is up to it, they can look through the info, and do further research to confirm with credible source(s). Then you can put it up. Elsonlam1 (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leeds bid

"Despite several generous bids from Premiership teams, including a £50 million bid from Leeds, and several requests from Grêmio, Ronaldinho signed a five-year contract for Paris Saint-Germain" I'd not heard this before, so I did a quick search and references to a Leeds bid seem to be from fansites rather than credible news sources. Some of these say the reports originated in Brazil, so someone who can speak Portugese or Spanish might have more luck finding a source. From what I can tell, an ESPN report (in Spanish) [2] says that Leeds were interested but does not give a figure. Oldelpaso 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass

Does anyone Ronaldinho's mass? All I know a mass of 76 to 80 kg ist stated. --Wendelin 12:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ronaldinhochild.JPG - fair use?

I can not see how the use of this image can be considered fair use. The template {{tv-screenshot}} clearly states that It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents qualifies as fair use. Used in an article about Ronaldinho, this image is certainly not “identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program”. kjetil_r 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, image removed, no objections. --kjetil_r 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Everyone who wants to add external links, please first read Wikipedia:External links carefully. Specifically, the page states "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)" (emphasis mine). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacoplane (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2006.

Pronunciation

Is that IPA correct? When his name is pronounced by Brazilians, the final "o" in Ronaldinho sounds like a close back rounded vowel to me, rather than a close-mid back rounded vowel... David Sneek 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the region of Brazil. In some places, noted in Rio de Janeiro, it is pronounced as a close back rounded vowel. In other regions, like Rio Grande do Sul, where Ronaldinho was born, it sounds like a close-mid back rounded vowel. 201.37.193.157 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Business section

Someone should really sort it out, it's just a bunch of sentences thrown in together under one section without any connection between them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonatanh (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

I added bullets there so it looks like more of a list rather than a bunch of random sentences thrown together, but feel free to change it back. --Sillybulanston 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, solved the problem. Yonatanh 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

User 82.21.64.74 (talk • contribs) has been adding following content to the article:

Despite the widespread praise from the footballing world, Ronaldinho has recently been the subject of some criticism from football 'intellectuals'. These critics tend to comment that Ronaldinho's skills and trickery have little bearing on matches and are more gimmicky than actually useful. Critics also point out that Ronaldiho's reputation is based on marketing more than his record in football, and that this marketing is enhanced by his 'gimmicks' which lend themselves well to media.

This passage does not cite any sources for the criticism and opinions it presents, and so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. The content should not be added back to the article unless reliable sources can be provided to substantiate its claims. --Muchness 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life section

The second to last paragraph says: "His reputation as a footballer was built up through his childhood, particularly since he was a prolific goalscorer in the Egypt 1997 under-17 world championship." But on the wikipedia page for that tournament, Ronaldinho isn't even listed on the list of top goal scorers, which means that he had 4 goals scored or less. Can someone explain why exactly that is "prolific" goal scoring? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.173.21.40 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

According to the FIFA website he scored 2 goals in the tournament, both penalty kicks (ref). I've reworded the section accordingly. --Muchness 08:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ronaldinho has a 2 year old son with Brazilian dancer Janaina Mendes, named João. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.161.173 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2007

Youth clubs

Is there really a need for that? Yonatanh 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's unneeded and nobody has disagreed, it's been removed. Yonatanh 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a field in there? Yes. So it is necessary. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What? It just said gremio under it, no years, etc. and seeing how gremio is also under his clubs and youth clubs is not a mandatory part of the template it doesn't HAVE to be there. Yonatanh 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobAslan (talk • contribs)

Are you sure he actually played for Gremio all of those years? Yonatanh 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite where it says he's played for Gremio since the age of 7. Yonatanh 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He has a son that lives in Houston name Braylon to a brazilian girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braylon23 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 October 2006

NPOV

"Although Barcelona didn't qualify for the Champion League Final, Ronaldinho did score an impressive goal against Chelsea. With a Samba shake and soccer magician's skill, he drove the ball through at least 6 Chelsea defenders to Petr Cech's goal net."

I didn't go through the whole article but I'm sure there's more. Yonatanh 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ronaldinho Gaucho

I don't see why you keep on removing Ronnie and adding Ronaldinho Gaucho as the nickname and changing the name to Ronaldinho. Yonatanh 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. The OTHER Ronaldo is "Ronaldinho". --201.9.14.76 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a disambig page would be the best here. -- Stormwatch (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Statue

Could you provide some info on the "Burning of the Ronaldinho's Statue in Brazil". I couldn't find much about it in the internet (in English lets say). Play4go 08:21, 4 July 2006 (EST)

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19684020-5001023,00.html Gruffy 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

There's been a lot of vandalism from non-registered users lately. Does the {{sprotect}} template need to be added to this article to help discourage this? -Jared 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't just throw that template on. Make a request at WP:RFP if you feel protection is warranted. howch e ng {chat} 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Passport.

It's been three years. Does he have a Spanish Passport yet, or is he still occupying one of the non-eu spaces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babieca (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 September 2006

Yes, he got it recently... Like a moth ago according to http://www.ronaldinhogaucho.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine time (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 September 2007

The English love to feel unlucky

In the article: "One of the highlights of the tournament was a 30-yard free kick he scored against England in the quarter-finals in Shizuoka, but he later admitted it was a fluke. " Does anyone have any source for this admittance? Peoplesunionpro 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] - opinion is split even within the Brazil team. Ronaldinho said it was meant, while Juninho said it was a fluke. For me it was definately a fluke because of the way the Ronaldinho is looking before he hits the ball. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

If he didn't admit it, then that statement shouldn't be in the article. I'll delete Peoplesunionpro 17:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dyou mind not slating our whole country when you find uncited comments. WP:CIVIL is the only thing preventing me from spilling a bunch of profanities at you. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe what he's doing also falls under WP:NPA so an apology would be nice (I'm not English btw but the free kick was definitely a fluke, Juninho's opinion can definitely be mentioned as the guy knows a thing or two about free kicks). Yonatanh 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A pic of the free-kick

Can any any 1 do something about the pic of the free-kick or just re upload it??? thank you--50cent4 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Grêmio hatred for Ronaldinho

Why isnt this discussed here.

When Ronaldinho left Grêmio for PSG, he used some breach in the then current brazilian law for transfers, the Lei Pelé, so PSG paid NOT ONE CENT for Ronaldinho. Grêmio fans saw Ronaldinho as a traitor (after all Grêmio had done for his family, for his older brother and for him), and Grêmio had to recur to FIFA to make PSG pay something like $4 million euros for Ronaldinho, a misery, considering Ronaldinho was already seen by Grêmio and most brazilians are the next best player ever from Brazil, and Grêmio demanded at least $40 million euros (and there actually were several european clubs wanting to pay that for Ronaldinho, and now, we all know he REALLY is worth that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.66.190.85 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2006

Grêmio was starting to have financial difficulties at the time, and Ronaldinho, the club biggest star ever, leaving without Grêmio getting NOTHING for it, as it was expecting and basing its future finances balances on it, resulted in Grêmio contracting enourmous debts that were accumulating and resulted in Grêmio falling to brazilian 2nd division in 2004.

Most Grêmio fans, for that, regard Ronaldinho as a traitor and hate him. Many were inclined to forgive Ronaldinho when Barcelona, led by Ronaldinho, would beat and humiliate Internacional (Grêmio´s arch-rival club in the city of Porto Alegre) at the World Clubs Cup in Japan. Grêmio always boasted the World Title as an advantage over Internacional.

But Barcelona lost 1-0 to Internacional and Ronaldinho failed to make an impression in that match. This renewed even more Grêmio fans hatred towards Ronaldinho, which not only betrayed the club in the transfer to PSG for free, as also was unable to impeach Grêmio´s arch-rival of achieving the most glorious title south americans consider a team can achieve, that of World Champion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.66.190.85 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2006

Because you didn't mention a source. For all we know, you could have just made it up. --SatoshiMiwa 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)