Talk:Bicycle kick/Archive 1

Early Discussion
I made an effort to edit this page earlier today to correct the information regarding the so-called bicycle kick. It was first used in a game in 1917 during the South American Championships in Argentina, and received its official desigantion as "chilena" in 1927 after it was performed multiple times by Chilean club Colo-Colo player David Arellano while on an exhibition tour through Europe. Because it was first seen in Europe performed by a Chilean player, it became designated as the "chilena", or Chilean kick. The Brazilian player who has been credited with "inventing" the move did not play until the mid-30s. Remember South America hosted the first ever World Cup in 1930, and in many ways, the game is much more popular there than anywhere else in the world. I don't understand why the monitor of this page reverted the info, when if you ask FIFA about the "chilena" kick, they will know exactly what you are talking about. The designation "bicycle kick" came much later as other players began to emulate the move, and Brazilian players internationalized it as a result of their soccer success. I guess it is yet another case of historical revisionism told from a more conventional Eurocentric approach. I think the claim above, well known in Latin America and Spain, should at least form part of the official story. If it does not, then Wikipedia is promoting half-truths in this matter. Credited to Leonidas da Silva, who credited it to Petronilho de Brito, but actually invented by a Chile player in 1917, before coming to wider attention in 1927. That's the (confusing) info. you'd get from Wikipedia about the bicycle kick! Ben davison 23:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?
There should probably be some sources to some of this info. Also, is a scissor kick pretty much the same thing? I can't find a clear description of it anywhere. Gflores 01:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By this point we need more sources validating the claims of how people call the move across the globe. I've seen many people use this list as a fact in several other websites and day-to-day discussions, but there is no real source validating any of these claims. Here are some things I recommend for those who might want to help out on this: 1. Remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, therefore do not include things related to the "Whole World" or "everybody in [inclue a region]" if you do not have a highly reliable source or a series of different sources validating such a statement. 2. Do not use blogs or forum discussions! These are not good sources. 3. Add working links. Everything else is fair game here just as long as you can find information validating such things.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses
I once saw a bicycle kick used to keep a ball from going out of bounds (in and Under-18 game I was playing in no less). Shall I add that as a use? It hardly seems right that there are only two 'valid' uses. - Zepheus 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably. I remember having done so as a little kid once (though it was a sort of sideways bicycle kick, whatever you'd call that). &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You would call that a scissors kick. Anton1234 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More than football
It's used in more games than just football. In footbag net and sepak takraw for example. -- Viller

Translations
I changed the order a little bit in my attempt to sort translations by language as opposed to countries, as there are usually more than 1 languages spoken in any states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't add biased Blogs.
I just removed this paragraph from the article:

"The Chilean journalist Eduardo Bustos Alister disproves this notion citing several articles from Chilean newspapers written in the late 1910's which make reference to the 'Chilena' while pointing out the absolute lack of evidence, as well as all the inconsistencies of the Peruvian claim. As he points out, the Chileans never called it 'Chalaca'."

The reason for me doing such was because not only it comes from a completely biased blog-website (as it may be seen after looking at webpage and noting the author completely biases on favor of "la chilena"). Also, the author points out an "absolute lack of evidence," when there is plenty of evidence that has been supplied (shown on the article with the various links given to the Peruvian section) and there's also an official declaration from a FIFA official. Then the author claims "inconsistencies of the Peruvian claim" when, once more, in the article here it has been shown that all things pointed out are not inconsistencies and have resources to prove they are correct. In conclusion, please do not post biased blogs because it harms Wikipedia's credibility. MarshalN20 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions
In the Peruvian claim there is a conclusion at the second paragraph, it's written as the article's conclusion, but the point in the attributions section is that there is no known definitive "truthiness" of the origin.--neolandes 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the article's conclusion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing cities rather than countries
All the claims of invention generally approve of the move being created in a particular city. Most of the moves got their early names from their cities, and not their countries. For instance, in Peru the name was and still is used for the Peruvian port of Callao. In Chile, the name was used to refer to the port of Talcahuano. Other variations of creation simply set the claim on a specific player and name their action in a way similar to "bicycle kick" (not related to a country or particular city). The only name that specifically claims a nation as its origin is Chile's "chilena." The point is to emphasize the place of origin, and the more accurate the title the better the people will understand where the move was allegedly created. Therefore it's pointless to simply include the nation's name and be non-accurate (as the encyclopedia is not supposed to be).--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually very unfair to place emphasis on a specific point of origin when the firt person to make the move was someone from Chile. In all fairness I've always known the move as a bicycle kick in the United States, as an overhead kick in other English speaking countries and as a chilena in most of the Spanish speaking community especially in the United States. In order to maintain complete neutrality, The first player to make the move should get the benefit of the doubt since it was first done by someone from Chile in an official match, with respect to other claims. 96.242.82.74 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I explain on the history page. It's not about emphasizing a specific point, and it's not about giving the claim to a specific city, country, or person. This article is supposed to stay Non POV, and thus far that's the way it has been. Moreover, this is an encyclopedia, and in an encyclopedia you have to keep things: consistent, alphabetized, and well validated(with good sources). In terms of what you may think or you may have heard, it's not my fault that Talcahuano starts with a "T" and Callao starts with a "C"; just as it's not my fault that "Turin" has a "U" and not an "A" as its second letter (thus it stays last). Ramon Unzaga first made his move in Talcahuano, therefore that's where the origin of the move is, and Talcahuano deserves as much "honor" in this situation as Ramon Unzaga. In fact, the original name in Chile was Chorera, which was a direct reference to Talcahuano. Now, you might hear the name "chilena," but thus far there is no source that has proven many of the claims of the countries that say Chilena. You can't just claim that something is something if you cannot validate it. For instance, I was born hearing the word Chalaca and everywhere I went I also have always called the move Chalaca, and when I speak about football with my friends from Mexico, Italy, Belgium, and Colombia I always call the move Chalaca and they know what I mean. Yet, that does not mean the place of origin is in Callao. That's why Atributions of Invention explains that various countries have different ideas, different ways of calling it, etc. If you do not comply to Wikipedia's standards, I will be forced to hand you a warning. If further disruptive behaviour from you continues, I will issue someone of higher authority to warn you. If you end up getting IP banned, that will then be your own problem. Contribute to Wikipedia as if it were an encyclopedia, not your personal toy where you can write your personal opinions.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've re-ordered the article just to satisfy your needs keep NPOV. 96.242.82.74 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made the article more accurate by being more specific on the cities and not the countries. I've also alphabetized much of the article and provided a series of sources. You have deleted several of my sources, de-alphabetized the sections, changed things that I wrote, and placed everything to your nationalistic and POV likings. Leave nationalistic feelings behind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your toy.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another idea is to follow the format of the Spanish article. For instance, they have the names of the moves and their history. I still favor using the names of the cities, though. I firmly believe that using the names of the cities is more honorable for them and provides the proper recognition that they deserve. By using the names of the countries we're going back to foolish nationalistic things that will only bring more problems to the article. I go as far as proposing the removal of the nations of the countries from the titles and simply including the claims of the cities. Anyone in favor, against, other ideas?--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To notify whomever may read this, the solution was found to be that of the names.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has Point of View?
An IP address notified, in a rather unpleasant and destructive (constructive to him, I suppose; therefore not vandalizing as user "Hut 8.5" explained), that the article was POV. Now I'm the kind of person that HATES POV articles, and I do not intend for this article to be such a thing. I'm an avid Wikipedist, and I stay true to my work. I do not edit to vandalize or make other users feel unpleasant times in here. I just write the truth, validate it with facts, and follow all the Wikipedia rules that I know. Nonetheless, the question stands for others to comment. Do you think there's POV in the article? If so, where do you see the POV and how do you think we can fix it? Also please do not delete source citations as it destroys the works other wikipedists have been making.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article is a sensitive subject between the nations of Peru and Chile, and should be protected. Looking at the recent edits I propose to revert the origins section and keep it as it was prior. Origins are well expressed within each sub-section and should stay as what it was (Chilean claim and Peruvian claim) since the two countries are much more recognizable than the cities of Talcahuano and Callao. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using the names of nations. When the change was made, I was originally doubting the inclusion of the names of the countries. I mean, if we include the names of the countries, that further creates more antagonism and situations of "wars" and other idiotic whatnot that should not happen. The cities should be mentioned in the titles as it provides the proper respect to each city and their claim. For example, the "Peruvian Claim" is really not much of a claim of all of Peru makes. Several of the young people in Peru have began to call the move "chilena" and they don't even recall or believe the elders when they tell them that the move was at one point called chalaca everywhere in Peru. Yet, the city of Callao still claims the move to have been born there, and when the Argentine CONMEBOL journalist came to Peru he went to investigate in Callao, not all of Peru. Hence, such a thing as the "Peruvian claim" does not really exist. I hope I explained myself good here. Next comes the reference to Talcahuano. In several other websites I've seen people refering to this article and discussing things about the chalaca or chilena or other whatnot, but when they mention the chilena the main mention is David Arellano and not Ramon Unzaga, and they much less even mention the port of Talcahuano. I mean, I could only image if I was from Talcahuano and nobody even remembered that at one point the move in Chile was also called "Chorera" in order to honor my city. If we are to take the Ramon Unzaga account as true, we should then include the city of Talcahuano in the mention of the title. I'm doing this not because I want to place the article in the way that is "convenient to me" like the IP Adress stated, but rather because I feel it's more important to mention Talcahuano in the section title as the place of origin than simply mentioning the broad and inconclusive "Chilean Claim". I mean, before the edit wars began with the IP address, I was going to include the Brazilian cliam of Leonidas, and the city in which Leonidas apparently invented the move starts with a "B." Therefore, if we continue using the cities and alphabetizing, the said city of Leonidas would go first in the section. Yet, that does not mean I'm favoring Leonidas as the creator; that just means I'm still alphabetizing the work.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is made because in the end it's each country claiming the move as its own not the city of origin. If you'd like to include Leonidas than it should go under Brazilian claim. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you really want Talcahuano to be removed, I suppose the situation can reach a mutual agreement. The article could get new titles in the following way: Origin in Talcahuano, Chile is changed to Claim of Chile, the Origin in Turin, Italy is changed to Claim of Italy, and the Origin in Callao, Peru is change to Claim of Callao. Yet again it's important to mention that the city of Callao is the one making the claim of invention and not all of Peru. People in Lima, Tacna, Arequipa, Cusco, Piura, etc. do not claim the Chalaca as their move; they simply support the claim of Callao. The other reasonable option would be to simply include the names of the moves like in the Spanish article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
Due to the horrible IP war with IP address: 96.242.82.74 ; I have to propose semi-protecting the page in order to protect the content that has been provided by users like me, Selecciones de la Vida, HenryLi, and other users. I'm well aware that IP addresses have made past good contributions to the article, but I'm afraid the situation is escalating to a whole new different level. Please discuss this proposal and report any more acts of extreme editing from IP addresses that you might find (Make sure to mention the IP address name here). Note that this is not the place to report or seek an IP address ban, but it is good so that you can share your experiences with fellow contributors.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the encyclopedia
Just like any other encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be alphabetized in order to help the people trying to find useful information in the article. Some of the users seem to think that because Ramon Unzaga's record is "older" then it should be mentioned first. Well, there is also the record of the Chalaca in the 19th century, which is older than Unzaga's. Does that mean the Callao section should appear before the Talcahuano section? NO! The first thing to note is that alphabetizing means setting the article in order of the alphabet where it would be most useful. In this particular section there are currently 3 setcions: "Origin in Callao, Peru", "Origin in Talcahuano, Chile", and "Origin in Turin, Italy." Callao starts with a "C", which comes before the "T" of Turin and Talcahuano, and the next letter "A" in Talcahuano comes before the letter "U" in Turin. Does this mean the article is emphasizing the Callao section? NO! Please go look at Flag of Mexico, a Featured Article, and you'll see that "Coat of Arms" is before "Meaning of Colors" even though the "Design and Symbolism" top shows the color scheme of the flag. Alphabetizing is part of all encyclopedias, and therefore Wikipedia also needs that.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramon Unzaga is reported as being the first person to make the move in an official match. The name chilena is result due to that first move and also because of the European tour by Chilean club team Colo-Colo. The term chilena is supported by FIFA through their online publications, much like how BBC news offers the term overhead kick, or how American sports media label the move bicycle kick. Nation of origin should go over city of origin since chilena is named after the country and not the city of Talcahuano. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anybody is doubting the Ramon Unzaga account. The name chorera was used before Chilena. I just found another article, a 2008 article, done to Jorge Barraza in which he further explains his investigation. Jorge Barraza is truly a person of much fame and prestige, and he supports the term chalaca. You're being biased towards the chilena by simply noting that the move refers to the nation of Chile, but you're ignoring that the move Callao refers to the city of Callo and not the nation of Peru. If the move was a "Peruvian Claim" then the move would be named "la peruana" and not "chalaca."--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. This is not supposed to show a "record" of when the moves were allegedly made because the topic is highly controversial. There can be no record because the invention has not been 100% certified for a particular claim. The best way to keep this information is through alphabetizing. Using the terms "so and so claim" (which was an idea I believe I developed some time ago, probably years ago) such as "Chilean Claim", "Peruvian Claim", "Brazilian Claim", etc. makes little sense by this point. It is highly childish to have something such as that. A more professional manner in which to express this is by either having the section titles as "Origin in Callao, Peru" (mentioning the city and the respective country of origin) or the name of the move such as "Rovesciata." Remember: The more professional the encyclopedia, the better. I will also seek another person to colloborate as a third opinion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Names over cities/countries
Following the example of the Spanish wikipedia, I think this would be an even better idea in order to prevent future conflicts and better classify the names with the origin. After all, at the start of the article we do not mention things such as "claim of so and so", we just simply state the names. Later, if the reader wishes to read more, he sees the section of "overview." Then, if the reader suddenly gets the fantastic urge to learn how this was made, he goes ahead and looks at "attributions of invention" and reads each section headed by the name of the move. In the Spanish wikipedia this seems to have worked perfectly fine, and therefore there is no reason as to why that could not work here.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for accepting.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging from your past edits in the discussion, it is clear that the claims are based on national origin and should be reverted as it was before. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The titles were already decided to stay as the version with the names. This version is improved from the past claims section.--70.253.243.80 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read all of the posts in the discussion and you will clearly see that the invention of the move is attributed to national origin. Especially when considering that in Chile the kick was shortly known as the chorera, and came to be known internationally as chilena when the press of Argentina labeled it that way. Each section explains a history of how the move was invented with a focus on Peru where the kick takes into account cities such as Callao, Lima and the advancement of their sport across other South American countries. Content deals with the invention of the kick and how it has spread to other parts of the world from that country of origin. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Tennis in Peru
The small wordings in the Chalaca section that mention tennis should not be erased from the article. When Selecciones de la Vida made the original deletion, the mention of tennis was in a complete sentence. The sentence was in complete context out of the article and Selecciones was correct in editing that out. Nonetheless, the small mention of tennis is highly important in the first sentence of the second paragraph because it helps the reader understand that sport in Peru evolved in other ares besides football. Yet again, it's not my fault the other sections don't have as much detail. I've tried to improve the Italian and Brazilian sections, but I have limitations in such areas. My Italian is really basic, just like my French, and therefore I can only read and understand (and in that context speak) very few of those languages. In the matter of Portuguese, which is where most of the information about Leonidas can truly be found, I know nothing of it and barely understand it thanks to my knowledge of Spanish. Once again, do not delete the small tennis section as it does not constitute a whole sentence and is important to broaden the minds of the readers.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of tennis would be fine in an article regarding the history of sport in Peru, but is rather irrelevant when the article deals with the bicycle kick and the sport of football. Seriously is the chalaca, chilena, bicycle kick performed in the sport of tennis? You say that it's important to broaden the minds of readers when in reality is a far stretch and a tangent.


 * On another note the mention of club games between Chilean and Peruvian clubs doesn't have a general puropose unless the bicycle kick was made in those games and as a result Chileans learned about the move. What's the point of making that argument unless someone is trying to imply through circumstantial reasoning that because of these games one country copied the move from another? For example you mention that Alianza Lima made a tour across Chile and played against Colo-Colo. What's the point when the games were played way after David Arellano had exhibited the bicycle kick in the fields of Spain, especially when regarding the fact that he died from an injury that was inflicted during a match in 1927.

Also, all of these Chilean and Peruvian club matches happened after 1920 when the move was already exhibited by Unzaga in an international Copa America game against Argentina. Anything else would just be an historic foundation of the development of Peruvian football which has no reason even being in this article becauase none of it directly involves the invention of the bicycle kick. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is such a thing irrelevant if it is just a small wording that says "such as in tennis"? The link that says Peru has the second oldest Tennis foundation in the Americas is supposed to help demonstrate that Peru has a very old sports foundation, therefore I have to include the small "such as tennis" thing. You tell me these things almost as if you've never written a paper in English in your life.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Next, on the mention of games, for your information (seeing as you seemingly haven't read the complete section) that section is supposed to help the readers understand how the spread of the word Chalaca took place, the early importance of Peruvian clubs in the world of football (Therefore another explanation to help the reader see why the claim of Callao has any foundation), and it brings forth Alejandro Villanueva into the story (Further explaining why he gained recognition in Peru). If you haven't noticed, the section does not simply refer to Chile, it also mentions Colombia and Venezuela. Yet again, it's not my fault that the Peruvian clubs made more tours in Chile than any other country. All I'm doing is recording the facts. I see you put the dates that the football tours took place, therefore there is no more problem with this part. Obviously, a person who is reading this can go to the Chilena section and see the date of Unzaga's alleged move.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)




 * Writing an English paper about the history of sport development in Peru is different than when you're writing a Wikipedia article about the invention of the bicycle kick. So keep your sly comments to yourself because they are in no way helping your case. Tennis in Peru is needless information with no overall purpose, nor is it notable when discussing the subject matter which is the bicycle kick, yet you insist on including something which is very irrelevant.


 * Adding club games between Chile and Peru team that happened years after the first bicycle kick was performed during an international match has no direct correlation with the invention of the bicycle kick. The section is general can best be categorized as "filler" with no real purpose.


 * You say that you record facts and input them onto the article yet, certain facts are unnecesary when discussing a particular subject matter which is the bicycle kick. If we're discussing the color of the sky and why it's blue, you'd include 2+2=4. Sure it's a mathematical fact but where do you see the relation between the two?


 * Anyone that views this article will realize that the section on chilena is directly linked to the claim or the term, while the section on chalaca is a drawn out Straw man theory. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sly comments? Hahaha. I don't see a sly comment on my earlier response. I stated what I saw and believed. Sly would have been me making a sarcastic comment or something of that ilk. The link, which directly helps relate the ancient status of sport in Peru, mentions tennis, therefore there exists every right to include a small excerpt about the link. Writing an English paper and writing in Wikipedia has its differences (especially in the English Wikipedia), but the concept is the same.
 * In both you need to have explanations supported by reliable sources.
 * In both you need to mention a certain something of the source for it to be validly use. Per se, I can't write something such as: "According to a recent study, people are fat in the United Sates for a series of reasons,[1] but one of the major reasons comes due to Mexican cuisine.[2]" If source 1 just mentions hamburgers, then to further help elaborate the source, it needs to mention hamburgers; therefore the correct way to include it would be: "According to a recent study, people are fat in the United states due to a series of reasons, such as hamburgers, but one of the major reasons comes due to Mexican cuisine.[2]"--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...that happened years after the first bicycle kick was performed during an international match has no direct correlation with the invention of the bicycle kick." According to this statement by you, the Italian and the Brazilian sections should not be in there because they were also performed years after the "first bicycle kick." Lol. How is that? According to the Chalaca sectoin, the first bicycle kick was performed also several years before Ramon Unzaga; does that mean that section should also go away? The games are there to help explain a series of things to the readers. 1.It helps explain why Alejandro Villanueva was a figure in Peruvian sports. 2.It helps explain the early international development of Peruvian sports (helping develop the modern reasoning of the claim of the chalaca). 3.It also helps explain why sports in Peru took a momentary stop in the late 1800s. All of these things are valuable to the reader.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "You say that you record facts and input them onto the article yet, certain facts are unnecesary when discussing a particular subject matter which is the bicycle kick." Let's go step by step again: The chalaca, or bicycle kick, is a football move. All the facts in there speak about football (The only non-football mention is that of tennis, but I already explained its inclusion for the sport in Peru). If all the facts speak about football, is it still related? Yes, because the facts do not deal about modern football, it specifically stays in the early 20th century (even prior to the 1940s), and at this point Peruvian sports once again began to re-expand. If the facts dealt with years such as the 1950s or 60s (or ahead), then it would not make any sense, but this is not the problem. The last paragraph simply mentions all the modern support for the football move. Yet again, the two paragraphs dealing with sports development in Peru helps link the first and the last paragraphs.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "If we're discussing the color of the sky and why it's blue, you'd include 2+2=4." Lol. Okay, so you state I'm writing sly comments and then you include this? You're quick to get angry about something but just as quick to aim it at someone else.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw man theory? The first thing to state is, seeing as though you apparently firmly believe the chilena is the 100% true way, all of the 4 proposals at the Attributions of invention are considered theories. Therefore there is no set official way to claim something at this point. Let's take some time to analyze what you claim to be a straw man theory...

Tennis has no reason being in this article. 68.192.50.193 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia writes this on the mater: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position...it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." 1.This is not about trying to refute the other sections, it's about explaining to the reader the history of the Chalaca. 2.All the information in there has several and much evidential weight; I took the time to count the sources, it has about 28, and that out of 65 is nearly half of the article's sources. That breaks up the first 2 points on the straw man theory.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Informal fallacy? Let's read what Wikipedia calls that: "An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion." Let's see here, as previously stated, the paragraphs are in there to help explain the history of the chalaca. Does it support the original paragraph? It certainly does: It further helps explain the history of the chalaca and its basis on football in Peru. The proposed conclusion? Simple, the bicycle kick was invented in Callao. Yet again, your claim at the straw man theory makes no sense. All I see you doing is seeking eristic arguments for little to no reason. If you want to improve the article, do not destroy the section of the chalaca, improve the other sections.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your reasoning? Just stating a comment does not give a justified reason.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source Lying: Not Encyclopedic
I made a thorough investigation and found out that these sources:


 * http://www.azcentral.com/lavoz/spanish/sports/articles/sports_204036.html
 * http://www.laprensagrafica.com/accion/1121429.asp
 * http://www.laaficion.com/olimpico_internacional/nota/35180
 * http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1202735907109/noticia/Noticia/1986_87.htm
 * http://www.laprensa.com.ni/cgi-bin/print.pl?id=deportes-20020605-01
 * http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/05-03-07/
 * http://www.listindiario.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=19195
 * http://www.radiocaravana.com/index.php?page=masinformacion&nid=12142&tp=1
 * http://www.colombia.com/futbol/autonoticias/Noticias/2008/08/17/DetalleNoticia43172.asp
 * http://www.venezuelaesfutbol.com/imprimir.php?id_noticia=1664
 * http://www.elpais.com.co/historico/abr022008/OPN/opi05.html
 * http://www.elpais.com.co/historico/abr022008/OPN/opi05.html

These sources are sport articles that happen to mention the chilena once in their publication. Yet, this does not constitute for a whole nation. In order to prove yourself correct in the naming of the moves for different countries and languages, you must provide something such as in the chalaca where it provides a source that clearly states that the name is done in Ecuador and Colombia. The specific articles above clearly already show that the move is called a certain name by the nation that allegedly invented the move, therefore you do not need to prove such a thing that in Italian the move is called so and so, or that in Chile the move is called so and so, etc. You need to prove that other nations call it in such a way, but referencing a sports article that just happens to mention the move once does not constitute for a whole nation. You may use these things in the topics specific for each name if and only if you give specific notification of the newspaper stating such a thing. This rule applies to Wikipedia, so don't break it; and don't try to fool others with sources, it's cute, it's funny (one source talked about Playboy), but it's not good for the encyclopedia.--MarshalN20 (talk)
 * On another note, remember Wikipedia's policy of: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources If you're going to claim that all of Latin America or the Spanish speaking world calls the move something, you must either have a very good source or a series of good sources. Note that sticking a bunch of sources does not constitute for providing the correct sources. As you can see above, the person who added these sources apparently did not know that these sources did not specifically prove such a thing as a nation calling the move a certain something. I know it's tough to look for such things, but Wikipedia needs for you to find them otherwise the tab of "" will need to be placed.--MarshalN20 (talk)
 * What amazes me, after watching you steadily destroy this article over the last week or so is that you believe you're doing the right thing... Nanonic (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're refering to me, which I hope you're not, I've been working on this article just on this week.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Logic dictates that if a country features a sports article by an outlet of the media which uses the term chilena it is fairly understood that the term is known, used, and accepted. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm a reasonable person, I'll accept your standards if that's the logic you're using.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Defending Interests
As written in Wikipedia's page:

"In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

The intermediate territory will naturally contain some grey areas. In many articles, criticism tends to collect in a separate section. There you may find properly referenced reports of well-publicised debates next to vague assertions that "Some people say X, while others think Y." Treat everything on its merits. Ask for reliable sources. Before removing a whole criticism section or article and distributing its parts over other sections of the article, which may be the best way ahead, consult other editors on the Talk page. Use crisp, informative edit summaries to detail what you have done, an excellent way to establish your reputation as a diligent editor. Raise any less obvious reasoning as a note on the talk page, with any additional links that support your edits."

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. The material in the Chalaca section of the article is reliably sourced material that has information that is critical for readers to see in order to better understand the claim of Callao. By removing such a thing, an important part of the section would be taken away and the section would make little sense. By engaging in an edit war because a certain side wants to erase such an information, it is completely disrupting the stability of the article. When improving Wikipedia articles, the editors should be constructive and not destructive. Therefore, the best way to improve the article would be to expand and improve the other sections that are not the Chalaca section. An Edit War should be avoided, especially if you're going to start one because you want to obtain a version of your particular liking.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)